the 1000 yeares and those many Christians that are of pure and pious opinion or judgement And that you may be beholding to me I shall also professe that I am not of the opinion of those learned men that have conceived that period false written and that either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would be a strange and bold Criticisme of very ill example if it were admitted against the consent of copies and then Secondly it would leave a very perplexed period of it or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be left out For first this would be as dangerous a Criticisme and of as ill example which would make Authors opinions mutable into the quite contradictory and yet such as is not without example among you witnesse the disputation between the Regulars and Seculars in the controversy about the necessity of having an Ordinary here in England upon occasion as I remember of a Canon of a Councell concerning Confirmation one side contending that non should be in the other that it should be left out a controversy about a word nay a syllable but yet that of some concernment Secondly if either of these emendations should be admitted the antecedents and consequents would not naturally and in good stile connect but the sense of this period would be just all one with that that went before immediately Section 8 A Second proofe of what I said I shall fetch from this that Trypho in that place though Justin had told him that he denied not the Millennium yet suspected that Justin had equivocated with him on this ground because other Christians were not of this opinion and therefore begins with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell me whether you confesse it sincerely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and Justin answers that sure he would not say it if he had not thought it and thereupon repeats that he had confest to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and promises he would set out a Booke of this disputation and professe it openly to others as well as him and adds that he means not to follow men and their doctrines but God all which argues his acknowledgment that the opinion was not uncontradicted by men nor generally consented to by Christians Section 9 A last proofe shall be that those words which seeme most to the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not come home to the proofe of it nor indeed of any more then this that he was of that opinion and some others in all things consenting with him for it being supposed that he was of that opinion it cannot be expected of him that he should affirme any that hold it not though never so orthodox in other things to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of right opinion all things because every honest man supposing his owne opinions to be right for else he will change them must also suppose that they that differ from him in one of those are not in that and so not in all things of right opinions Section 10 For the truth is he speaks of three sorts of men wherein I shall not differ much from you the first that denyed the resurrection and the 1000 yeares and those he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nominall Christians Atheists impious haereticall leaders the second those that acknowledged the resurrection and denyed the Millennium and those are contained under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christians of pure and pious opinions the third sort those that held both as him selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many others and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if there were any that were orthodox in all things Section 11 This being thus set downe if you please by way of compliance with you in the first place I shall make no scruple to adde in the second that by Justin it cannot be concluded that the 1000 yeares was a matter of Catholicke beliefe in his time but only favour'd by him and many others and consequently though that were after condemned in the Church would it not be from this testimony inferr'd that a Catholick doctrine much lesse a tradition were condemned Section 12 And therefore which was the third thing I promised you you may observe that his Lordship spake very cautiously and as any man will now conceive very critically according to the importance of Justins words that Justin held it and said that all that were in all parts that is in all particular points Orthodox Christians did so too but no more which is much lesse then what you lay to his Lordships charge in the first place that he fathers on Justin that all Orthodoxall believers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliasts And infinitely lesse then that which you lay to him in the second part of the charge that he fathers againe on Justin that such as did not receive that doctrine were held as Sadduces or Haereticks To which I answer in a word that sure your memory of things is confused and so apt to betray you to write things which are apparently false for so this particular is his Lordship not saying one word to this purpose in this paragraph Section 13 Which three things being thus cleared I shall now proceed to view your dealing in that which his Lordship mentions from Irenaeus in this matter Section 14 Of him indeed it is true his Lordship saith that he sets downe the doctrine of the Chiliasts directly for a tradition and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this And to those words of his Lordship's I shall make bold to adde the words of Irenaeus on which they seeme to be grounded Presbyteri qui Johannem viderunt meminerunt audisse se ab eo haec Papias Johannis auditor Polycarpi contubernalis vetus homo testata reliquit The Presbyters that saw John remember that they heard this of him and Papias Saint Johns Auditor that dwelt with Polycarpus an ancient man left these things testified This surely sounds somewhat towards a testimony of Apostolick Tradition and if it be capable of an answer reconcileable with your doctrine of Tradition may yet certainly be acknowledged a difficulty worth your taking notice of And yet you that were so large on that of Justin to little purpose have not vouchsafed to take notice of this of Irenaeus but on the other side affirme that Irenaeus laboured very much and spent many Chapters in proving of it From whence I confesse you are willing to assume that all at that time were not perswaded of the truth of the Millenaries fancies but as that is a strange way of concluding from his spending pains and Chapters to prove it to inferre that it was not generally believed in his age when 't is possible his so large a proving did make all men then of that opinion and his proving it positively and not against any adversary though it doth not prove he had then no adversary doth much
by some collateral consideration Section 26 Next to this certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome which averseth me from it comes their putting all to death or at least paines that are so where they have power which is an effect though not a necessary one of the first opinion and that averseth me yet more for I doe not believe all to be damned whom they damne but I conceive all to be killed whom they kill I am sure if you look upon Constantine's Epistle written to perswade concord upon the first disagreement between Alexander Arrius you will find that he thought and if the Bishops of his time had at first thought otherwise he would have been sure better informed that neither side deserved either death or damnation and yet sure this question was as great as ever rose since For having spoken of the opinions as things so indifferent that the Reader might almost think they had been fallen out at Spurn-point or Ketle-pins he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that which is necessary is one thing that all agree and keep the same faith about divine providence I am sure in the same Author Moses a man praised by him refusing to be made Bishop by Lucius because he was an Arrian and he answering That he did ill to refuse it before he knew what his faith was Answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The banishing of Bishops shews ENOUGH your faith So that it is plaine he thought punishing for opinions to be a marke which might serve him to know false opinions by Section 27 I believe throughout Antiquity you will find no putting any to death unlesse it be such as begin to kill first as the Circumcollians or such like I am sure Christian Religions chief glory being that it increased by being persecuted and having that advantage of the Mahumetan which came in by force me thinks especially since Synesius hath told us and reason told men so before Synesius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every thing is destroyed by the contrary to what setled and composed it It should be to take ill care of Christianity to seek to hold it up by Turkish meanes at least it must breed doubts that if the Religion had alwaies remained the same it would not be defended by waies so contrary to those by which it was propagated Section 28 I desire recrimination may not be used for though it be true that Calvin hath done it and the Church of England a little which is a little too much for Negare manifesta non audeo excusare immodica non possum yet She confessing She may erre is not so chargeable with any fault as those which pretend they cannot and so will be sure never to mend it and besides I will be bound to defend no more than I have undertaken which is to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible Section 29 I confesse this opinion of damning so many and this custome of burning so many this breeding up those who know nothing else in any point of Religion yet to be in readiness to crie To the fire with him and To Hell with him as Polybius saith in a certaine furious Faction of an Army of severall Nations and consequently languages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of them understood onely this word Throw at him this I say in my opinion was it chiefly which made so many so suddenly leave the Church of Rome that indeed to borrow the Authours phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They needed not perswasion to doe it but onely newes that others had begun For as this alone if believed makes all the rest be so too so one thing alone mis-liked overthrowes also all the rest Section 30 If it were granted that because it agrees not with the Goodnesse of God to let men want an infallible Guide therefore there must be one and that the Church of Rome were that one yet if that teach any thing to my understanding contrary to Gods Goodnesse I am not to receive her doctrine for the same cause for which they would have me receive it it being as good an argument This Guide teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse therefore is not appointed by God as to say It is agreeable to his goodnesse there should be a Guide therefore there is one And sure it is lawfull to examine particular doctrines whether they agree with that principle which is their foundation and to that me thinks to damne him that neither with negligence nor prejudication searcheth what is Gods will though he misse of it is as contrary as the first can be supposed Section 31 I would know whether he that never heard of the Church of Rome shall yet be damned for not believing her infallible I have so good an opinion of them as to assure my self they will answer he shall not I will then aske whether he that hath searched what Religions they are and finds hers to be one and her infallibility to be part of it if his reason will not assent to that shall he be damned for being inquisitive after truth for he hath committed no other fault greater then the other and Whether such an ignorance I mean after impartiall search be not of all other the most invincible Section 32 Nay grant the Church to be infallible yet me thinks he that denies it and imployes his reason to seeke if it be true should be in as good case as he that believes it and searcheth not at all the truth of the proposition he receives for I cannot see why he should be saved because by reason of his parents beliefe or the Religion of the Country or some such accident the truth was offered to his understanding when had the contrary been offered he would have received that and the other damned that beleeves falshood upon as good ground as the other doth truth unlesse the Church be like a Conjurers circle that will keep a man from the Devill though he came into it by chance Section 33 They grant that no man is an Heretique that believes not his Heresie obstinately and if he be no Heretique he may sure be saved It is not then certain damnation for any man to deny the infallibility of the Roman Church but for him onely that denies it obstinately and then I am safe for I am sure I doe not Section 34 Neither can they say I shall be damned for Schisme though not for Heresie for he is as well no Schismatique though in Schisme that is willing to joyne in communion with the true Church when it appeares to be so to him as he is no Heretique though he hold Hereticall opinions that holds them not obstinately that is as I suppose with a desire to be informed if he be in the wrong Section 35 Why if it be not necessary alwayes to believe the truth so one believe in generall what the Church would have believed for so they excuse great men
that have held contrary opinions to theirs now before they were defined or they knew them to be so why I say shall not the same implicit assent to whatsoever God would have assented to though I mistake what it is be sufficient When indeed to beleeve implicitly what God would have believed is to believe implicitly likewise what the Church teacheth if this doctrine be within the number of those which God commands to be believed Section 36 I have therefore the lesse doubt of this opinion that I shall have no harme for not beleeving the infallibilitie of the Church of Rome because of my being so farre from leaning to the contrary and so suffering my will to have power over my understanding that if God would leave it to me which Tenet should be true I would rather choose that that should then the contrary For they may well beleeve me that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant bookes and making my selfe giddy with disputing of obscure questions dazled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section 37 If I could believe there should alwayes be whom I might alwaies know a society of men whose opinions must be certainly true and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labour to discusse define all arising doubts so as I might be excusably at ease and have no part left for me but that of obedience which must needs be a less difficult and so a more agreeable way then to endure endlesse volumes of commentaries the harsh Greeke of Evagrius and the as hard Latine of Ireneus and be pained by distinguishing betweene different senses and various lections and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlam that would preferre these studies before so many so much more pleasant that would rather imploy his understanding then submit it and if he could thinke God imposed upon him only the resisting temptations would by way of addition require from himselfe the resolving of doubts I say not that all these bookes are to be read by those who understand not the languages for them I conceive their seeking into Scripture may suffice But if I have by Gods grace skill to look into them I cannot better use it then in the search of his will where they say it is to be found that I might assent to them if there I finde reason for it or if I doe not they may have no excuse for not excusing me Section 38 For whereas they say it is pride makes us doubt of their infallibility I answer that their too much lazinesse and impatience of examining is the cause many of them doe not doubt Section 39 Next what pride is it never to assent before I find reason for it since they when they follow that Church as infallible pretend reason for it and will not say they would if they thought they found none and if they say we doe find reason but will not confesse it then pride hinders not our assent but our declaration of it which if it do in any one he is without question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himselfe and it must be a very partiall advocate that would strive to acquit him Section 40 One much prevailing argument which they make is this that whosoever leave them fall into dissention betweene themselves whereas they in the meane while are alwayes at unity I answer first in this whereof the question is now they all consent Secondly when there is fire for them that disagree they need not bragge of their uniformity who consent Thirdly they have many differences among them as whether the Pope be infallible Whether God predeterminate every action Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight Which seeme to me as great as any betweene their adversaries and in the latter the Jesuits have Ancienter and more generall Traditions on their side then the Church of Rome hath in any other question and as much ground from reason for the defence of Gods goodnesse as they can thinke they have for the necessity of an infallible guide yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Heretiques and must us Section 41 If they say The Church hath not resolved it which signifies only that they are not agreed about it which is that we object I answer It ought to have done if conformity to the ancient Church be required in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austin who is very various I confesse in it delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtfull and to say it is lawfull for them to disagree whensoever they doe not agree is ridiculous for they cannot doe both at once about the same point Section 42 And if they say they meane by the Churches not having concluded it that a Councell hath not I answer that they condemne some without any and why not these Next I say that the opinion of the Diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of a Representative which hath its authority from the other and therefore if all extant for foure hundred years teach any thing it is more Heresie to deny that then any Canon of a Councell Section 43 But may not howsoever any other company of People that would maintain themselves to be infallible say as much that all other Sects differ from one another and therefore should all agree with them Would those not think they ascribe all other mens dissentions and learned mens falling into divers Heresies to their not allowing their infalibility to their not assenting to their Decrees and not suffering them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit as teachers of those things that come in question and to have all others in that place of Disciples obedient to them which is that which Nilus a Greek Bishop professeth that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans was the only cause of seperation between them Section 44 They use much to object How could errours come into the Church without Opposition and mention both of that opposition in History I answer they might come in not at once but by degrees as in the growth of a child and the motion of a clock we see neither in the present but know there was a present when we find it past Next so many Authors being lost who can make it certaine to me that from none of those we should have had notice of this opposition if they had come to us Next I say there are two sorts of errours to hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false or that is but profitable and probable Of the second sort that errours should come in it appears not hard to me and especially in those ages where want of Printing made books and consequently learning not so common as now it is where the few that did study busied themselves in School-speculations only when the Authority of a man of chief note had a more generall influence then now it hath and so as Thucydodes saith the Plague did in his
hath influence on mens opinions but then still what ever their case be for believing the verity of your Church they can no way from thence be obliged to believe your infallibility Section 8 You confesse there may farther reply be made to you that these principles of yours are also question'd but take no notice upon what grounds of reason or Scripture they are question'd and so thinke you can deale with so unarm'd an adversary as you please by telling him they may be certaine and evident though they be question'd and perhaps I shall confesse to you that if they were onely question'd and no reason that were not by you easily answered brought to justifie such questioning it were sufficient which you say that questioning doth not disprove certainty and yet if every man's conscience be the Judge as you acknowledge then unlesse you can make it evident that that man's questioning is against conscience you will have no way to keepe it from being certaine and evident to him but when there be arguments produc'd to backe that questioning which you have no way to answer but by saying they may be certaine and evident for all that he that disputes with you will be excus'd to thinke he hath more reason to say and that you say must be judge that it may be otherwise To the 6. 7. Sections Chap. 7. No doubt there can be but God will reveale his truth to all such as seeke it with sincerity of heart and though both sides as the Enquirer objecteth may make use of this for an exterior allegation yet not as of interior helpe and preparation and therefore this sincerity is not a disposition unprofitable though it be a proofe inefficacious and thus much we grant willingly neither doe we challenge it as an argument of truth We grant him also that before such time as we can believe the Church we are to acquire sufficient principles for informing us which is she and also before we can believe upon her determinations we must have principles of knowing she is infallible and all this we make profession we doe de facto know Neither doe we take this Church to be a Proteus that is to say sometimes of one shape sometimes of another but a conspicuous body constantly adorned with the robes of truth and annexed to a Succession of Pastours legitimate from one age to another C. 7. Ans to Chap. 7. Section 1 Your answer to the sixth Section is by giving a distinction to tell us now both sides make use of the pretence of seeking truth sincerely and concludes that sincerity is not a disposition unprofitable though it be a proofe inefficacious which because you are willing to grant I will containe my selfe from springing any game or recreation for the Reader at this time of which he that were playsomely disposed would finde aboundant matter in the review of your distinction here applied and give you present payment for your favour by acknowledging that that which you grant is all that is begg'd from you viz. that God's promise of revealing of truth to those who seeke it sincerely is not at all an argument that they that pretend to the benefit of that promise must have reall title to it or consequently that they that have no other arguments to prove their Churches Infallibility but that they seeke truth sincerely and yet after that sincere search are of that opinion are to be heeded in their pretensions This justifies his Lordships sixth paragraph as fully as if you had subscribed it without your distinction Section 2 His Lordships seventh Paragraph consists of two things First a resuming of a part of his former argument which had beene onely mentioned but not inforc'd before that supposing the Church were proved to be infallible yet were not that sufficient to give any man certaine knowledge which were it Secondly a solid proofe of this affirmation by plaine reason because the granting the Infallibility of the Church did onely conclude that God would alwaies have a Church that should not erre but not that this was appropriated to any particular Church to such a Succession to the Bishop and Clergy of such a place c. Thirdly by a lively instance of the Greeke Church which though it were now in the right might hereafter erre and so the Greeke Church be now fallible and yet at the time that that erred another Church might arise the Champion of truth and so still the Church be infallible Section 3 To these two parts of the Paragraph your dispatch is short and annext to the nothing that was replied to the former Section to the first a liberall Grant of that which no man thankes you for that it is as necessary to know which that infallible Church is as that the Church is so but then saying and professing that you doe de facto know which is the Church and that she is infallible which beside that it is your old beloved petitio principii to say you know it offer no proof for it but your profession and a Latine word when the very thing that his Lordship was just a proving was that you neither did nor could know it comes not at all home to his Lordship's matter of shewing that the acknowledgement of the Infallibility of the Church doth not evict which is she For if 't were acknowledged that you did know it yet might it be by some other meanes and not by proving or confessing the Church to be infallible Section 4 As for his Lordship's proofe and instance added to his proposition 't was so despicable a thing that 't was not worth taking notice of but instead of any such thing you give us a declaration of your owne opinion that the Infallible Church was not a Proteus but a conspicuous body constantly adorned with truth c. which is againe the meanest begging of that which was just then denied and disprov'd and must so stand till you can annex reasons to your opinion and answers to his Lordships reasons To the 8. Section Chap. 8. We never goe about to prove our Church to be the true therefore because it holdeth with the truth or teacheth true doctrine as this Enquirer seemeth to suppose we doe but rather contrariwise because it is the true Church of Christ therefore we inferre it teacheth true doctrine but that it is the true Church we prove first of all and originally by reall revelations called in the Scripture Verba Signorum that is by signes ostensions or motives of credibility which motives for a great and sufficient part of them are the same by which we prove to Infidels the truth of Christianity it selfe For these same motives though when they are considered but in generall and as it were afarre off doe perswade Christianity but in generall without designing out in particular this or that Individuall Christianity yet neverthelesse the selfe-same being understood distinctly doe designe out a distinct and individuall Christianity and are applicable
Ch. 9. Answ to Chap. 9. Section 1 Your answer to the 9. and 10. Sections signifies a great deale viz that you were so put to it by the conviction of his Lordships argument that to dis-intangle your selfe you have ventured to vent a peice of very severe divinity which my charity to you makes me hope you will not justifie and if you will yet your no argument produced gives me nothing to answer nor otherwise to reply then by denying as mercifully and obligingly to the world as you doe cruelly affirme viz that without succession sufficient from Saint Peter there is no succession sufficient to prove a Church or a succession of Pastours Ecclesiasticall and this is so strange a newes to our eares who were confident that what ever you deeme of the other two parts of three of the Christian world at this present you had allowed liberty to Apostles to ordaine Churches as well as and without succession from Saint Peter and indeed that that which in the second and eighth line of your Chapter you call the Greeke Church might have beene acknowledged to be a Church in the seventh that had you not said it in the most evident tearmes None beside Rome can pretend this and without this one none can be sufficient to prove a Church c. had there been any way imaginable but this to answer his Lordship's argument I should never have thought this had beene your meaning till I see you againe owne this severe doctrine I shall not take paines to confute it and when I see that I must say that his Lordship presumed you had not been so bloudily minded when he proposed to you the argument in those two Sections Section 2 And yet after all this I doubt not but with a little change his Lordships argument will still hold against you even after you have ventured on such strange practices to secure your self from it Thus suppose you had evinced that the succession from S. Peter were infallible and so proved the Roman Church to be so because none else pretended to succeed S. Peter yet this can be no sufficient ground of belief to the ignorant who cannot have any infallible foundation of belief that the Greek Church doth not pretend from S. Peter whether by S. Mark at Alexandria who might be ordained by S. Peter whose right hand they say he was in the penning of the Gospell or by Evodius at Antioch where S. Peter was Bishop seven yeares as your owne Baronius or by any other or to the ignorant it matters not by no other known way and even to the learned it is but an accidentall argument because if any other company had likewise claimed Succession from Saint Peter as they of Antioch do it had overthrown all that probation nay it is but an arbitrary argument which the adversary can confute by but denying for if any society of Christians so called would pretend to be from Saint Peter some other way then by succeeding him at Rome or submitting to his government your Church could make use of it no longer Section 3 As for that which you adde in a word of answer to the 10 Sect. that what ever Churches claime unto succession shall be alleadged it can no way evacuate that of Rome if it be applied to his Lordship's argument it is absolutely false for if Rome's claime to Infallibility together and to succession to Saint Peter be to be proved by this because none else pretends to it which is the argument which his Lordship here confutes then sure any other Churches claime or pretending to it will evacuate that claime or title that by that argument is pretended and contrary to this there is yet nothing shewed To the 11. Section Chap. 10. What mercy God will use in pardoning the errorurs of those men who doe seeke sincerely and yet misse makes nothing at all against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide because those misses or mistakings be cases extraordinary Besides I would know why any pardon should need for such innocent errours which be defects involuntary and so can be no crimes wherefore me thinks the discourse of our Enquirer in this Section is not coherent C. 10. Answ To the Chap. 10. Section 1 His Lordship's argument Sect. 11. is very strong against the collecting a necessity of an Infallible guide for the interpreting of Scripture from the topick of God's goodnesse by proposing another way of reconciling God's providence with his goodnesse in this matter which if it may be done concludes that other unnecessary viz. by mentioning a doctrine of more Evangelicall oeconomy in which errours may be reconcileable with mercy when God doth give grace to the diligent seeker to finde out truth or by this dilemma that without such an infallible guide upon the use of Reason in the interpretation of Scripture and search for tradition God will either give grace to finde what is so sought or pardon if he misse and so though it stand not with Gods goodnesse to damne him for every errour to whom he hath assigned no infallible way to finde out all truth yet to him that is confident that God will not damne any man upon such tearmes as the servant laid to his charge when he told him he was an austere man c. to him that teaches not such legall bloudy doctrine against God this argument of the Romanists will not be pressing at all this expedient of the Gospell-grace or Gospell-mercy being as fit for the turne of infirme soules as an infallible guide would be as indeed the state of imperfection wherein we are placed is as fit for our turnes when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Gospell is revealed and proportioned to it as Adam's Paradise of Supernaturall all-sufficient strength and innocence would be Section 2 To all which all that you returne is only this that all this is nothing against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide because those misses or mistakings are cases extraordinary To which I answer First that if it were supposed that against the ordinary provision of a guide the argument were not of force yet sure it might against the necessity of it and then that is all that is pretended to by his Lordship and that which alone is destructive to you and therefore 't is strange you should couple them together as so sociall things which are so distant and separable for sure though Evangelicall grace and mercy doe not exclude an ordinary provision of an infallible way but leave it in medio that God may if he will make that ordinary provision yet notwithstanding this it followes not that such a provision is required or nenessary There is a wide distance betwixt possible if God please and necessary to the vindicating of God's goodnesse now against the latter onely it is that his Lordship argues and is not at all concern'd in th' other and therefore I shall not need to examine whether the first be
although never so remote the cause of his death This is but to let us see your change or variety that you can use non causa pro causa and not deale onely in petitio principii thus was Tenterden Steeple the cause of Goodwin Sands and that is all I shall returne to your State-observation the cause of our present calamities I conceive came not out of the Church but when it was infamous it fled to it for a Sanctuary to give it an honest Name and a protection together and I could tell you that the League in France was once pretty parallel to ours and then 't was the observation of a knowing man that if a true story of the causes of that Warre should be written the businesse would be traced into such or such a brothell house that made as if it came out gravely from the Church a competition or animosity the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or true cause when religion was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the pretended Besides let me tell you that decisions and anathematizings have sometimes done as much hurt toward occasioning of breaches as licence and acknowledgement of fallibility hath done and if you marke the onely colour of charge at this time against our Church hath beene the imposing too much and truly whatever your opinion is I conceive meeknesse hath the promise of this life and I never knew that pretending to Infallibility is the onely Symptome of that To the 23 24 25 Sections Chap. 15. The argument of these three Sections is how an ignorant illiterate man cannot be able to trace out all traditions which be truly Apostolicall and this is sought to be perswaded and made good by sundry intricate discourses all which I willingly doe pretermit and onely signifie that they all fall wide of the marke for in a word our answer to them is that private men stand in no need at all of having any particular information of them but that it is sufficient for them if they doe learne what is the common doctrine of the present Church without looking any higher to the Primitive and elder times because this doctrine now taught is credible and perswasive enough for satisfying of any wise mans understanding and the setling of his judgement upon it as for example it is sufficient for any man desirous of knowing which is the River Thames to see it at Gravesend or London without any laborious ascending by it higher and higher and tracing the shoares thereof till he come unto the springs and more then this would not be needfull for the distinguishing of it from Severne or Trent or any other River For if this kinde of assurance might not be sufficient then certainly few or none could ever have come to know which water was the famous River Nilus of which few have ever seene the springs and which as it is very likely doe lye conceal'd in Aethiopia and wholly undiscovered even to this day Against the possibility of searching out traditions Apostolicall and discerning them from others that be spurious and false his principall instance and that in which he most confides is the doctrine of the Chiliasts or Millenaries and the same example is vehemently pressed and repeated often by his Friend Chillingworth The substance of all they say consists in this namely that their doctrine although now generally received to be erroneous was received in the first 200. yeares with one consent as a tradition Apostolicall For making of this charge good they both of them doe jointly alleadge Saint Justin as their witnesse But that we may judge most favourably of this their allegation we needs must tell them they are mistaken grossely for Saint Justin speaking there of three severall sorts of Christians which were in his time affirmes that of those three but one of them held the doctrine of the Chiliasts The first of these three sorts was as he describeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those who as he conceived did in all points hold aright The second classe consisted of such other who although they did not like the former in all things hold aright yet neverthelesse were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of pure and pious judgement or beliefe for so he expressely stileth them the third and last sort were such as denied the resurrection and were therefore censured by him to be Christians rather in name then in reality and justly to be compared with the Sadduces amongst the Jewes Those of the first sort he telleth did hold the doctrine of the thousand yeares The second sort as he expressely witnesseth although they were orthodox and good yet did not hold that doctrine Those of the third sort as he saith were Christians but feignedly and in name alone and resembling the Sadduces yet not for their denying the errour of the thousand yeares for what relation could that have unto the Sadduces But contrariwise for their denying the resurrection as the Sadduces did and all this appeares clearly within the compasse of a few lines in the Greeke text of Saint Justine Besides if all at that time had beene perswaded of the truth of the Millenaries fancy what needed Saint Ireneus have laboured so much as he did and spent so many Chapters in the proving of it This being so it appeares as plainly that the Enquirer and also his Partner Master Chillingworth were both of them deceived in seeking to father upon Saint Justin that all Orthodoxall Believers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliasts and that such as did not were held as Sadduces or Heretiques for in the Text of Justin there is no such matter but rather the quite contrary to it as may appeare fully by the Text it selfe and partly by the words before recited out of him for without all doubt Saint Justines many of pious and pure judgement or beliefe and were no Chiliasts must needs be Orthodox and could not be Heretiques nor as the Sadduces amongst the Jewes unlesse we will say that with one breath he called them by both contrary names Againe if as these men say all the whole Church were Chiliasts during the first second or third hundred yeares how could or durst Dionysius of Alexandria have opposed them either without forcing his owne Conscience or incurring the blame of Heresy Now it is certaine he was not counted an Heretique and againe very unlikely he would straine his Conscience by opposing any doctrine received as orthodoxall by the whole Church Againe it is probable Saint Dionyse the Areopagite opposed that doctrine therefore it cannot be certaine that during the first 200. yeares it was not opposed that Saint Dionyse did it appears by the workes now extant bearing his name and that these works be his is very probable first because they are received for such by the major part both of the Westerne and the Easterne Church secondly because they were cited for his a thousand yeares agoe and numbred amongst the rest of the Fathers antient
and undoubted Monuments by an intelligent Author Philoponus l. 2. de Operib Creat c. 21. l. 3. c. 9. 13. The like may be said of the pretended tradition of the Quartodecimanes touching the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Jewes which was wholly rejected and forbidden in the first Nicene Councell and before that time opposed by many and principally by Pope Victor who as Ciacconius conceives did not cut Polycrates and his Associates from the body of the whole Church but only threatned it or as Eusebius seemes to say did doe it but yet at the instance of Saint Ireneus and some others if he had once past it did not prosecute the censure against them but let it fall and that it was so is very probable because there is no memory made how the sentence was received whether with obedience or otherwise which particular doubtlesse would never have beene omitted by Historians no more then the sentence it selfe or the intention of it was if there had beene any thing to register and besides because we finde not by any record but that all proceeded with those Asian Churches as formerly it had done without any note or alteration And by this is solved all that Chillingworth with so much animosity objecteth against the learned Cardinall Perone Salvian lib. 5. de Gubern Dei where he speakes in excuse of some Arian Gothes speakes not at all in excuse of their Heresy but supposing that sundry of them might have beene innocently mis led conceiveth more hope of such mens salvation then of such Catholiques who lived carelesly and lewdly Now what can this make against the tradition or definition of the Church Onely this Inquirer must say something to his Mother and be making difficulties where none is Ch. 15. Answ to the Chap. 15. Section 1 To the three next Paragraphs 23 24 25. you professe it needlesse for you to give any answer and doe it so willingly because as you say the discourses are intricate i. e. such as you cannot easily accommodate answer to but especially because it is sufficient for private men to learne the common doctrine of the present Church and therefore there will lye no obligation on me to reply any thing save onely this that his Lordships arguments doe still prove sufficient to the end to which he designed them to shew that Tradition is no infallible guide which that you acknowledge your diversion seemes to intimate and your many proofes that 't is not needfull it should be Section 2 But then it is in you a great injustice not to take notice of his Lordships designe to which his arguments are concluding but to impose another on him to which he never thought himselfe engaged nor could have foreseene your pleasure without the spirit of divination and yet to chide him for impertinence and pretermit and despise all that he hath said upon this onely ground of displeasure because he hath not proved what you now thinke fit to set him for his taske Section 3 This onely you must please to note that the appointing the ignorant to learne their beliefe from the common doctrine of the Church as before you did from the Catechismes doth intimate your opinion that your present Church is infallible but is no shew of proofe that it is so and so Petitio principii nay if your words signifie as they sound that your doctrine thus taught is credible and perswasive enough I may conclude that your Church is not infallible for whatever is taught by such an one is more then credible and perswasible Section 4 Your subtilty about the way of knowing the River Thames will as little come home to the businesse of Infallibility though to Credibility it may unlesse every Water-man on the River be as infallible as your Church for of him it is that I learne it and though his credit be great enough for a matter of this moment and in it I would as willingly be ignorant or uncertaine as be at the trouble to seeke out a better security In matters of greater moment I may be excused if I am not so credulous if I choose not to believe them whose interests are concerned at least if I thinke every Catechisme on the stall to be somewhat lesse then infallible Section 5 Having now sufficiently disclaimed Tradition at least shewne your opinion of it that you have little need of it to sustaine your Churches infallibility and so granted as much as his Lordship attempts to prove yet for some former profession of kindnesse to it you will now take its part a little rather then his Lordship shall be permitted to say any thing true and vindicate it from the argument about the Chiliasts In which I must tell you that what you here affirme of his Lordship and M. Chillingworth is not true of his Lordship whether it be of M. Chillingworth is not tanti as that not having the booke by me I should take the pains to examine it Section 6 As First this that he seekes to father on Saint Justin that all orthodoxall beleivers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliasts whereas all that his Lordship saith is but the repeating of Justin's owne words wherein he cannot be deceived in your opinion for you before recite the same and translating them wherein he is not deceived for he doth it ad literam and in a word affirming that Justin saith he holds it and so doe all that are in all parts orthodoxe Christians which phrase all that are i. e. which he saith are in all parts orthodox that it differs from this other of yours all orthodoxall beleivers I shall appeale to no other judgement then that of your owne conscience who in the former page affirme that Justin spake of three sorts of men First Those that did as he conceived in all points hold aright the second which though they did not so in all things yet were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a pure and pious judgement and those which are such I shall suppose to be orthodoxall beleivers though as it appears by your acknowledgment they did not hold right in all things Or if your analysing of the place doe not sufficiently convince you of this difference and the injury that consequently you have done his Lordship I shall then having long agoe seriously weighed that place First give you an account of it such as I doubt not will satisfie you and when I have done so Secondly confesse the weakenesse of that place to conclude any thing against Catholique tradition and yet Thirdly make it cleare that you have wronged his Lordship in your report of his citation Section 7 First For the doctrine of the millennium I professe to beleive that it appears not to be Justin's affirmation that it was not opposed by his contemporaries but rather the contrary which I conclude from these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have signified to you that many doe not acknowledge this doctrine of
and both of us have charity enough to cover in each other a multitude of errours Section 31 Your catalogue of Sects in this Kingdome I shall not goe about to examine but onely tell you that your infallibility hath beene lyable to such misadventures also and had not the charme or skill of keeping all within its circle if it had there would then at this time have beene no body to dispute against you Section 32 In the close of your long Chapter I wonder you should be so covetous or ambitious of lengthning it one page farther by charging on his Lordship that he charges you that because you pretend to be infallible you have lesse reason to prescribe to others whereas his Lordship charges no such thing upon you but onely saith that she that confesses she may erre is not so chargeable with any fault as they that pretend they cannot which is quite another matter Section 33 To conclude when the businesse is thus laid by you that your infallibility is not yet proved to be onely pretended and yet you have no other ground of saying so but because you say 't is not though all his Lordship's arguments for so may Sections have driven all to that conclusion and never an one of them is yet answered by you it will be a most unreasonable thing and a sound petitio principii againe to affirme without any one word of proofe that that infallibility is a reality and so will not keepe you from mending whereas nothing can keepe you from mending if this doe not this contemning of arguments against you and affirming magisterially without any To the 29 Section Chap. 17. This opinion saith he of damning so many and this custome of burning so many this breeding up of those who know nothing else in any point of religion yet to be in readinesse to cry To the fire with him To hell with him All these be empty words as we have shewed before As for our breeding up of men I thinke we doe it as well as any of our neighbours doe and by the way must tell you that we doe not take children from their parents onely to breed them up in our religion we doe not offer that hard measure either to Turkes or Jewes but hold it an act flatly against the law of nature an impious violation of Parents right which ought to be held sacred and lastly away of propagation of religions wholy violent and Vn-Christian so farre are we from propagating our religion by force and if all others with whom we have to doe had beene of that mind it had beene better with them for God hath not blessed that way forasmuch as by sad experience we have found that none have proved greater scourges to their King and Country then such as have had that sort of breeding given them and contrary to their parents will beene violently seduced in their youth and this is no secret but knowne to all the three Kingdomes to their cost But enough of this for it is a distastfull businesse C. 17. Answ to C. 17. Section 1 To his Lordship's 29 paragraph you have no returne but that these are empty words as you have formerly shewed and I feare we have shewed they are not but should be very glad to be mistaken and can truly say that I wish vehemently that your judgment were right in this matter But upon occasion of his Lordship's mention of your breeding up those that know nothing else in religion To cry to the fire to hell with him you are pleased to take occasion of some liberty in shewing what good breeding you bestow upon men in your Church and so divert to a complaint against those that take children from their parents c. and are somewhat passionate and tragicall on that subject but this being nothing to his Lordship's words or argument I desire to see that better answered by you before I will enter any new combat about so extrinsecall an impertinency And so enough of this also for what ever 't is 't is nothing to the matter of present handling To the 30 Section Chap 18. If it were granted saith the Enquirer that because it agrees not with the goodnesse of God to let me want a guide infallible and that the Church of Rome were that one yet if that teach any thing contrary to God's goodnesse I am not to receive her doctrine for the same cause they would have me receive it it being as good an argument This guide teaches things contrary to God's goodnesse therefore it is not appointed by God as to say it is agreeable to God's goodnesse there should be a guide therefore there is one So he The Enquirer seekes to delude us with a fallacy by altering his tearmes for in the first place he speakes of a thing contrary to God's goodnesse not absolutely but according to his understanding In the second place he speakes of it not as it is in his understanding but as it is simply in it selfe which is a thing quite different from the former for many things may be in his understanding thus or thus or as he saith contrary to God's goodnesse which in themselves are not so but rather quite otherwise for indeed it is no good consequence to argue on this sort This in my understanding is contrary to God's goodnesse therefore it is so because your understanding is subject to errour and therefore some things may seeme to it to be which are not Chillingworth who followeth this Author's footsteps argues after the selfe same manner and hath beene answered elsewhere by himselfe I grant then the consequence when as he saith this guide teaches somewhat contrary to God's goodnesse therefore it is not appointed for a guide But I deny the Antecedent and afterwards when he proves it saying it seemes so to my understanding therefore it is so I deny the consequence and admit the Antecedent At least saith he if it seeme so to my understanding whether in the meane time it be so or not I am not to receive it because I am to be guided by my owne reason and understanding If it seeme so to your understanding after such time as you have weighed all things as rightly as you can I grant it But if it seeme so onely before you have done that then I deny it for then it is not to be followed but forsaken or reformed if it be found erroneous as in this case of yours it is For in this case your understanding is to consult other understandings wiser then your owne if you can finde any such and according to that is to determine of the matter and not to rely wholly upon your owne single understanding But if you doe so you will finde your owne single understanding was deceived and that the guide of which we treate teacheth nothing that is against the goodnesse of God For it is to be supposed her understanding is brighter and more capacious then yours and therefore is to be
thought knowes much better what doctrines be agreeable to the goodnesse of God then yours can doe what is against it and therefore your owne reason and understanding teaches you that the Churches understanding is to be preferred and that yours must submit and againe that this is the rationall way and not the other this the way of understanding and that of errour And so much in answer to this fallacy wherein I perceive both he and Master Chillingworth confide very much As for particular doctrines it is true as you say you may examine whether they agree with the Principle that is foundation yet neverthelesse cannot you from thence conclude any thing against the doctrines or Infallibility of the Church but rather for it and this for the reason before specified Neither doe we therefore send you to a witnesse and bid you not believe it but rather to believe it as farre as in right reason you are to believe it and not farther that is to say you are to trust to your owne particular discourses as to particular discourses and no farther but to the resolves of the Church as to the dictamens of a higher understanding by the light of which you are to judge and censure of the rest and by doing thus you are sure you doe wisely and safely and in fine so as although you should chance to erre you might answer the businesse at the latter day by saying I did in this case what I ought to doe for I followed what my reason taught me and more then this was not required at my hands But if I follow my owne judgement and in confidence of that doe adventure to condemne the Church In that I offend against my reason and true judgement and should not be able to make a good apology for my selfe or any way make it good that I followed my reason which faculty is the rule that God hath set mee For a conclusion of this dispute I answer in briefe that putting the Inquirers argument as he ought to have put it namely thus as followeth This guide to my understanding or to my seeming teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse therefore it is not appointed by him for a guide putting I say the argument on this manner it is nothing so good or so concluding an argument as this other is videlicet This guide teaches such and such doctrines therefore they are not against the goodnesse of God and therefore againe my understanding was deceived in holding them to be so and therefore lastly notwithstanding all this she may be an infallible guide and appointed by God for such Note that we inferre hence she may be but not that she is as the Inquirer would impose upon us for we doe not say that the Church is appointed a guide therefore because it is agreeable with God's goodnesse to make her so but because we for other reasons know he hath so made her because we are not now to learne but that many things are agreeable to Gods goodnesse to be done which yet are not done nor peradventure ever will be Wherefore when we are to judge what is or will be we are to consider not what his goodnesse may admit but what his will determines shall have a being for of that lastly depends the existence of things and not of the other C. 18. Answ to C. 18. Section 1 In your report of his Lordship's argument Section 30. you leave out those words therefore there is one and so make nonsence of that period which in his Lordship's setting of it is excellent reason But I can believe that this was but a slip As for your answer to the parrallel cases wherein saith his Lordship Gods goodnesse is equally concerned doe you thinke you can ever satisfie any reasonable man in saying that the first thing he speaks of is onely contrary to Gods goodnesse in his Lordships understanding not absolutely but of the second he speaks not as it is in his understanding but as it is simply in it selfe from whence you conclude that he changes the tearmes Certainly Sir in despight of your exception argument is good Thus Section 2 If it be sufficient to conclude an infallible guide because it agrees not with Gods goodnesse to let men want one then any man that conceives that Church to teach any thing which he conceives against Gods goodnesse by the same reason is not to receive her doctrine The case is cleare because nothing concludes to any man any farther then it is conceived by him and that is not a proofe to me which I doe not conceive to be so which makes his Lordships arguing to be farre from fallacious For the matter of this paragraph is not whether it be really true that it agrees not with Gods goodnesse to let men want an infallible guide but supposing it to be so whether it will follow the Church is infallible or whether he whose understanding is convinced and perswaded of that truth that it is not agreeable to Gods goodnesse to let us want such a guide be enforced to confesse it infallible Section 3 This also his Lordship disputes not against but will willingly acknowledge the consequence supposing that the Antecedent were true onely by the same argument proves another thing that he that conceives the Church to teach any doctrine contrary to Gods goodnesse or that which is such to his understanding or he that supposes the Church to teach so must not believe that Churches doctrine So that if you marke the supposition is equall on both sides not taken for true one side and onely pretended on tother but one taken to be true by you that not to provide an Infallible guide is contrary to Gods goodnesse and tother taken to be true by his Lordship that Gods damning those that erre without either negligence or prejudication is contrary to his goodnesse also and if the Argument be of force on one side it must be so also on tother and for you to say that what you suppose is true but what his Lordship supposes is not so is a terrible petitio principii againe and no ground of a confutation against his Lordship The ridiculous arguments that you put in his Lordships paper without his privity will be matter of reproach to you who if you understood as I suppose you did were willing to deprave his discourses and not unto his Lordship Section 4 As for your way of satisfying his Lordships understanding that what the Church teaches is not contrary to the goodnesse of God because the Church knowes what is so better than he 't will sure prevaile little with any that is a disputing whether the Church is infallible or no as you see his Lordship now is for if she be fallible she may mistake in that judgment and that she doth not mistake there will be no assurance from her saying it as long as the controversy depends about her Infallibility which to affirme not to depend or to be no controversy is
deny with obstinacy the infallibility of the Church of Christ or any other Article we are willing to beleive yet neverthelesse how safe he was we know not For a man may be obstinate and yet not thinke so though he may peradventure have just reason to suspect it It is not likely that Arius for example or any other Arch-heretique did thinke themselves to be obstinate although it is not to be doubted but they were for in the heart of Man there be many darke corners in which obstinacy may lurke and be unseen many passions that doe corrupt the intention which without great diligence are not espied especially in Men that are Lovers of the world or be possessed with prejudices hefore hand For which the wise Man wisely said Verebar omnia opera mea I distrusted all my workes And so hath every Man reason to doe in this universall corruption of nature and manners The 34 Sect. hath no difficulty in it which may require an Answer Chap. 21. Answ to Chap. 21. Section 1 Your Answer to the 33 Sect. is very strange you first grant very freely that you beleive that his Lordship did not deny with obstinacy the infallibility of your Church and yet in your next words you interpose against him that a man may be obstinate and yet not thinke so and on that ground your Answer to that Section But sure Sir whosoever else maybe obstinate or what grounds soever he may have to suspect he is yet this cannot by you be said of him at the same time when you acknowledge he is not obstinate Section 2 I beseech you compare your Answer with that Paragraph of his Lordships again and tell me whether this would not be very strange dealing Suppose a Friend should make this Syllogisme for you an honest Catholique ought not to be denied the liberty of this Towne but this Gentleman is an honest Catholique ergo and to the major I should answer by silence i. e. consent and to the minor that you are an honest Catholique I am willing to believe Neverthelesse whether you ought to have the liberty of this Towne I know not for you may be a dishonest Catholique and yet not thinke so Section 3 I pray how would you like this way of discourse would you not first tell me that I did in effect deny the conclusion i. e. make scruple how you should be dealt with after I had acknowledged both that all honest Catholiques ought to be used as you desire and that you are an honest Catholique And Secondly that I did suck in my concession of your being an honest Catholique assoone as I had made it for if that Reply belong to me then is it doubted whether I am such or no. Be pleased to compare the cases and this is directly your answer Section 4 What you meane by the no-difficulty in the 34 Sect. which you confesse and which therefore requires no Answer I doe not perfectly know but shall suppose you meane that there is nothing of doubt or question in it and then I am sure I have nothing to reply but that by the same reason the 33 Section must be granted also for the medium is the same to inferre both those conclusions To the 35 36 Sections Chap. 22. To beleive saith he implicitly what God would have believed is also to beleive implicitly what the Church teacheth if this doctrine be one of those which God commands to be believed My Answer to this is negative and my reason of deniall is because one implicite faith doth not containe another but it is an explicite assent and no other that containes within it an implicite To the point then I answer that if that same generall beliefe which he falsly calls Implicite be sincere and cordiall we then grant that it may as he saith implicitly containe the other But what will he deduce from thence what that all who pretend to believe on that manner doe it sincerely It is improbable for if it were sincere it would in knowing Men not stay within the narrow compasse of an implicite assent but quickly dilate it selfe and become explicite Indeed this great profession of believing in a preparation of minde all which God would have believed and goes no farther seemes in most Men to be but feigned and delusory and so no great trust can be reposed in it Chap. 22. Answ to Chap. 22. Section 1 The force of the argument Sect. 35. you deny upon a shew of some subtlety because say you one implicite faith doth not containe another This you affirme but afford us not the least offer of proof for the affirmation I must therefore beseech you to looke over your principle againe Suppose me to believe by an implicite faith that you are an honest Man may not that beliefe containe in it an implicite beliefe to every proposition by you asserted Nay what need this circumlocution is not his Lordships argument most cleare being put into a Syllogisme Section 2 If God commands the Church to be believed then he that implicitly believes all the commands of God implicitly believes that the Church is to be believed but God commands the Church to be believed ergo See now which Proposition you will deny the major is evident the minor I presume you will not deny whosoever else doth and then I beseech you be good to the conclusion Section 3 But that it seemes you will grant too but suspect that that generall beliefe is not sincere and cordiall But that I am sure is not for us to dispute of or discerne and I am as sure 't is nothing to the case where 't is supposed to be sincere and if it be not no Man ever thinkes it can be relyed on To the 37 38 39. Sections Chap. 23. Admitting the formost of these Sections as probable To the 38 I answer that as some are made obstinate by pride so againe othersome lazinesse detaines in ignorance But what of that I grant you that it is not pride in you or any Man never to assent till you find good reason for it but rather wisdome Neverthelesse it may be pride which blinds a Man and hinders him from the seeing a just reason of assenting yea even then when it is not onely perceptible but also easie to be perceived for the eye of the proud sees not the truth but overlooks it The 39 Paragraph containeth in it no businesse considerable in the matter of controversie between us Chap. 23. Answ to Chap. 23. Section 1 The 38 Sect. you admit as probable and now methinks I understand your Dialect somewhat better then before I did Doth not admitting as probable signifie not understanding Truly it had been more ingenuously done to have used that other phrase for the truth is it might have been done at this time without any disparagement to your understanding for in the beginning of this Section there was at the first Edition clearly an errour in the print It should be thus as
avoided Section 10 This being thus set betwixt us I shall not need to descend to a particular survey of the truth of what you say that these differences among you are in matters not de fide though in that there would be a large field to amplifie in also Section 11 To his Lordships argument That the Church ought to have resolved these questions if they desired conformity with the antient Church you answer that neither of these Doctrines hinder Conformity with the Antients in any thing wherein Conformity is required and confirme that by an implicite Assertion which you will never be able to prove viz that the Fathers did not deliver doctrines as well as reasons directly contrary to the Dominicans Whereas 't is cleare they did viz to that that physicall predeterminations can consist with freedome of will Which even now you thought good not to deny but to excuse by a dilemma that if this opposition were not discovered to the Dominicans it would doe no hurt if it were it would be relinquisht It seemes by this that if they are discovered and not relinquisht the danger would then be great and so that if they knew this conformity this conformity would be requisite also and so is requisite in it selfe though by the excuse of blamelesse ignorance it be capable of mercy Section 12 To the 42 Sect. you answer by granting againe and thus you say also Master Ch. is answered and truly so any Man will be content to be answered I would all his Lordships Treatise had been so answered it had been more ease to your selfe and advantage to somebody else To the 43 Sect. Chap. 25. We doe not formally inferre that because our rule breeds unity therefore all dissenting Parties ought to yeild to that but that dissenting Parties have no rule on which it is fit or safe to rely and againe that in place of it we ought to seeke out one which causes unity because no rule can be good without that quality Neverthelesse it followes also ours is the true rule because de facto none but ours either doth it or is apt to doe it and one such rule there must be we are sure Ours then is not therefore to be accepted because it breeds unity but because it alone doth breed it As for Nilus he is a pratling Greeke and besides that in his severall sayings he overthrowes himselfe and confirmes our Doctrines in this point no heed is to be taken to what he saith Chap. 25. Answ to Chap. 25. Section 1 In this Chapter you disclaime an Assertion by affirming it disclaime it in these words That you doe not inferre because your rule breeds Vnity therefore all dissenting Parties ought to yeild to it and affirme it in these That dissenting Parties have no rule that they ought to seeke out one that causes unity that yours is the true rule and none but yours your meaning is it seemes that you doe inferre it but you doe it not formally and sure it matters little for formality when the thing is so granted by you Section 2 For that you put in the word onely it matter 's little because any other company that should deny that infallibility and usurp it themselves would soone get the monopoly of it also especially from any that differed from them in any particular As for Nilus 't is farre cheaper and easier to call him pratling Greeke than to confute his saying which yet if you please to marke his words in this place is no more than you say in the very undertaking to answer this Treatise that your Church must by all be lookt on as infallible To the 44 45 46 47 Sections Chap. 26. In these foure Sections the Enquirer busily endeavours to perswade that errours might secretly creep into the Church by degrees as a Child waxes bigger and as the index of a Clock moves about Be it so as the Enquirer saith yet neverthelesse might all such creeping errours if there were any be espied at least when they had once got in if not while they were stealing thither Thus the growth of a Child is seene plainly though not the growing and the hand or shadow of a Diall is seene at what houre it is though the slow pace thither was not perceptible and Men may give a judgement whether it goe false or true Why then could not errours be espied as easily after they were once stolne in though by never so small degrees they made their approaches thither Thus were the errours of Arius Pelagius Wicliffe Socinus and others presently discovered notwithstanding all their Authours counterfeiting and slie manner of divulging them even as tares which were sown while Men slept as soon as grown up were seen and noted What then should hinder all other pretended errours of the Church from being seen and registred although crept in never so insensibly What matter is it that sundry Bookes are lost Are they more lost for those errours then for others or were these more invisible then all the rest It is strange with what improbable conjectures this Enquirer deludes himselfe He tells us afterwards of another slie way of breaking in that is to say under old names and titles altering the signification but not the words But I would know how the errours of the Church could by this art be concealed more than the errours of Calvin who sought with old appellations to palliate his new Doctrines But in conclusion his principall device is that if no precedent opposition were a note of the being taught from the beginning that then the doctrine of the Chiliasts would passe for right and Apostolicall because as he affirmeth it was not contradicted till two hundred yeares after the coming in But my answer is it is more than any Man can prove that it was contradicted no sooner nay it is more than probable that it was contradicted in the time of S. Justin as we have shewed before and also highly probable that it was opposed and rejected in the time of Dionysius the Arcopagite as also hath been noted before Besides it is no way necessary that every casuall or innocent opinion should be forthwith contradicted or noted as an errour against faith and of this sort was the errour of the Chiliasts during the time it was held but as an opinion without censuring or condemning others to which height assoone as it arrived it was cryed downe presently and rejected The 48 Sect. containes but a recapitulation of what was before propounded and therefore requires no new answer to it The last Sect. containes nothing that deserves not commendation or is unworthy of the Author but is rather to be extolled and imitated by all that make Enquiries after truth and his resolves there be such that if they be truly and sincerily put in execution by any no man can have reason to be offended with him in this world nor is it likely that God will be displeased with him in the next But whether the Enquirer was
any thing and so bestow upon the Devil one path more for us to walke in to him Section 20 If the infallibility of a Generall Councell be a point of faith I desire to know why it is so Scripture and Tradition seem to me not to say so But if they did so I suppose you will grant they do of this doctrine That the soules of the blessed shall see God before the day of judgment and not be kept in secret Receptacles For else the doctrine of prayer to Saints cannot stand and yet for denying this doth Bellarmine excuse Pope John 22. of which beliefe they know he was not alone because the Church he means I doubt not a Generall Councell had not then condemned it I desire to know why should not he be condemned as well without one as many Heretiques that are held so by their Church yet condemned by no Generall Councell which if he makes to be the rule of Heresie it had been happy to have lived before the Councell of Nice when no opinion had been damnable but some against the Apostles Councell at Hierusalem because there had yet been no Generall Councell Section 21 At least why shall not I be excused by the same reason though I believe not a Councell to be infallible since I never heard that any Councell hath decreed that they are so Neither if it have can we be bound by that Decree unlesse made certaine some other way that it selfe is so Section 22 If you say we must believe it because of Tradition I answer sometimes you will have the not believing any thing though not declared by a Councell to have power enough to damne that is when it makes against us at other times the Church hath not decreed unlesse a Councell have and their errour is pardonable and they good Catholiques Section 23 Next as I have asked before how shal an ignorant man know it for he in likelyhood can speak but with a few from whom he cannot know that all of the Church of Rome's part doe now and in past Ages have believed it to be Tradition so certainly as to make it a ground of Faith unlesse he have some revelation that those deceive him not Neither indeed can those that should enforme him of the opinions of former times be certainly enformed themselves for truly if as they would perswade us the relation of Papias could cosen so farre all the Prime Doctors of the Christian Church into the belief of the doctrine of the Millenaries so as that no one of those two first Ages opposed it which appears plain enough because those that after rose up against this opinion never quoted any for themselves before Dionys Alexandrinus who lived at least 250 yeares after Christ Nay if those first men did not onely believe it as probable but Justin Martyr saies he holds it and so do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenaeus sets it down directly for a Tradition and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this which is plainer than any other Tradition is proved or said to be out of Antiquity by them If I say these could be so deceived why might not other of the Antients as well be by others deceived in other points And then what certainty shall the Learned have when after much labour they thinke they can make it appeare that the Antients thought any thing Tradition that indeed it was so And that either the folly or the knavery of some Papias deceived them not I confesse it makes me think of some that Tully speaks of who arcem amittunt dum propugnacula defendunt lose the fort whilst they defend the out-works for whilst they answer this way the arguments of Tradition for the opinion of the Chiliasts they make unusefull to them the force of tradition to prove any thing else by For which cause it was rather wisely than honestly done of them who before Fevardentius set him forth left out that part of Irenaeus which we alledge though we need it not much for many of the Fathers take notice of this belief of his Yet he justifies himself for doing it by a worse blow to them than this it self which is saying that if they leave out all Errours in the Books they publish that is I suppose all opinions contrary to the Church of Rome bona pars Scriptorum Patrum Orthodoxorum evanesceret a good part of the writings of the Orthodox Fathers must vanish away Section 24 But the Tradition that can be found out of Ancients since their witnessing may deceive us hath much lesse strength when they argue onely thus Sure so many would not say this is true and joyne in opinions if there were no tradition for them I would have you remember they can deliver their opinion possibly but either before the controversie arise in the Church upon some chance or after If before it is confest that they write not cautiously enough and so they answer all they seem to say for Arius and Pelagius his faith before themselves and so consequently their controversie though it may be not their opinion arose If after then they answer often if any thing be by them at that time spoken against them that the heat of disputation brought it from them and their resolutions to oppose Heretiques enough I desire it may be lawfull for us to answer so too either one of these former wayes or that it is as often they say too some Hyperbole when you presse us in any thing with the opinions of Fathers At least I am sure if they may deceive us with saying a thing is a Tradition that is not we may be sooner deceived if we wil say and conclude it for a Tradition when they speake it onely as a Truth and for ought appeares their particular Opinion Section 25 For besides if when Salvian comparing the Arians with evill Livers and that after they were condemned by a Councell extenuates by reason of their beleiving themselves in the right with much instance the fault of the Arians and sayes How they shall be punisht for it in the day of Judgement none can know but the Judge If I say they confesse it to be his opinion they must also confesse the doctrine of their Church to be different from that of Salvian's times because he was allowed a Member of that for all this saying whereas he of the Church of Rome that should say so of us would be accounted Sesqui haereticus a Heretique and a half Or else they must say which they can only say and not prove that he was so earnest against ill men that for the aggravation of their crime he lessened that of the Heretiques and said what at another time he would not have said which if they doe will it not overthrow wholly the authority of the Fathers Since we can never infallibly know what they thought at all times frō what they were moved to say
be so his Lordship was not content to affirme and so is himselfe farre enough from giving you example of begging the question but proves it by this argument because with you nothing is not fallible but the Church This may be dissolved into an hypotheticall syllogisme whereof you must deny one proposition or else the conclusion is forfeited If with you the Church be the only infallible then with you any other reasons by which you prove the infallibility of the Church are not infallible but with you the Church is the only infallible therefore with you any other reasons by which you prove the infallibility of the Church are not infallible Now if you look over your answer againe you shall find that your only exception commeth not home to any part of this syllogisme for you doe not so much as say that any thing is infallible but the Church Or if now you will see your want and make additions to your answer then say distinctly is any other thing beside the Church infallible or no If it be let it be named if it be not the conclusion is granted us And till this addition be thus made i. e. for this present answer of yours 't is I conceive manifest that you have said no syllable to the prime part of his Lordship's first Section Section 6 As for your instances of Phylosophy and Law suites they can prove nothing against his Lordship unlesse you can name some sect of Phylosophy that hath not only truth but infallibility and tell us which it is and prove that by arguments which are confest to be infallible till you have done that your instance is not pertinent and if ever you shall doe it 't will not be concluding against us unlesse you produce the like arguments for the infallibility of your Church against us which must be some other then are yet proposed Section 7 As for Lawsuits that they are determined to one side by the Judge doth not prove that that Judge is infallible which is the only matter of debate and if the contenders are bound to stand to his award it is because the Law and supreme Magistrate have commanded them to doe so and because this is evident and infallible that they have done so by the commission which the Judge hath from them And when the like is produced for your Church I hope all your Subjects will submit to it but then it must be moreover proved that all Christians are such Subjects or else we hope we shall not be involved under that obligation Section 8 As for your long deduction from whence you conclude that either wee are deceived or you and that it is not necessary that both should we grant it and professe our opinions that though both you and we are fallible yet only you are or can be deceived in this particular which we conceive is cleare because only you pretend Infallibility which we not pretending but affirming that we are not so cannot in this be deceived unlesse we be infallible but see not what it concludes against his Lordship whose argument depends not on any such assertion that both parties are deceived but only that your pretended Infallibility is by you proved by no other arguments then those which you confesse are fallible Section 9 What you adde by way of triumph and scoffe I must not answer but by yeilding you free leave thus to please your selfe and if this recreation tend at all to your health to advise you to do so still and whensoever it may be for your divertisement to reckon up the names of London Great Tue and the two Vniversities Section 10 After the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sang you at length bethinke your selfe that his Lordship had affirmed that Scripture Reason and Fathers are by you maintained to be all fallible and to this you answer by a distinction of universally speaking and in some cases onely and acknowledge that you affirme them all to be fallible onely in some cases Now first you ought to have given answer to his Lordship's proofe for what he said which was this that you affirme that onely the Church is infallible from whence it is a conclusion that therefore Reason and Scripture and Fathers are by you affirmed to be fallible whereas you letting the premises alone apply answer to the conclusion which is as much against Logicke as to deny it without denying the premises or shewing the falsenesse of them But then Secondly that which is fallible in some cases onely is by that acknowledged to be fallible and by that is proved unsufficient to prove another thing to be infallible in all things for if it be fallible in any case it may be fallible in this that it pronounces that other to be infallible and till there be some infallible argument produced that it is infallible in that particular pronouncing its Infallibility in other things will availe nothing or if it doe it may availe also for us to prove what we offer to prove from it that your Church hath erred Section 11 There is no possible avoiding of this but by saying and proveing it infallible in inducing your conclusion and false aswell as fallible in inducing ours for if it be true though it be fallible it will serve our turne but it must be both or will not serve yours you being obliged to prove the Infallibility of your Church by something which is it selfe infallible because it must be matter of faith with you which nothing is but what is infallibly induced but it is sufficient for us to beleive you and your Church fallible though we should make it no matter of faith that you are so which because you endeavour not to doe in this place it will be impertinent to examine the truth of what else you adde concerning the cases wherein you affirme Reason and Scripture and Fathers to be infallible any farther then thus that by your owne explication of the distinction and enumeration of cases I shall conclude that Reason doth not prove infallibly that your Church is infallible because the Infallibility of your Church is not an evident verity Scripture doth not prove it so because it is not certainly expounded to that probation Fathers doe not prove it so because it was not a doctrine held in their time and affirmed by them to be so Each of which negations of mine though they were as sufficient proofe as what you have offered to the contrary yet I shall undertake to make good against you if you shall thinke fit to call me to it by setting downe your reasons to the contrary Section 12 And so if on your supposition his Lordship 's three maine props were fallen to the ground which is another boast that had no more relation to the present matter then ground in truth and therefore I beseech you leave out such excesses hereafter yet your supposition being not so much as endeavoured to be proved the props stand as firmly as is desired To the
to understand that this pretended non-conformity of hers ought to be discovered very clearly and perfectly before he adventure to condemne her and this great discovery having yet not beene made and manifested to the world may justly be thought an act impossible and be judged in such as make pretensions of it a worke rather of a strong apprehension then of any solid judgement If then our Enquirer in this case should be rejected let him not complaine of us as if we sent him to a witnesse and after bid him not believe it but rather bid him not believe himselfe and his owne judgement more then the Churches that is to say more then he ought nor suffer himselfe to be misled by the testimony of a witnesse to whom we did not send him I meane himselfe in hearkning unto whom self-love too much inclines him and made him over credulous as to their great griefe it hath made very man Now for the better understanding this point of conformity with the Antients of which this Enquirer and Chillingworth his confederate doe talke so much and seeke to urge against us the reader may please to know that they themselves are bound to solve this knot as well as we for it will be both as necessary and as hard for them to finde out the conformity of their doctrines with the Antients as it is for us to finde out ours and againe the conformity of this moderne Scripture with the Antient and these present copies of the Greeke and Hebrew with the Originall or Archetype of the same languages as it is to finde out a conformity of this Church and her Doctrines with the Antients and so these Authors have made a rodde wherewith to whip themselves as commonly wrangling people doe Secondly That there be other notes of truth besides this conformity and therefore the enquiry after it is not necessary for any man Thirdly That we may know this conformity by the truth a great deale easier than the truth by conformity because truth may be knowne by the present notes and such as are before our eyes but conformity must a great way off and through a thick mist of many Ages if it be sought after by examination of particulars Fourthly That the enquiry after conformity by examining the Antient rites and the innumerable darke passages and decisions of Antiquity cannot be a generall method for the instruction of all or of the greater part of Men for it is a long businesse and so cannot be ready at all times but rather after divers years it is also so difficult that few have learning or ability to go through with it for the passages of Antiquity be very intricate and require a great light of understanding for their discovery You see the Enquirer Sect. 37. confesseth he was much vext with the harsh Greek of Evagrius and the hard Latine of Irenaeus and with distinguishing between different sences and various lections c. If this learned Gentleman found so much difficulty in the search what must become of the greater part of Men if there were no way but this for in comparison of the rest few have so much wit as he or so much leisure few understand Greek or Latine either whether harsh or pleasant few so painfull Must no man that is not acquainted with Evagrius or Irenaeus come to the knowledge of the truth nor any man be able to know the Creation of the World and the Old law without he can read in Hebrew or learn the New law without reading the New Testament in Greek These were very hard conditions and certainly such at God never imposed upon us Doubtlesse we are not obliged to find out the Originall Copies of Scriptures and Fathers of which sort as I suppose there be none extant nor trouble our spirits with judging about various lections we are not bound to impossibilities for our instruction and salvation but have a ready way assigned us which is the conspicuous body of the present Church which body is like a City built upon a hill and that hill is a rock not to be undermined It will be therefore sufficient that we can any sure way come to the knowledge of the truth without taking care whether it be conforme unto the Ancients or no for sure we are all truth is conforme to that it should be abstracting from the consideration either of Antient or New and this alone may be sufficient to content any Man Yet if he would know conformity I will shew him a readier way than examination of places let him but take the voluntary confession of the Magdeburgians in their severall Centuries and he need seek no further for they acknowledge all that we desire and this acknowledgement of theirs cannot but satisfie for they make it neither out of ignorance of the truth nor out of affection to us C. 5. Answ To the fifth Chapter Section 1 Your fifth Chapter is a very long one and by that length and the contents of it puts me in mind of him that owing his Fellow Sixpence being not able to pay him offered him a hundred Counters one after another in a sudden motion of his hand in hope that at length his eyes might dazle and take some one of them for coyne or if not yet rather chuse to lose his Sixpence than to venture so many cheats by awaiting that payment For I am perswaded that when I have but repeated to you his Lordships Argument in the fourth Paragraph you will spare me the paines of shewing that you have not answer'd it by confessing you have not said one word to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rationall importance of it Section 2 The intent of the Paragraph is to prove that tradition or Authority of the Antients is not a proper meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church The meanes of inferring the conclusion are First the division of men to whom this Argument is supposed to be brought into ignorant and learned Secondly the insisting on the proposition in relation to each of them to the ignorant because they cannot know to the learned because they cannot infallibly know that tradition doth prove this Infallibility Section 3 First To the ignorant proving that tradition cannot prove the Infallibility to them because the ignorant cannot know what is the voice of generall and constant tradition Which if it be true is an infallible argument to induce the conclusion for that tradition cannot prove another thing till it self be proved which it is not to him at least who neither doth nor can know it and that it is not true you doe not so much as pretend but rather help to prove it more plainly than his Lordship thought necessary to doe And this is all that you doe returne to the first part of the proofe save only by pretending that this knowledge or triall of tradition cannot be necessary to the ignorant which as it is true so is it nothing against his Lordship who had no use
conclusion with that great popular argument that prevailes with so many a bare confidence of affirming it it is very remarkable what your next attempt is why in stead of that hard taske which lay so heavy upon your shoulders to get an easier if 't were possible and therefore you foresee that some may peradventure deny your Churches verity to be evidently credible Good Sir what is this but to suborne a weaker adversary to challenge you that you may be excused from fighting with the stronger we desire plaine dealing that you will prove your principles of probation to be certaine and manifest which is the thing you affirm'd and not to thinke to put us off with more obscure and lesse containing tearmes of your Churches verity being evidently credible For first your Churches verity i. e. I conceive its being the true Church for I hope you speak not now of its Metaphysicall verity or its being truly a Church for so it may be and be very fallible and very corrupt is an equivocall phrase and in what ever sense is not so much as your Churches infallibility for it may be a true Church and not be infallible i. e. upon supposition that what ever now it taught were actually true 't were yet possible it might erre even when it doth not nay if its verity should signifie that it were a true Church as perhaps you meane exclusively to all others i. e. that the Catholique Church were the Roman Church and the Roman the Catholique yet speaking of the present state of the Church i. e. of the present Roman Church though it were supposed to be the present Catholique Church yet may that be fallible again because those that are now in the truth may fall into errour and others rise up as they fall to be defendors of the truth and so the promise of God of keeping his Church from finall or totall falling be made good still Section 4 As for that other largest notion of the Catholique Church under which we confesse it to be infallible that of the universall Church all the world over without any restriction I conceive it impossible that by your Church which is the Church with an eminent restriction you should meane that and upon that ground it was that I affirm'd that the verity of your Church in what ever sense is not so much as its infallibility Section 5 Then againe your phrase of evidently credible is not sure so much as certaine and manifest for though evidently credible sound strangely and if it have any sense in it hath also some obscurity yet I shall suppose you meane by it that which is credible or may be believed and of which it is evident that it may the words Grammatically can beare no other sense then this that it is evident that they are credible now certainly to be evident and certaine is much more then to be credible though it be never so evident that it is credible For suppose me actually to acknowledge that you have some probable arguments that your Church is the true Church nay suppose it is so evident that you have such arguments that every man that hath common understanding will be ready to acknowledge you have so doth it thence follow that I or all others doe and must acknowledge that you have demonstrated it this is to make no difference between the two sorts of Arguments in Logick Topicall and Demonstrative or in a word to conclude that to be infallible which you durst not say was any more then credible for as for the word evidently added to it it cannot have such an influence on the word credible as to make that quite another or higher sort of things then it was Credible in the clearest or highest degree is but credible still as the eminentest or excellentest man in the world is a man still and therefore in briefe if we should helpe you to fewer adversaries then you have and take off that suborn'd enemy of yours whom you suppose to deny your Churches verity to be eminently credible you would have gain'd by it but little peace from his Lordship who would still require you to make good your pretension of infallibility which will be a much harder theme to declaime for popularly I am sure Logically then the credibility of the verity of your Church Section 6 As for your way of answering that objection because the objection is not needfull for us to make Any reply or confutation of your answer will be as unnecessary I shall onely report to other men from your owne pen one notable decision of yours that in a triall of huge importance concerning the credibility of the verity of your Church I must be faine to use your phrase right reason and every man 's owne conscience must be the Judge which being so great an act of complyance and favour both to those which assert reason and to those that maintaine the private spirit to be the Judge of Controversies i. e. to two sorts of men which have hitherto beene believed opposite enough to your infallibility it will be but gratitude to reward so great a bounty with a favourable interpretation of a good meaning and he should be very rude and uncivill who would not grant upon such your demand that you are no Socinian nor inclining to that sort of mis-believers for sure he that makes right reason the Judge of his very principles must needs be so rationall and ingenuous that he can never be an Heretique though he say the very things that Heretiques doe Section 7 As for your very excellent similie of the eies and the spectacles I shall not have a word to say to it save onely this that although you have gotten the inclosure and monopoly of spectacles I meane of imposing of an exterior Judge upon us yet other men may be allowed to have eies as well as you i. e. to have reason and conscience to Judge of your Judge and then the issue according to your premises being granted to you will be this that they whose reason and conscience tels them that 't is not evidently credible that your Church should be the true Church exclusively to all others shall not be obliged to believe it is so for their owne reason say you and Conscience is to be judge that they whose reason c. tels them it is so credible may believe it if they please nay if they have no arguments as credible to the contrary and upon impartiall search can finde none it is very reasonable for them to believe what to their conscience is so credible but if they have such arguments to the contrary or if it be their fault that they have not they are sure no farther bound to believe it if they are not Subjects of your Church then those dictates of their conscience doe extend to oblige them or if they are Subjects yet no farther then the doctrine of obedience rightly stated which will be too long a worke for a parenthesis
to none else as for example the same species which shew me a man in generall afarre off the selfe-same afterwards when he comes nearer being distinctly perceived doe shew me that man is this individuall as Plato for example and no other For reall species doe not represent unto us Entia rationis or Individua vaga but determinate Individuals namely as often as those species are distinctly and compleatly understood As for the Circles into which both this Enquirer and Chillingworth would cast us and make us dance within them whether we will or no they are but Chymaericall conceptions of fidling and trifling dispositions which love to have toyes wherewith to entertaine themselves and in this point of resolution as we have declared it already have no semblance of reality C. 8. Ans to the 8. Chap. Section 1 His Lordship supposing in charity that you had attempted to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church by its agreement with Scripture and Antiquity which is in effect by holding the truth You plainely tell him he is mistaken in you It seemes you defie such meane waies of proving yours to be the Church as accordance with Scripture or Truth you must have it by some more noble way of demonstration and if you would stand to this peice of gallantry and never urge Scripture or Fathers to prove your opinions but content your selfe with your being the true Church to prove all after it As I confesse I should not charge on you that Circle which his Lordship doth in this particular supposing as he thought favourably to you that you had proved the truth of the Church by the truth and consonancy to Scriptures and Fathers of your doctrines so I should have two quarrels more against you in stead of that one composed First that you would disclaime Scriptures and fly to miracles for such are your reall revelations as you interpret them by the verba signorum in the Psalme the signes being there interpreted by the wonders that follow that you would fly to Gods extraordinary providence when I presume you conceive his ordinary would have served your turne for sure if at another time a man should have asked you is not your accordance with the Scriptures and Fathers a prime proofe that you are the true Church I doubt not but you would be so well natured as to confesse it and why now should the Devils infirmity the feare of a Circle make you so cowardly as not to dare to owne so popular an argument especially when your fire comes downe slowly or your bath Col the voice from Heaven which is the onely proper notion that I know of a reall revelation is not very audible to us that are afarre off nor if we were to be put upon the racke doe we know or can confesse at this day that we or any of our Fathers ever heard that 't was so ever revealed that the Roman Church is the true or the infallible Church And besides when you know we Protestants are a little hard of beliefe and dare not credit your owne report that you have such ostensions and revelations and signes when you neither produce witnesse nor tell us when or what they were but give us farther ground of jealousie by an odde phrase let fall by you that those reall revelations of yours are motives no more then of credibility when as true miracles acknowledged to be such are grounds of Faith and he is an Infidell that believes them not and to be but a motive of credibility is but a petty thing that every topicall argument will take place of probable being more then credible in the ordinary notion of the words Section 2 The second quarrell that your words have brought upon you is your telling us without proofe that it is so but onely by giving a similitude to shew it may be so and so in your phrase to be a motive of no more then credibility which in him that concludes it is so is petitio principii againe that the same motives you use to prove the truth of Christianity against Infidels will prove yours to be the true Church which being confidently said we are so vile in your eies as not to be vouchsafed so much as the mention what they are unlesse by your former words we conclude you meane miracles much lesse any evidence concerning them And yet by the way the miracles by which we prove the truth of Christianity to Infidels must be those which we meet with in Scripture and not those other in your Legends and upon a strict survey and recollecting of all them and so comming as neare to them as can be I must professe I cannot see your Churches being the true Church in those miracles neare so clearly and distinctly as I can see the man afarre off to be one of my acquaintance when he comes neare me which you undertooke I should and made me try and therefore I hope will recompence me for the losse of my labour by giving me your reasons next time for your assertion that I may try againe whether your proofes are more lucky then your experiments Section 3 But then I cannot see why you should be scurrilous upon both his Lordship and Master Chillingworth for thinking you were in danger of the Circle in which sure Baron had deprehended your Friend Turnbull and in which you had beene engaged infallibly if you had but gone about to prove your Church the true Church by the truth or consonancy to Scriptures and Fathers of your opinions which way of proving me thinkes 't is possible you may stand in need of before you come to the end of your answer In the meane as the calling downe Hercules upon the Stage was wont to be a Character of a Tragicke Poet i. e. of a fabulous wonderfull undertaker Cum fabulae exitum explicare non potuerit so to fetch us in miracles and ostensions to prove that divine truth that you confesse must not be proved by the Scripture will passe for a peice of Poetry I feare instead of a motive of credibility and those that are chearfully disposed will be apt to tell you that you were faine to conjure hard and doe or pretend miracles or else you had beene enclosed in that Circle To the 9. and 10. Sections Chap. 9. To these I answer in a word that neither the Greeke nor any other Church can pretend the Primacy or Principall succession of Pastours that is to say from the President of the Apostle Saint Peter none I say besides Rome can pretend this and without this one noâ—e can be authenticall or sufficient to prove a Church or a succession of Pastours Ecclesiasticall and so the Enquirers starting-hole in the Greeke Church into which he alwaies makes his retreat is prevented and shut up against him By this also is the 10. Section answered for whatsoever Churches claime unto succession shall be alleadged it can no way evacuate that of Rome as hath before beene shewed
true it being so cleare that the second hangs so loose from it and will alone serve our turnes as well Section 3 But then Secondly I professe not at all to understand what you meane by that reason of your assertion because the misses or mistakings be cases extraordinary for first how can it be denied in this imperfect infirme state of mortality that now we are in but that errours and mistakings are very ordinary That they are common there is no doubt and as little that they are agreeable to that order or course that is now among men and to you that say in the next words that you know not why such defects should need any pardon and to us that acknowledge that they that reforme all other and pray daily demitte debita shall through Christ have pardon of course for these sure they cannot passe for extraordinary cases in either sense for that would imply that now under the Gospell it should be ordinary or regular to punish involuntary errours which you say can be no crimes and extraordinary either for us to commit or for God to pardon them Section 4 But then Secondly if it were true that these misses c. were cases extraordinary yet can I not see how these words can be annext to your former as a proofe of their being answer to his Lordship because how extraordinary soever the misses may be the pardon for misses may doe as well for you as an infallible guide unlesse you meane somewhat else by ordinary cases then what my capacity hath reacht to and till you please to instruct me better I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by exercising my charity in not judging what I doe not understand invite yours to instruct me that I may Section 5 As for the Coherence of his Lordships discourse you have little temptation to doubt of that when you have said that he conceives that such errours or missings should need pardon for to that all that he saith is coherent It seemes you are not of his opinion for the truth of that and whether is in the right I shall not now examine or enlarge to any so accidentall and extrinsecall discourse but onely tell you that believing as you doe you ought to have said not true when you mistooke and said not coherent To the 12. Section Chap. 11. To this charge we answer that our proofes of a sure guide are themselves also sure and what proofes those are we before have signified Chap. 8. Sect. 8. and before Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Ch. 11. Answ to the 11. Chap. Your next Chapter being but a reference to what you had before said and that before examined by us my answer shall be answerably onely a reference also without taking more paines to put you in minde how unfit your Verba signorum which you there affirmed to be motives of credibility are now to proceed or commence infallible proofes for those are they which his Lordship's argument requires in his 12. Section To the 13 14 15 16 Sections Chap. 12. The Infallibility of Popes or Councels is no point of doctrine necessary to be knowne distinctly before any resolution of faith can be made because it is sufficient to learne out of Catechismes and the common practice of the Church what is to be believed Neither is there any more probable feare of missing which is the See Apostolique and which the Churches living in communion with it then there is of a Subjects being ignorant to what Kingdome he belongs and as for doctrine of beliefe it is found out as readily and as surely as the other by those meanes of instruction which we have signified already As for the Simony objected Sect. 14. it is no impediment of his power so he be received peaceably by the Church and not 〈◊〉 in question for it The like may be said of the decrees and definitions of Councels together with the sense or meaning of them And by this the 15 and the 16 Sections are answered C. 12. Answ to the 12. Chap. Section 1 His Lordship in quest after your infallible ground of faith tooke into consideration the Popes Infallibility Sect. 13. the Infallibility of a Councell by him called Sect. 14. and produced arguments I conceive convincing against each Section 2 To these your onely answer is that neither of these Infallibilities are necessary to be knowne distinctly before any resolution of faith can be made and you give your reasons for it because c. which is in plaine tearmes to grant and prove the thing which his Lordship desires and proves for if they were the ground of faith they would be necessary to be knowne distinctly before any resolution of faith the foundation being absolutely necessary to the superstruction in materiall edifices and in intellectuall the distinct knowledge of a ground of faith being as necessary to a distinct resolution of faith as the ground it selfe which workes not upon any man's understanding the seat of this Faith any further then it is knowne This concession of yours being all that is demanded of you at this time we shall not need insist on nor debate farther what influence the case of Simony may have upon the Popes Infallibility If he be infallible at all He or He and a Councell you say 't is not necessary to ground faith which is the onely use we have of it in this present enquity for it seemes the Catechismes or common practice of the Church are sufficient to teach what is to be believed Section 3 What Is the Popes and Councels Infallibility made unnecessary and is a Catechisme and common practice of the Church sufficient for the grounding of faith infallibly Certainly we are growne very low and are supposed men of very moderate desires if it be thought we shall thus be content with the Infallibility of a Catechisme For whatsoever is sufficient for the grounding of faith infallibly remember infallibly must come in for otherwise 't is not to his Lordship's discourse must it selfe be acknowledged infallible Which if you shall please to affirme of any of your Catechismes as I shall first desire to be directed which Catechisme it is that of Trent or what others that I may not mistake in the choice of my Guide so I shall make bold to demand whence this Infallibility or authority of this prime guide of faith is to be fetcht It will be sure from the authority of the Pope or Councell of that time when 't was compiled and confirmed and then still we fall backe to the infallibility of the Pope or Councell which it seemes in the last resolve is become necessary againe to the grounding of Faith and so againe must be knowne before any resolution of Faith be built even upon the Catechisme which was the thing you just now denied As for the common practice of the Church that that should be a ground of Faith or sufficient for us to learne by it what is to be believed besides that this
evidence and let me tell you this is the difference betwixt beliefe and knowledge the latter onely is inferr'd demonstratively or by premises that cannot be otherwise the former being content with probable arguments so they be strongly probable and such as have not any the like or of as considerable weight to be ballanced against them And this sure is the reason that Faith is by God thought fit to be rewarded as being an act of the Believers choyce and knowledge not because it is necessarily and irregably induced and yet such as that it will be all obstinacy and perversnesse to resist when it comes well provided with arguments extreamly probable Section 8 For if you marke it the most weighty actions of our lives and those which we doe most constantly and most confidently are founded no deeper then on probabilities We eate and drinke for the strengthening and refreshing of our bodies and yet conceive not our selves to have any certainty of evidence or demonstration that every bit we eate or drop we drinke may not choake or poyson us yet having probabilities on which to ground a beliefe that they are wholsome and no strong contrary probability that our table shall become a snare or death unto us we doubt not to feed as securely as if Euclid had beene our surety by one of his Demonstrations Section 9 So in every piece of land I buy or estate I enjoy from my Ancestors 't is possible and the contrary not demonstrable or certaine in that sense that there may be some flaw which may undoe me and yet when I have searcht my evidences and have the opinion of wise men upon the matter I sit downe and trade and live securely and all this but upon probabilities without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full armour of infallibility or demonstration Section 10 And so in all matters of fact which we see or heare not with our owne eies or eares but as with perspectives and otacoustickes I meane where we are faine to trust the relations of others be it that there was a Julius Caesar or a Henry the eight the ground of our beliefe is but a probability viz. the topick ab authoritate the argument taken from the authority of the relators which though it be never so strengthened by the universall concurrence and non-dissenting of all witnesses cannot yet ascend higher then to be extreamly probable and yet sure is as firmely believed of us and although it may possibly be otherwise the contrary implying no repugnance or contradiction in nature and he that should be so mad to affirme it being not confutable either by rationall or ocular demonstration yet as little doubted of by any man in his right wits and as little lyable to any scruple or matter of doubt as what is most visible before our eies Section 11 This I have said perhaps ex abundanti yet shall not repent of it because it is usefull to be considered in order to other difficulties to shew you the falsnesse and inconsequence of that argument that unlesse the Church were presumed infallible before its determinations it could never be believed in any For hereby it hath appeared that that may be believed nay cannot sometimes without pertinacy and sinne be not believed as in case the arguments though but probable be excessively so which brings not with it demonstration or any thing of equall power or force with it and such is infallibility Section 12 And from thence you will easily discerne how possible it may be for us Protestants to believe the universall Church in all things wherein the testimony appeares to be universall nay to believe the Church of Rome in many things wherein the arguments produced by her doe actually perswade with us such are her consonancy with antiquity and the like and yet to remaine constant to our present undertakings that she is not infallible Section 13 But it now appeares that I might have spared this paines in pressing these inconveniences on that first answer of yours For it seemes by what followes that all that answer was needlesse For now upon better consideration 't is true with a distinction that the Councell doth virtually and in actu exercito define its owne infallibility and that you prove First because it pronounceth anathema's against those that submit not Secondly it doth it by saying Visum est Spiritui Sancto c. Section 14 Not to examine your phrase of actus exercitus as 't is here applyed To your arguments we answer First that our Councels denounce anathema's too yet you know doe not pretend to infallibility Section 15 That forme I conceive signifies not that all are damned that believe not what we believe but that all they that shall dis-believe may be excommunicated if they be refractory and that againe onely in reference to those that are under dominion but not that all others that are not under us should by us be so handled or that those that are not excommunicate are in that other danger or if these are yet not for the sinne of dis-believing an infallible doctrine but for not believing our lawfull superiours which may be a damning sinne though they be not infallible their being in the truth when they make such constitutions is sufficient for that Secondly the forme of Visum est Spiritui Sancto is onely a forme transcribed from the Acts arguing it their opinion that use it that this particular is the dictate of the Holy Ghost not at all their beliefe that the Holy Ghost was bound to assist irresistibly which he must as well as assist to make the infallibility for otherwise when he assists we may possibly not make use of his assistance In plaine 't is an evidence that they thinke they are in the truth not that they cannot be in the wrong Section 16 To the 22. Section though you answer not a word yet you are as discreet as if you did you doe another thing in stead of it you aske a question and harangue upon it at large the Question is pertinent enough though not to this Section yet to the businesse in grosse and we answer it in a word that the Word of God must regulate our beliefe and reason in the use of all the meanes that you will commend to us and you have given us a pledge already that you will not quarrell with us for this answer as for discipline and keeping in unity we had blessed be God meanes very sufficient to that end till the sword wrested them as all other our lawfull possessions out of our hands and I believe the Infallibility of the Church is not weapon-proofe or able to keepe Resisters in obedience or Schismatiques in unity Section 17 As for your uncharitable judgement that want of an Infallible Church which must be but want of that insolence to undertake our selves to be Infallible is that and no other the cause of all our present miseries and his Lordships doctrine in this Book
Arrians after they were condemned by a Councell either differs much from your Church that will condemne any man for an Hereticke that shall professe not to condemne all Protestants or else must suppose and admit the plea for Salvian that he was so earnest against ill men that for aggravating of their crime he lessens that of Heretickes And then if it may be accepted in one Fathers behalfe that he could speake hyperbolically or passionately why may it not be admitted in another that one of those or some other collaterall consideration might have influence on any speech that should be cited from them and then the authority of fathers will cease to be infallible Section 22 For this by the way you may please to observe of his Lordship's reasonings about tradition and authority of fathers which before I gave warning of that they are not designed or fitted to the taking away all authority from them to make them vile or meane to any but onely to reduce them in ordinem to prove them not infallible the Topicke à testimonio humano is but a Topicke still and though sometimes being heightened with circumstances of which it is capable it is a very convincing Topicke yet is not for all this a demonstration and so there is a difficulty which may exercise you in stead of scoffing of his Lordship in the close of the Chapter To the 26 Section Chap. 16. The Enquirer seemes to be troubled not a little because we will not say with him that men may be saved in a false religion or because we doe not thinke our religion false or any other religion true besides our owne and in the same veine Chillingworth his Commentatour runnes very fluently and upon this ill sounding string is harping continually Yet for all this harping it will not be easily understood what offence against Charity it can be for us to judge either that Christianity alone is the saving religion or that our religion is the onely true Christianity For say we should be deceived in making this judgement yet this same at the most can be but a want in our selves of right understanding and not any breach of charity towards others or any matter of exclamation as some frivolous men of late have made it Wherefore if we will state the question rightly we are not to enquire whether we want charity in holding that none but Catholickes and true Christians can be saved or in our holding that we onely are of that sort or againe whether our adversaries for their accusing us want not wit and charity together or at least one of them but the question betweene us ought to be whether there be more saving religions then one or whether ours be not that one and this is the old controversy in Bellarmine and others and may be disputed without any anger or without disguising or multiplying of controversies on set purpose done by these Novellists as it seemes for making more businesse then needed or causing more distast and alienation then was before The Enquirer is much displeased with us for damning as he cals it all that are not of the Church of Rome But for pacifying of his angry spirit I demand of any for him what sinne he thinkes it in us to judge that all who die out of the Church of God die in an evill state or what other to thinke that our Catholique Church which he diminitively cals the Church of Rome is the only Church of God Let him satisfie me in this and I will easily satisfie him in the other In the meane time we are not nice to declare That there is but one saving Religion That there is but one true Christianity and that one is the saving religion That there is but one Catholicke Church and that this one Church is by the institution of Christ and according to the consent of antiquity to be governed by the See Apostolique and by the Successour of Saint Peter as chiefe Pastour and President of the rest Now what hurt is there in all this or what want of Christian charity It is not uncharitable to say that some offenders shall be damned and if any then why not those who are truly and really Sestaries and men obstinate for it is like that they deserve it as well as any There wanted not one of this Enquirers confraternity who fancied sometimes to himselfe that all the damnation that was to fall upon the wicked was an annihilation of them and extinction and not a perpetuity of torments which conceit is so charitable that it exceeds the charity even of God himselfe and controules his revelations made to the contrary in the Holy Scripture and condemnes them as guilty of too much rigour and severity and therefore no marvaile though we poore mortals cannot escape their censure But now lest any man should thinke our doctrine to be harsh and rigorous he may please to be inform'd that we doe not hold every man for a Pagan and an Infidell who embraces Paganisme but only so many of them as be guilty of their errour through affected or culpable ignorance which defect though it be a formall ignorance of the truth yet it is a virtuall knowledge of their errour and an interpretative rejection of the truth and also a resistance to God and his divine veracity manifested in his revelations and therefore all these whether Pagans os Heretiques be hainous offenders and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say judged and condemned by their owne consciences of which doctrine it seemes both this Enquirer and after him his second Master Chillingworth were ignorant by their insinuating that no man is an Heretique or selfe-condemned but onely such as adhere to a doctrine which he formally knowes to be erroneous that is to say onely such as doe that which is impossible to be done which conclusion is a covert affirmation that there be no Heretiques at all nor can be any and so all is safe whether sound or no. In like manner we doe not hold to be an Heretique or to be out of the Catholique Church every one who embraces an heresy but such a number of them onely as doe it with an obstinate mind and without preparation to be reformed or to hearken unto reason when it is told them By which doctrine it appeares that we are not so strict as we may seeme nor yet so large as some would have us For on the one side we doe not maintaine that Heretiques can be saved or that heresy is not a deadly or damnable sinne as some Socinians and other Libertines would have us thinke And on the other side we dilate the spaces of the Church Catholique farther then every body conceives we doe and by that meanes comprehend within it many that in the eye of the world seeme aliens unto it so that our charity is not irregular in judging Heretiques to be in good state but it is rather in concluding that very many are not Heretiques really and
religion it destructive of all others and that amongst us it is a maine principle or maxime that all other are to be invaded and destroyed by us and this it affirmed confidently though against all probability and experience It cannot indeed be denyed but truth is destructive of falshood by the owne power as light is of darknesse and one contrary of another but for externall coaction or violence we leave that to the Accusers and doe not owne it By this it is not hard to make a judgement who have been the encroachers and who have propogated and maintained themselves by violence you or we And who are the destructive party and live by the spoiles and oppression of others let not those who possesse other mens goods cry out of wrongs or make any brags of just dealing for neither of these can come well out of their mouthes This Enquirer confesseth both sides are in fault but we in more and for this assertion of his brings in some light sophistry because forsooth Protestants hold that they may erre but we maintaine we cannot and so will be sure never to mend That Protestants may erre is granted him and needs no other probation then experience whereby we finde thy have filled all this Kingdome with dissentions and these dissentions with civill warres so that by this that you have erred we know you may But so frequent possibility of erring doth not extenuate but aggravate your crime For if you may erre so foulely how dare you undertake to tutour others how prescribe Lawes with what face Persecute If your rule be so weak as it cannot containe you all in one body but lets you disperse into multitude of Sects and fall in pieces as now you doe why doe you not forsake it and seeke a better for it or else have none at all if you can finde out a surer why doe you not learne wit by experience but wallow on still in the same mire If this Enquirer speake so ill for his Clients we will not entertaine him for our Advocate The Protestants side sets downe for a rule of religion every ones private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture and so doth Master Chillingworth the disciple of Volkelius We doe all that yet we doe not please them nay more we must be punished by them for the result what is this but to bid us doe a thing and then punish us for doing it Is not this extreame perversity certainly if the rule they give be a sufficient warrant for their receding from the faith of their Ancestours and for their breaking off from the Church and standing in defiance of her then doubtlesse much more may it warrant us to continue on and to keep off from any new doctrines either of the Protestants or any other Innovatours whatsoever and sure this is great reason and cannot be gainsayed Besides if we were to yeild to whom were it to be done There is a world of distracted Sectaries now in this Kingdome all sprung from the same roll or from the rule of faith which it common to you all of which one sort imagines there is no Papacy and these were the first ring-leaders of all the rout another that there is no Episcopacy a third that there is no Clergy but that Lay-Elders is all in all and must rule the roast a fourth that there is no Church nor Church-government at all but that the Church is like a Schoole of Philosophers where every man may believe and doe what he pleases without being accountable to another or any obligation of conformity and peradventure the Inquirer was one of this number together with his confederate M. Chillingworth a fifth sort that there is no Trinity a sixth that there is no Sacrament or at least none necessary or effectuall Is it not fit thinke you that these divided Christians should come and write Lawes to others or punish any man for non-conformity nothing more improbable It is a Comedy to see D. Featly a Protestant and Page a Puritan make Catâ—logues of Heretiques and when they have done can finde no way whereby to exempt themselves nor give a reason why they themselves should not be of the number as much Sectaries as any other of the Catalogue The Inquirer charges us that because we pretend to be infallible we have lesse reason to prescribe to others but on the contrary me thinkes we should have more for as he who is really infallible is fittest to guide and governe others so he that thinkes himselfe to be is at least in his own judgement more fit than he that does not He addes that this pretence of infallibility makes us sure never to mend or as his Schollar Chillingworth speaketh makes us incorrigible True if it were a meere pretended one but that is not yet proved either by him or any although he say here in this 28. Section he undertakes to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible But if on the other side it be a reality and that the Inquirers reasons are but pretended then surely will not this infallibility keep us from mending but contrariwise from erring or having any thing to mend or which is all one from any errours to correct And thus we see that our Religion is maintained by the selfe same arts that bred it that is to say not by force or violence but by reason and revelation and spirituall industries contrary to the surmises of this Inquirer C. 16. Answ to Chap 16. Your doctrine of damning all that are out of the Church of Rome you have enlarged much above the occasion that invited you to it for all that his Lordship had said on that theme was onely this that your certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome averseth him from it Which if it be true you cannot blame him for sure they that heare the punishment of judging Mat. 7. being judged of the Lord will have little love to that piece of sensuality or consequently to the religion that requires them to runne upon this danger And that the charge is true of you you doe at first acknowledge by labouring to prove that there is no uncharitablenesse in it Secondly that it is necessary for you to maintaine or that otherwise you must fall into some great absurdity particularly this that there is any Church but that which is governed by the See Apostolique which is a rare petitio principii againe and saves us the paines of saying one word more in defence of the truth and justice of those true words of his Lordship For indeed that enclosure of the Church Christianity and Salvation to those that are under the Roman submission is the uncharitablenesse that you are charged of The envy of which it seemes after all your confidence you are willing to remove from you and therefore adde an handsome lenitive to keepe any from thinking that your doctrine is rigorous or harsh And truly if you might be taken at your
petitio principii againe Section 5 As for your Conclusion of this dispute wherein you set the comparison betwixt two Arguments and say yours is much the better I shall not need debate that with you because they are not the two Arguments betwixt which his Lordship makes the comparison The first I confesse you have rightly set downe This Guide to my understanding teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse therefore it is not the Guide and this will be as good an argument as this other 'T is to my understanding contrary to the goodnesse of God that the Roman Church should not be an infallible Guide or that there should be no infallible Guide where there is none but the Roman Church therefore the Roman Church is so In this comparison the consequences are equally true and built upon the same ground that that which is against Gods goodnesse cannot be and the Antecedents equally affirmed according to severall understandings and then whether the other Argument which you bring be comparable to either it matters not Section 6 But when at last you give us a note that the argument from God's goodnesse doth not conclude that your Church is infallible but onely that it may be so I confesse you make me repent of all this unprofitable attendance I have paid you in following your argument thus farre when your selfe have given me directions to a shorter cut of answering viz by granting that it may be infallible that is that nothing in nature resists but that if God's pleasure were so it might be infallible but say we we have no evidence from God that it is his pleasure it should and therefore we conclude it may be deceived or may be fallible betwixt which two though there may be some difference as there is betwixt falli and fallibilem esse yet unlesse some evidence can be brought against one which cannot against the other they will be both equally true as farre as respects our knowledge or debate of them Section 7 And when you adde that 't is from other reasons that you conclude she is infallible and not from this of Gods goodnesse I answer that 't is cleare that his Lordship was now disputing onely against that reason taken from Gods goodnesse which it seemes you confesse was no reason and for your other reasons they are either confuted in other paragraphs of his Lordships Treatise or when you produce them shall be To the 31. Sect. Chap. 19. This Section is spent in the enquiring whether a man shall be damned for making a diligent and impartiall enquiry after the true religion of which he finds the infallibility of the Church to be a part supposing that his reason when all is done will not assent This is his Quaere and the same may be made concerning any other verity or point of doctrine as namely of the holy Scripture whether or no it be the word of God and what shall become of that man whose reason after an impartiall search made will not assent or againe about the truth of Christian Religion unto which after such a search made his reason will not condescend I answer first that it is a mockery to aske whether or no any Man shall be damned for making a good enquiry without successe and in effect it is the same as to enquire whether a Man shall be damned for doing a deed that 's commendable and good For this Question supposes that either the Enquirer or we were very simple Creatures and did not understand our selves or else that the Gentleman-demander was not in earnest but propounded it only for his recreation though at a time ill chosen and unseasonable and also in a matter about which there ought to be no jeasting I answer secondly that in a place where instruction and information may be had the case he puts is morally impossible to happen out for we deny that where the search is diligent impartiall and without prejudice and where againe information sufficient is to be had that there the reason shall not be able to assent and that wheresoever it cannot that same happens either through weaknesse or inhability of judgment and capacity or else by reason of some disordinate passion of the will by which the understanding is misled and darkened as in those who are refractary it for the most part falls out Which passion and prejudices arise sometimes from custome and education sometimes from vitious inclinations sometimes from a crookednesse and perversity of nature which doth refuse instruction Wherefore as it is no sufficient excuse for an Infidel to say I have searched diligently whether or no Christ be the true Messias or whether the Scripture be the word of God or no and after all endeavours used my reason will not assent so in like manner it is as little sufficient to alleage that after enquiry made about the true Church and her Infallibility your reason would not assent for in these cases we cannot grant any ignorance invincible or free that errour which possesses them from guilt Now what shall become of others who want instruction sufficient and have no crookednesse or backwardnesse in their will and die in ignorance is another point and different from this of ours and is to be resolved in the Question about the efficacy of Implicite faith to which I referre my Reader Chap. 19. Answ to Ch. 19. Section 1 In this Paragraph his Lordship askes a Question Whether supposing that he that never heard of the Church of Rome shall not be damned for not believing it infallible it can be thought that he that hath made diligent search and used honestly all meanes afforded him and yet doth not believe the Church infallible shall be damned for that not-believing this is the Question and to weigh it downe on one side that that latter shall not be damning when tother is not this reason is put in that in this matter all that that Man hath done in the second case more than in the former is onely the having diligently enquired which is presumed to be no damning sinne Section 2 In stead of the Question thus put you set another somewhat distant but I will suppose tending to the same effect whether a Man shall be damned for making a good enquiry without successe which you say is a mockery and so as I conceive ridiculous to affirme it and so Sir after all your descanting on his Lordship for asking this question it is apparent by our explication of it that upon the denying of that which you say 't is ridiculous not to deny it inevitably followes that that Man shal not be damned for denying the infallibility of your Church Section 3 And though you take paines to perswade that this case is morally impossible yet you must give us leave from your stating of the case wherein you say it is so viz when information sufficient is to be had to conclude your proofe a petitio principii againe for when wee deny your Church to
be infallible and moreover affirme that if it be it cannot be infallibly knowne to be so how can you thinke that we shall ever yeild without any offer of proofe that there is sufficient instruction to be had for any man in this point besides for you to say that every Man 's not acknowledging this proceeds either from Weaknesse or Passion what is that but uncharitablenesse first and then shortnesse of discourse when the case was on supposition that there was no fault of which his search was guilty and Petitio principii againe To the 32. Section Chap. 20. Whosoever admits of truth upon no better grounds than others doe admit of falshood doth not receive it rightly solidly and as he ought but after a way defective and infirme Againe whosoever searches and is loath to finde and would not see it when he might this Man refuseth truth as badly and weakly as the other doth receive it and as the truth will not benefit the one so the enquiry will not advantage or excuse the other As for such as are bred up in a true Religion and which without particular examination they accept it were rash judgement to say all these received truths upon no better grounds then others did falshood for first according to this account the greatest portion of Christian men on all sides would be in a hard condition amongst whom the simple and illiterate who are not able to read Evagrius either in Greeke or Latine nor yet the Bible either in Hebrew or Greeke or otherwise to make any strict search into antiquity for their making discoveries which faith was the Antient and Apostolique But though they be unable to doe this yet doe they not therefore take up their Religion at randome and by chance or consult passion about it and not reason but contrariwise doe finde their reason satisfied each one according to their severall models or measure of capacity by the present view of the majesty and divine perfections of the Catholique Church and faith therein professed together with the assurances from publique fame and creditable relations By meanes of which the divine providence and veracity shewes them infallibly what wayes they are to take and what doctrines to receive as revealed from above And thus regularly speaking amongst orthodox Believers where Religion may appeare like it selfe every Man of capacity though illiterate may see sufficient to resolve him which satisfaction from any false Religion he could not receive for though to a heedlesse eye and before a diligent exquiry made some grand falshoods may seeme more probable than truths and that as Aristotle teacheth multa falsa sunt probabiliora veris many falshoods are more probable than truths yet not to a diligent Enquirer after the search is made and especially in businesses of great concernment because God and nature have laid these kinde of truths more open to our view and set markes upon them by which they might be knowne and discerned from falshood Wherefore in the law of nature it was more credible even to the illiterate that there was a God then that there was none and now Judaisme is not so probable as Christianity is though sometimes it hath been nor Mahumetisme at any time so perswasible as Christian Religion or Heresy so credible and satisfactory as orthodoxall Christianity or the Greeke schisme as the Greeke unity wherefore though the Parents beliefe and the Religion prevalent in the Countrey have great influence into the minds of Man and are great and powerfull Perswaders yea oftentimes Seducers also and those very dangerous yet neverthelesse in those places where truth is taught they doe not hinder Men from the right apprehension of it and from making true judgements about it but rather like a prosperous gale of winde to Vessels under sayle cause them to move towards the Port desired more swiftly than otherwise they would And thus much may suffice for taking off the slander and scandall which this Enquirer and after him Chillingworth with great acerbity have almost in the very same tearmes labour'd to cast upon right believing Christians therewith to disparage their faith as if forsooth they beleived truths invalidly and upon no better reasons then others beleive falshood Thus have both these conspired against the truth for both indeed are but one Author in effect one the Text and the other the Commentary wherefore the Publisher of this small worke hath shewed us all the well head to which Chillingworth went to draw which Well before was unknowne to the most part of Men and so might have still remained had it not been for this Publishers unseasonable diligence Chap. 20. Answ to Ch. 20. Section 1 Your mistake is very remarkable in this Paragraph and your paines very prodigally mispent in disproving of that which is by his Lordship mentioned onely on supposition of somewhat else affirmed by you and by that meanes demonstrated to be infirme Section 2 His Lordship's present reasoning is that supposing your infallibility true yet he that denies it and withall uses his best reason to seeke if it be true will sure be in as safe a condition as he that believes it and searches not And this he proves because the one believes that supposed falshood on as good grounds as the other doth that supposed truth Which is so fully concluded from those premises and so needs no farther proofe that indeed these premises are able to conclude more viz that in that case that Man believes that supposed falshood on better grounds viz upon impartiall search then the other believes that supposed truth and then 't were unreasonable to thinke that God that rewards mens actions and not their fates their choices and not their starres should condemne the one more ingenuous and guiltlesse and reward the other meaner and more criminall part of the parallel Section 3 All this you in a manner confirme by saying that he that thus admits of truth admits it not solidly rightly and as he ought but after a defective and infirme way Which being borrowed from you out of this Chapter the rest will appeare to belong very nothing to his Lordship's argument and therefore I choose not to insist on any reply to it For of those which doe finde their reason satisfied in your infallibillity of which you speake a while his Lordship speakes not and for the truths that God and nature have laid so open to our view of which you speake againe sure this of infallibillity is none Section 4 As for your displeasure expressed againe without any new occasion against the unseasonable Publisher which if you and some others of your Friends were meere Students and Votaries to pray for and study the peace of Hierusalem and not too active Infusers and Enterprizers in these troubled waters might indeed be acknowledged lesse seasonable it is the very thing you said before and then was sufficiently proved to be unseasonable To the 33 34. Sections Chap. 21. That the Enquirer did not
't is now mended To the Greeke that concludes the former Section should be adjoyned in the same period If I could c. and no new Section be there made and as the sence by that mistake of the Printer lyes broken in the first Impression it is non-sence Section 2 Now this being said It is a little odde that there should be but one piece of non-sence in the Booke and that should have the lucke to be in your favour and by you be confestly admitted as probable But this was but a misfortune Your Answer to the 38 is not so excusable being not one syllable to the matter in hand that sluggishnesse may as probably bring a Papist to grant your infallibility as pride a Protestant to deny it In stead of denying or answering of which you onely reply that pride may possibly blind a man Sure this paragraph you might have admitted also as well as the other two that encompasse it much better then to have said nothing to the purpose Section 3 The 39. I would not discourage you from granting it had beene much for my ease if you had granted the whole treatise otherwise I could shew you that it conteines an argument perfectly concludent against your cause in satisfying one maine objection of yours against us To the 40 Section Chap. 24. We Catholiques doe not disagree in points of faith neither where there is fire to keepe us in awe nor where there is none and therefore this exception against our unity is frivolous It is the clearenesse and perfection of our rule that drawes us all to unity and not any of the foure Elements If we follow this rule we are at peace and we doe well know how to follow it contrarywise follow your rule as well as you can and yet you are at variance wherefore you assigne a rule which though it in it selfe be not uncertaine yet which is as bad you are uncertaine of it Now as in Logicke a maxime or axiome if unknowne or uncertaine is no good principle of argumentation so in matter of beliefe a rule not certainly discernible and understood is no good rule of faith though never so perfect in it selfe and this is just your case The differences amongst those of our Church are not differences in matters of faith or religion as it is evident but on the other side it is manifest and confessed that yours are Our differences are in Philosophy onely or in some Scholastique and undefined point and such in particular is that now some yeares agitated betweene the Dominicans and sundry of their party on the one side and the Jesuits and Sorbon Doctours and many more on the other For these contend not as we doe with the Calvinists namely whether we have free will or no all of them agreeing in that verity of faith but they contend about a question onely Philosophicall which hath some relation to it namely whether with this freedome of will acknowledged by both sides Physicall predeterminations or praemotions can consist which question is no question of faith Now admitting as many thinke that these predeterminations could not stand with the doctrine of free will yet the said doctrine of faith is not hurt thereby for the opposition betweene them and free will is either discovered by the Dominicans or not If not then is it dormant and so though never so ill it cannot doe hurt to faith or worke it any prejudice If it be discovered then it can worke nothing forasmuch as thereupon it will be relinquisht and abandon'd presently because the doctrine of free will is received by an assent of faith and the other but by a philosophicall or opinative the former being the stronger must needs command and expell the latter assoone as they begin to fall at variance Wherefore it would in that case be a good consequence with them viz. Man hath free will therefore there is no predetermination and not contrarywise as it is with the Calvinists there is predetermination therefore no free will Therefore in the holding of predeterminations there is a vast difference betweene a Calvinist and a Dominican even as much as betweene an obedient Catholique and a perverse and obstinate Heretique and that is difference enough And since you would needs know this is the reason why these arguments make you Heretiques and not the Dominicans That the Church ought to have resolved the point in difference betweene those two orders is more then the inquirer can prove for neither of their doctrines doe hinder conformity with the ancients in any one thing wherein conformity was requisite for men are not bound to conforme with the ancients in the reasons of their beliefe but in their belief onely The 42. Section we grant as making nothing against our doctrine And thus Chillingworth is also answered who insists upon this same point and also in the same fashion with this Inquirer so that all things considered both these make but one Author and require but one answer to what they have objected And by this the 41 and 42. Sections be also answered C. 24. Answer to C. 24. Section 1 His Lordship saith that the consent is little thank-worthy because that may be an effect of feare when there is fire for them that disagree To this you answer that you disagree not in matters of faith neither where there is fire to awe nor where there is none Section 2 Sir is not that a strange answer in you that know there is fire to awe disagrees in all matters of faith and consequently no matter of faith where there is no fire to awe By this it appeares that that exception of his Lordships against your unity in matters of faith is farre from frivolous and to get quit of it you are faine to make a distribution of which onely one species belongs to the Genus which being put into forme betraies it selfe presently It must be thus of matters of faith some are required of us sub poenâ ignis some are not Can you stand to it that this shall hold are there any things de fide which a Man may safely disbelieve if not all the rest you say in that Section is nothing to the purpose But then you adde that all the differences are in matters not of faith to which the answer will be very obvious if I troubled you with no other that ours are so too and then you have little matter of triumph over us in that excellence Section 3 But if you please I shall be a little more large with you in this point and first I beseech you to consider that it is you that bring this Argument against us taken from Dissentions amongst us and not we against you though we might with as good reason and therefore that it lies on you to prove it a concluding Argument and to us 't is abundantly sufficient if we be but able to retort it for then 't will be an Argument ad homines though in it selfe it
be no Argument Section 4 This being premised I pray observe in the second place the no force of this Argument against us unlesse it may also appeare that our departing from you is the cause of these Dissentions For if they be but onely consequent to it accidentally this ought not in all reason to be laid to our charge any farther then thus that this accidentall consequent is a probable argument of one of these two things either that you have better rules for the restraining of such Dissentions than we or else that you are more carefull in executing the rules you have and if either of these be said by you I shall then tell you 1. That it seemes this Argument concludes but probably though the proposition were granted and I believe I could urge as probably on the other side and conclude the excellency of our Reformation from that old saying of Clemens by way of Answer to your Objection both of Jewes and Heathens against Christianity taken from the Dissentions of Christians in the Primitive Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cause of them is because all things that are excellent are subject to the envy of Men and Devils and from thence to the sowing of seeds of Dissentions amongst them agreeably to that of our Saviour that as soon as the wheat was in the ground the envious sowed his tares Section 5 But then secondly for the preventing of such Dissentions I shall adde that though we have not pretence of infallibility and threats of fire to restraine Men from them yet we have other rules more agreeable to antient Church practice than either of these and though the weapon of our warfare are not carnall in your sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the taking away of life yet are they if they were executed mighty to bring downe or shut out Heresies For if you know it not I can tell you that Excommunication that soveraigne receipt of Christ and his Apostles the most perfect designe of charity to save and recover that which is lost to shame Men to reformation and upon contempt of that that secular rougher hand interposing the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and the Statute of Abjuration are very strong restraints and if they have not been so diligently executed as they ought to be though I hope you will pardon this fault yet he that will not must charge it onely on the Persons of our Magistrates and not on our Religion or the state of our Reformation And then let me adde that even these lawes and this execution of them or the like whether among you or us can extend no farther then to outward restraints and that onely of those that will be so terrified or to punishment of them that will not but not to preventing of Heresies in the inward rise or growth or sometimes in the breaking out whensoever ambition of being Leader of a Sect c. are more prevailing than feare of punishments which cases must be lookt for in every Church Section 6 To which purpose you may please to reflect upon your selves and tell me whether there were not good store of Hereticks before the times of the Reformation If not I am sure Irenaeus Epiphanius and Saint Augustine and Philastrius have abused us in their Catalogues and I beseech you but to remember the ridiculous Heresies of Galatia which Saint Jerome mentions on occasion of Gal. 3.1 in respect of which he conceives the Apostle calls them such fooles and thinks they were bewitcht particularly those of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that would have Cheese mixt with the Bread in the Sacrament which with two others of the like stamp there mentioned came from Ancyra the Metropolis of Galatia And yet I believe you would not thinke the Argument of much force if it should from your example against us be made use of by us either against those Apostolicall Churches or against the Roman Church ever since that so many Heresies are gone out of it and yet that would be as reasonable in us as in you it is to charge all the Heresies which have been in the World since Luther upon the Reformation Section 7 For let me aske you is the fault that you object to us in this matter that Hereticks are gone out from us That which wee have said will satisfie you that that is no argument that we are not a true Church for if it be it will be of force against the Catholique Orthodox Church in all Ages Or is it that they that thus dissent from us are suffered to continue among us if that be it then first there are also Dissenters among you continuing with you Secondly our Lawes and Canons are for the casting them out if their dissentings be Hereticall and that is all that you can pretend of these and if we have been more indulgent than you would have us that is but an errour of tendernesse first and then that onely the fault of Persons Section 8 Having said thus much which I conceive full ground of satisfaction to what you have or can say in this matter I might now adde that if you looke no farther then the Church of England even in these which I suppose you will count the worst times of it you cannot finde any greater or more dangerous Heresies avowed by any considerable Party than are owned by some of the Jesuits among you Section 9 I shall first mention that popular doctrine you know what I meane of Bellarmine resumed and confirmed not long before his death with his most advised care in his Recognitions Secondly the doctrine and practice of resisting and deposing lawfull Magistrates under colour of religion that I set it no higher even to killing of Kings Thirdly the opposing the Order of Bishops as expresly contrary to the sole-power enstated by Christ on S. Peter And also Fourthly the affirming it lawfull that evill may be done so it be in order to a publique good and that I trouble you with no more and yet give you reason to thinke that it is in my power I beseech you to believe that I have read Watson's Quodlibets and I could without much difficulty make a parallel betwixt these whom you so much charge and those whom you defend your hatedst Enemies and your dearest Friends that Booke being so richly able to furnish me with hints that I have surveyed the Writings betwixt the Seculars and the Regulars with the late controversie among you about the Bishop of Calcedons being appointed Ordinary in this Kingdome produced and in them the difference about the necessity of Confirmation and the non even now mentioned in the Canon of the Councell as also the Symbolum Jesuiticum c. and if we have any greater divisions among us yet than these I beseech you to let me know it from you for I believe 't will be no easie discovery and I shall promise to doe and pray my utmost that they may be
reason will tell him this Answ This is the very thing which is disproved in that place and then the bare repeating it over againe will be but a meane kinde of vindication Be pleased to looke over the place againe and if you will still thinke that there was any place for this annotation I shall be sorry I have beene thus troublesome to you Ibid. B. I have shewed the reason why Answ When an argument is framed on a double supposition without disputing the truth of either 't is not to be allowed the respondent to answer by denying the truth of either of the things supposed for they are supposed in that dispute but not disputed of As for example if the question were Whether supposing Adam were not falne and Christ were come the coming of Christ could be for the sinne of Adam doe you thinke 't would be tolerable for the respondent to avoid some argument brought against him by saying that it was absolutely false to say that Adam was not falne whereas 't was true that Christ was come This would certainly be so grosse and impossible to be justified that I should suspect any mans fidelity that should tell me he had rendred a satisfying reason why this should be And this is your case at this time Ibid. C. Whether she be infallible or no she is like to be wiser than any private man And this point cannot be in controversie with a wise man and therefore here is no petitio principii Answ This is a rare way of replying when a discourse hath been proved guilty of a petitio principii to say 't is impossible it should and when a thing is denied to say it cannot be in controversie But Sir I shall yeild you the Church may be wiser than any private man yet not conceive it to follow unlesse she be also infallible that when a private man and the Church differ she must alwaies be in the right He that is much wiser than another may yet in some particular be mistaken when that other is in the right yea and may be advised and reformed in such a particular by one that is not so wise as he This you may apply to the matter in hand not so farre as to preferre the authority of any one man before the Church in generall but onely so as not to pronounce it infallible I might tell you farther that a member of the Church of England assenting fully to the doctrine of that Church and so discharging the duty of a private man in preferring the judgement of the Church whereof he is a member before his owne judgement may yet doubt of some things affirmed by the Church of Rome and not make the comparison between a private mans judgement and the judgement of the Church but onely betwixt one particular Church and another But after all this I might have spared any or all these Answers and doe now onely desire you to looke back upon the place and you will soone see what no ground is to be found there of your Annotation Ibid. D. If you have no evidence that 't is Gods pleasure that your Church should be infallible nor can have you say true but this latter is denied Answ 'T is easie to deny conclusions still But if you will either answer the arguments which have proved there is none or produce any such evidence that it is infallible you shall be victorious indeed Ib. E. This argument which the Inquirer impugnes is an argument of his owne making and none of ours yet for all that the argument is not like a Ballad as good backward as forward as M. Chillingworth putting it a little differently from the Inquirer would have it Answ If you had pleased to disclaime and not defend this argument at the first you might have saved us some paines and if you will yet promise me that no man shall out of M. Knots Book make use of this argument any more I will be very well content that argument shall be no longer insisted on yet must tell you my opinion from my owne expresse knowledge that they which read that Book before 't was confuted by M. Chillingworth did verily believe that that argument to prove an infallible judge taken from the topick of Gods goodnesse was M. Knots master-piece and the founation on which the maine weight of his structure was supported C. 19. Answ to C. 19. A. In a Respondent there can be no such thing as Petitio principii Answ We have shewed you that a Respondent may so ill behave himself that there may As for example when a man hath used Arguments to prove that you have been guilty of begging the Question For you to despise and not take notice of the arguments and to say onely that there can be no such thing is the very thing called Petitio principii Ib. B. But we againe deny it is Petitio principii and the contrary ought to be proved Answ It is clearly proved in the place and not to consider the proofs but to deny the conclusion is another guilt of that sophism C. 20. Answ to C. 20. A. If the Enquirers meaning be as you put it it makes nothing at all against us nor needs any Answer But Chillingworth goes farther and saies that many of the simpler sort amongst us believe Truth upon no better grounds than others believe Falshood and yet our simpler sort believe Truths upon all the motives that yours doe and somewhat more Answ That that is his Lordships meaning is plaine viz That he that denies your infallibility and yet uses his best reason to seeke if it be true will be in as safe a condition as he that believes it and searches not And if this be nothing against you I shall hope this quarrell is nearer an end then ever I had thought to see it And then sure many of us shall be capable of that charity which you bestow upon your owne for I am confident what we doe we doe upon search and use of our best reason and yet that we deny your infallibility you are sufficiently assured C. 21. Answ to C. 21. A. He might be secretly obstinate and yet both he and we conceive the contrary Answ 'T is true he might But yet sure you that believe he was not obstinate cannot believe that the punishment of obstinacy should belong to him but must either thinke God unjust or else believe him safe in the same degree that you think him not obstinate And this is all I required from you C. 22. Answ to C. 22. A. Every implicite assent must be resolved lastly into an explicite or else there will be an infinite regression for every implicite presupposes something in which it is involved or implicite Answ I beseech you observe the nature of this Annotation of yours You say in your Apology that one implicite Faith doth not containe another I proved that false by this instance that supposing I believed by an implicite Faith that you
or fallible and then againe Reason and Scripture may finde reception and be agreed on the umpire betwixt us and we shall promise sincerely that whatever that shall sententiâ latâ award to you we will most gladly yeild and never breake with you till you breake from that umpirage Ibid. C. The words are applicable against our belief of Christianity as well as against our belief of our Churches doctrine Answ The words are applied by me onely against your infallibility and if that be as infallible as Christianity it self I beseech you either shew as plaine testimonies from the consent of all Ages that the Church of Rome is infallible as there are for the Canon of the Scripture or as plaine places out of the Scripture for it as we can for the severall parts of Christianity and then I will give you leave so to apply the words In the meane you may spare your labour of applying my words or else prove demonstratively that they are so applicable Ibid. D. A possibility perhaps of more errours but a probability of fewer for if she were fallible yet she would not be fallible as a private man so that with these fewer errours we should have quiet and unity you with more errours should have disturbances and dissentions Answ In this place whereto your Annotation was affixt the discourse was upon a supposition that your Infallibility were an errour which I in that case affirm'd would be the most dangerous because most prolificall complicated errour imaginable and will you say that upon that supposition there would be a probability of fewer errours Will the thinking I cannot fall make me stand the longer is there no advantage to be made of care and caution and feare or is there a disadvantage in them This is brave fiduciary doctrine I must thinke infallibly I shall be saved and that I cannot fall away and the thinking that will make it more probable that I shall be saved and shall not fall I confesse I had thought that humility were a readier way both to truth and Heaven then either of these presumptions What you meane by adding by way of proofe of that saying that if your Church were fallible she would not be fallible as a private man I confesse I cannot guesse If she would not I conceive this would be but little advantage on her side for her fallibility would be a greater snare and scandall and more apt to draw into errour those that conceived her infallible than any private mans fallibility would doe For that which you adde of quiet and unity if it were supposed to be joyn'd with fewer errours I grant it would be an advantage but at a time when that infallibility was supposed to be one errour and that prov'd most apt to produce a multitude surely this ought not to have been supposed any more than that we should have more errours still though 't were not at the same time supposed that we have Ibid. E. It was never put into more hands than two but what those hands might doe I know not and to those on purpose to make triall what exceptions might be made against it that so upon a review I might know better what to alter in it what to adde and what to take away Answ I conceive one man hath two hands and therefore 't is possible you may meane it was never communicated to above one man If you doe 't is certainly false But if you meane two men by two hands you acknowledged what I said for I said no more As for your affirmation that 't was put into those hands only for triall c. This cannot be said of one of them for to him it was delivered by one of your friends as an unanswerable piece but yet if it were as you pretend that you might know better what to alter in it I am then glad I have given you occasion to doe so but must tell you that now you have altered it and delivered it from some infirmities which appear'd to be in it there be yet enough behind to be reformed by any body else and when that is done there will remaine somewhat else perhaps but I am sure no answer to my Lord of Falkland Ibid. F. Sir your noble courtesie is gratefully acknowledged and I desire with all due respects and services to correspond Answ This I conceive to be a civility and I shall never go about to confute that or answer it but by the returne of the like and my prayers also that the Lord give you a right judgement in all things HEre it seemes was once an end of those annotations and it had been for the readers ease and mine that you had continued in that minde But upon better thoughts either that which had beene here noted was thought not quite sufficient or else ex abundanti this superfoetation is bestowed on us The closing sheet which I mentioned in the Preface and promised to annex also Which here in justice to the Apologist I shall give you though I conceive I had beene as kind to him if I had forgotten it Section 1 THis small treatise Apologeticall is no finisht worke but only a first draught or inchoation and was ventured abroad to explore the judgements or censures of one or two intelligent Adversaries that so the Author by his second thoughts might be the better able to understand what was to be altered in it what added and what taken away either as superfluous or offensive and till that act was done and withall an approbation and licence given by those to whom it belonged neither the worke nor any line of it is to be acknowledged or vouched by the Author Section 2 The drift is not to prove the Church which we call Catholique and the Enquirer cals Roman to be infallible but to defend it against the Enquirers arguments for he Sect. 28. undertakes to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible So that our drift is to make it good that this same Church may still be infallible notwithstanding any thing that he hath said unto the contrary Section 3 The pillars that support all his discourse be 1. Sect. videl that with us both Reason Scripture and Antiquity be fallible his proofe of this assertion is a supposed maxime of ours namely that nothing is infallible but the Church The assertion is first denyed and afterward the proofe and against these denialls no reply can be made because we know best our owne inward acts and judgements and no man is able to tell us what we thinke but we must tell them Section 4 These three pillars of fallibility being broken and relinquisht as desperate you are pleased to come with new ones in their places Section 5 Reason say you cannot prove the infallibility of your Church because it is not an evident verity Scripture cannot because not certainly expounded to that probation Fathers doe not because it was not a doctrine held in their time Section 6 It seems then
liable to deceit not enclosing him in any maze circle or semicircle not enforcing him into endlesse and wearisome regresses neither producing evidence nor destroying liberty but by these motives fortified with the divine veracity leading him assuredly to the Church and by the Church to the entire and determinate Canon of holy Scripture and so at length by both these joyned together to the full discovery and distinct knowledge of the doctrines of our faith after the manner following Section 13 These motives or ostensions being once considered we are forthwith to observe to what body of Christian professours they belong and in what line of succession of Ecclesiasticall Magistrates they descend unto us and in the passages of antiquity diligently to note which ship it is which in the Christian fleet was counted the Praetorian or Admirall with which all the rest were to joyne company and by the separation from which we are to judge which vessels be fugitive or pyraticall and which not which assembly of Christians legitimate and approved and by this association to be distinguished from the broken and dispersed troopes of Anti-Catholiques and by the same the army of the living God in the Church militant discerned from the stragling companies of divided and disagreeing Sectaries how numerous soever they may seeme when summed up all into one inconsistent body or confused rout This way and method we hold which if it doe not satisfie any let them set us downe a better and not leave us without any but let them take heed that while with the Enquirer we receive and admit the fallibility of the Church of Rome or of any other determinate Church and of one denomination we fall not with Master Chillingworth to the fallibility of the Christian faith and so presently to Infidelity It is easie to impugne the Organon of faith or Doctrinall principles but not easie to compose it easie to pull downe but not to build The Enquirers judgement uttered to me was that Baron when he writ against us was lusty and strong but when he spake any thing for himselfe he was weake and languishing and I believe this is the Enquirers owne case and that he was able to say more against an infallibility then for it In the one he hath shewed his strength in the other not Section 14 Now a word or two about lawes and I have done In which point I observe it as an uncontroverted doctrine that unjust lawes properply speaking are not lawes first because Lex is the dictamen rectae rationis practicae in eo qui potestatem habet but an unjust law is neither dictamen rectae rationis practicae nor potestatem habentis for no man is prescribed to doe wrong by reason nor hath God the chiefe Legislatour given power to make them Durandus concurres in terminis in Opusculo de legibus saying Injusta leges magis sunt violentiae quam leges nam secundum quod dicit Augustinus l. de libero arbitrio Lex esse non videtur quae justa non fuerit Et tales non obligant quantum ad Deum So Durandus To him Suarius subscribeth l. 3. de legib c. 19. n. 11. Lex injusta non est lex praesertim quando ex parte materiae est injusta quia rem iniquam praecipit tum enim ad acceptandum eam non obligat verum etiam neque si sit acceptata And presently after giving a reason hereof he addeth Quia excedit potestatem legislatoris Secondly so much veneration is due to lawes though never so unjust that they are neverthelesse in conscience to be obeyed unlesse they should be publiquely and knownely found contrary to a greater authority then that was by which they were enacted that is to say to the law of God or Nature Therefore they are not to be judged or censured by any private man Thirdly being discovered to be unjust they derogate nothing at all from the authority of the rest no more then the unjust lawes of some Emperours did from the body of the law Imperiall For though all of them were made by the same Authors yet not by the same authority because for the making of one sort there was good authority derived from God but for the making of the other there was none at all but such as could not make it Fourthly in case of such lawes no man is to take armes or make resistance but contrariwise to suffer with humble patience remitting the righting of his cause onely to God per quem Reges regnant legum conditores justa decernunt And thus Sir I rest your humble servant Section 15 The holy Scripture hath a threefold influence into faith 1. Dispositive as one of the motives or inducements 2. Negative as a property sine qua non 3. Positive as a foundation or principle The 1. as an ancient and godly booke The 2. as a rule without concordance to which faith could not be acknowledged for every doctrine must be consonant to its rule whether that rule be true or false certaine or uncertaine The 3. as a setled principle and a booke knowne to be Canonicall TO all this I shall answer as briefly as I can First to the 1 Sect. That for the matter of fact which concernes this treatise I have already averred those truths that will not permit any reasonable man to believe that this was so indeed a first draught c. for it was confest by him Chap. 1. to be a second draught Secondly it was not sent out onely to explore c. for it was saith he delivered but to two adversaries and to one of them as I said before it was delivered as unanswerable Thirdly if there were any such designe of exploring and mending c. I must conceive that that work is now done for when it was sent home to me againe with these notes many places which I had charged were altered or taken away and for additions sure such were the marginall notes and this appendage Fourthly For the license I can say nothing but that I conceive it might as easily be gotten as to what you have already made publique if you had a minde to it nor indeed force you to acknowledge or vouch any line of this booke but onely tell you that those words in your first Chapter of complaint That there was no notice given of license for it be published and have the advantage to be dispersed abroad in many copies and that for want of the Printers helpe it shall lie concealed and in much restraint yea and be in danger to perish seemed to me to signifie your willingnesse then to make it publique and if you have since retracted that designe I hope so weake an answer as some of your friends boast this to be did not discourage you I shall rather thinke it was modesty or else designe that you chose rather to have disclaimed then commended your owne and thought it would appear more glorious for you to have it extorted
from you or if it should prove lesse splendid yet more tolerable to have beene ravisht from you then prostituted To the second Sect. I answer that you had said that before in annot to the concl A. And the answer there belongs to this Sect. and if you had made good what you say was your drift you should be pronounced conquerour To the third Sect. You have taken a good course to defend infallibility by setting up for it your selfe and affirming that no reply can be made to you in that matter because it depends onely upon your judgement which none can know but whom you tell it But good Sir your Authors do tell us that there is nothing infallible but the Church and when they have done so we may know your outward acts for such are your writings though your inward we pretend not to pry into To Sect. 4. I answer that one argument of his Lordships taken from your affirmed fallibility of Reason Scripture and Antiquity is most prodigiously by you call'd three pillars And how Sampson-like you have broken them downe the Reader must judge if you are so confident I have here exprest my selfe your servant by helping you to a publique tryall To Sect. 5. I acknowledge that from your owne confession I make those three arguments that neither Reason Scripture nor Antiquity can infallibly prove your Church to be infallible And To the Sect. 6. I say that the want of infallibility in those three mentioned Sect. 6. and by you confest is sufficient to prove his Lordships conclusion that they cannot infallibly prove your infallibility and this is the same that was meant by his Lordship though more explicated by me and brought home against you by way of retortion and Argument ad hominem upon your own confession And so your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was sung much too early and you must to your taske again if you will make an end of it To Sect. 7. I answer that if you had shewed the revelation on which reason inferres your infallibility your section had stood good but the totall want of that is your maine impediment To Sect. 8. Be you also pleased to produce your consent of Antiquity certainly expounding Scripture to inferre your infallibility and that shall be yielded you also but I conceive those writers of yours have not done it and whensoever you please I shall be ready to examine their testimonies with you To Sect. 9. I answer That we have allowed a sence wherein the Church universall may be stiled infallible and that to save my selfe the paines of examining your testimonies though some without examining I know to be ill cited I shall grant it in that sence to be so But then to your second proposition be it either I deny that they teach not or I affirme that it holds it matter 's little that the Roman Church is the true Church I answ That if there be emphasis in the particle the in the praedicate so that it signifie the Catholick Church in the former proposition 't is then absolutely false that the Fathers say any such thing And you are prudent to cite none to that ridiculous purpose But if you meane that the Roman Church is a true Church so you doe not meane that all it saith is true as we grant that so we challenge you to prove that ever the ancient Church thought any such particular Church of one denomination to be infallible When you please to produce your testimonies you shall receive answer to them To Sect. 10. Concerning the motives of Faith You might have spared that paines it being not at all concluded by you here or before that that infallibility is built on the same grounds with Christanity To Sect. 11. If you had never such solid reasons to perswade you that your Church had the truth as I should not need to deny were it not for your denying the cup to the Laity against Scripture and your keeping the Scripture in an unknowne tongue and some other such defects in faciendis but rather charge you that you have more then the truth viz. many errours mixt with the truth this would prove but a very weake probation that your Church is the true Church in the exclusive notion i. e. that no other is the Church but that for having the truth doth not signifie a Monopoly or inclosure of it or that no body else can have it And if by the true Church you meane no more but a true part you know we doe not question it nor affirme that your errors though many have turn'd you in non Ecclesiam into a no Church As for your Concordance with the Fathers which you say you have I answere that in those things wherein you and we consent we shall not be unwilling to grant it to you but yet must remember you that you would not allow that to be a proofe of your being infallible but in those other which we call errors in you we challenge you to produce an universall Concordance You goe on that you proue your Church by no other way then Christianity is perswaded unto Infidels I hope your meaning is that you prove your Church to be a true Church and that shall be granted you without your proofe but that it is the only true one or the infallible one I hope you have not miracles for that if you have you have trifled away a great deale of time in not telling us of them nor revelation from Heaven nor universall tradition to assure you what you affirme so confidently that the Infallibility of your Church is the whole frame of Christianity And therefore what you learnedly adde about the verba signorum or signa realia signes and ostensions c. by which you go about to prove Christianity I must professe to edifie me but little in point of the infallibility of your Church because that is so distant a thing from it To Sect. 12. Your affirmation that the true Catholique Religion is the true Christianity if that be the onely thing you aime at shall be willingly granted you all the question will be whether all your doctrines that of denying the cup to the Laity c. be that Catholique Religion And sure to him that questions that all the characterismes c. all your Propheticall predidictions will give but little satisfaction and no more will the excellency of Faith perfection of heroick actions of professors nor the conveyance from age to age by the Prime Ecclesiasticall succession of Pastors in the Sea of Rome because that of the sub unicâ specie c. which we quarrell at in you might as well be pretended to have testimonies out of the present Articles of our Church as out of these If there be any of these evidences or moreover of Reason Scripture Antiquity on your side for such controverted particulars I beseech you let them be produced or else you may be Christians but yet corrupt in these particulars your being