emptynesse of these Papers and more then so to render a reason of it viz the fate which they were under by a necessity of attending this Apologist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yeilded them occasion of little variety unlesse they would extravagate Yet could he not resist the Reasons which charged it on him as a duty thus confidently to importune the Reader with the view of the whole matter as farre as it hath past between them setting downe that Answer to and this Vindication of his Lordships Arguments by Chapters and then not doe him the least injustice adding in the end of all the Answerers marginall Replyes and that concluding Sheet that even now was mentioned with a Rejoynder to that also By all this endeavouring to lay grounds for all men to judge how little truth there is in that so Epidemicall perswasion that there is no middle betwixt asserting an Infallible Judge and the falling headlong into all the Schismes and Haeresies of this present age My Conscience assuring me that the grounds on which the establish'd Church of England is founded are of so rare an excellent mixture that as none but intelligent truely Christian minds can sufficiently value the composition so there is no other in Europe so likely to preserve Peace and Unity if what prudent Lawes had so long agoe designed they now were able to uphold For want of which and which onely it is that at present the whole Fabricke lyes polluted in confusion and in blood and hopes not for any binding up of wounds for restauration of any thing that lookes like Christian till the faith of the reformed English have the happinesse to be weighed prudently and the military Sword being timely sheathed the Power and Lawes of Peace be returned into those hands which are ordained by GOD the Defenders of it H. H. Of the INFALLIBILITY of the CHURCH of ROME A Discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND Section 1 TO him that doubts whether the Church of Rome have any errors they answer that She hath none for She never can have any This being so much harder to believe than the first had need be proved by some certaine arguments if they expect that the belief of this one should draw on whatsoever else they please to propose Yet this is offered to be proved by no better wayes than those by which we offer to prove she hath erred Which are arguments from Scripture Reason and Antient Writers all which they say themselves are fallible for nothing is not so but the Church which if it be the onely infallible determination and that can never be believed upon its owne authority we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible for these other waies of proof they say may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to believe them Section 2 If they say that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine faith why are they so offended with the Protestants for believing every part of their Religion upon that ground upon which they build all theirs at once and if following the same Rule with equall desire of finding the truth by it having neither of those qualities which Isidorus Pelusiota sayes are the causes of all Heresies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pride and prejudication why should God be more offended with the one than the other though they chance to erre Section 3 They say the Church is therefore made infallible by God that all men may have some certain Guide yet though it be infallible unlesse it both plainly appeare to be so for it is not certaine to whom it doth not appeare certaine and unlesse it be manifest which is the Church God hath not attained his end and it were to set a Ladder to Heaven and seem to have a great care of my going up whereas unlesse there be care taken that I may know this Ladder is here to that purpose it were as good for me it had never been set Section 4 If they say we may know it for that generall and constant Tradition instructs us in it I answer that ignorant people cannot know this and so it can be no Rule for them and if learned people mistake in this there can be no condemnation for them For suppose to know whether the Church of Rome may erre as a way which will conclude against her but not for her for if She hath erred certainly She may but though She hath not erred hitherto it followes not that She cannot erre I seeke whether She have erred and conceiving She hath contradicted her selfe conclude necessarily She hath erred I suppose it not damnable though I erre in my judgement because I trie the Church by one of those touch-stones her self appoints me which is Conformity with the Antient. For to say I am to believe the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seem to me to doe so is to send me to a Witnesse and bid me not believe it Section 5 Now to say the Church is provided for a Guide of faith but must be known by such marks as the ignorant cannot seek it by and the learned may chance not to find it by though seeking it with all diligence and without all prejudice can no way satisfie me Section 6 If they say God will reveal the truth to whosoever seeks it in these wayes sincerely this saying both sides will without meanes of being confuted make use of therefore it would be as good that neither did Section 7 When they have proved the Church to be infallible yet to my understanding they have proceeded nothing farther unlesse we can be sure which is it for it signifies onely that God will alwaies have a Church which shall not erre but not that such or such a Succession shall be alwaies in the right not that the Bishop of such a place and the Clergy that adheres to him shall alwaies continue in the true faith So that if they say the Greek Church is not the Church because by its owne confession it is not infallible I answer that it may be now the Church and may hereafter erre and so not be now infallible and yet the Church never erre because before their fall from truth others may arise to maintain it who then will be the Church and so the Church may still be infallible though not in respect of any set persons whom we may know at all times for our Guide Section 8 Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church and not the Greeke because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquity they run into a circle proving their tenets to be true first because the Church holds them and then theirs to be the true Church because it holds the truth which last though it appeare to me the onely way yet it takes away it's being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing Section
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
as sinnes and that I hope belongs to all Christians for we are not under the Law but under grace Ib. C. And why so Answ I had before given you the reason viz because your discourse hath tended to inferre the one and not the other C. 14. Answ to C. 14. A. No man can binde another under paine of Anathema to beleive as he defines unlesse his definition be certaine Answ There was here very little occasion for this note For the businesse of Anathema's I had sufficiently restrained First by limiting them onely to excommunications as an act of Ecclesiasticall discipline upon the refractary and therefore Secondly not for matter of simple beleiving or disbeleiving but Thirdly for matter of disobedience to our lawfull Superiours and that disobedience againe not in refusing to submit our understandings but our wils and our consequent actions and Fourthly all this with stubbornenesse and perversenesse after the using of all milder courses And with these and the like limitations there will be no more difficulty to say an Ecclesiasticall Magistrate may excommunicate a disobedient refractary perverse Gain-sayer without undertaking to be infallible then to say a civill Magistrate may punish a Malefactour without being inerrable And therefore when you talke of binding to believe under paine of Anathema there is some mistake in that or if there were not yet Truth if it were on grounds of Scripture believed to be so would be as sufficient a foundation of so doing as the infallibâ—lity of the Judge For not onely every truth is in it selfe as certaine as that which is infallible every matter of fact that is so is as certainly true as any demonstration in Euclide and he that speakes it speakes as certainly true as if he did demonstrate yet is not in other things infallible for all that but he that beleives it with a full assent hath as little doubt of that truth as if it were before his eyes yet doth it not fide cui non potest subesse falsum on any supposition of its infallibility by which meanes though he pretends not to infallibility yet having no degree of doubt he hath that on which he will confidently build any action and even lay downe his life for such truths if they be of weight which if it be not ground enough to proceed on to an Ecclesiasticall censure against the stubborn and perverse you are very mercifully disposed and I will not provoke you out of it but rather give you my suffrage that no man be thus censured for matter of opinion but upon that light which is clearely deducible from the Scripture or universall tradition and then I shall confesse my sense that to anathematize men for any matter of doctrine of any lower alloy is though not formally yet interpretativè a kinde of pretending to infallibility usurping as much as if men were infallible which they that have the spirit but by measure should have so much humility in themselves and charity toward others as not to be guiltie of Ibid B. The sword preserves not inward unity nor satisfies the minde Answ I had no occasion to say it did I was speaking as your answer called me to it of discipline and unity or such unity as discipline produced which is outward unity as opposed to division and Shisme and yet let me tell you it were not unpossible to extend my speech to inward unity and satisfying of the minde For suppose a particular Church to have sufficient meanes to worke in the hearts of her sonnes this inward unity viz. by setting up the authority of Scripture as it is interpreted by the Fathers and receiving with due respect and obedience all Apostolicall Traditions These if duely revered by all Sonnes and Subjects would be able to keepe all of one minde in all matters of Faith and for lower points some kinde of liberty being allowed would preserve Charity as well and then while that Church were in this happie temper you may farther suppose the sword of violence to come in and disturbe all wresting out of her hands the use and exercise of those meanes and beating downe the authoritie and taking away the reputation of them And then in the case thus set you will surely grant that the rightfull sword if it might be so prosperous as to vanquish the disturber and restore what was thus violently taken away may prove no improbable meanes of preserving even inward unity in this sence and if you marke it we spake it not in any other And yet once more if we had we might have beene justified perhaps in our saying For Heresie being a piece of carnality in the Apostles judgement 't is possible that the outward smart that comes from the exercise of the power of the sword i. e. from temporall punishments may cure that disease and perswade them who instead of pleasure from their heresie reap nothing but paine and sorrow to make better provision for their owne flesh and blood and thinke of hearing that reason to which other honest mens eares are open and then that may produce inward unity also and these mens minds may be sufficiently satisfied with that truth coming thus to them tempore congruo at a fit season of working which at another time had beene rejected You see how little reason you had for that annotation C. 15. Answ to C. 15. A. Chillingworth saith it in termes and him also I desired to answer Answ Can you thinke this faire dealing His Lordship I made appeare from his words said it not And you cannot say he did But I hil say you did say it What is that to his Lordship or to me who undertake onely to vindicate his Lordship and had not that rich harvest of leasure to thinke fit to be retained any more in other mens causes on such joylesse termes as these in which rather then I would adventure to be engaged I should be content to be thought to have no degree of kindnesse to him especially hearing that you had three great volumes prepared against Master Chill But then I pray what is the meaning of him also I desired to answer Can you thinke fit to impose a thing on his Lordship which was said onely by Master Chillingworth and when you were disproved thinke you had still confuted Master Chillingworth also when you had only falsified not confuted his Lordship Sure Sir this is not faire Ib. B. I know very well this was objected by both of them and this I desired to answer whether it were in their bookes or no. Answ Here is more of the same streine But I did conceive by your title that you had confuted his Lordships tract that was published not any unwritten discourses which we have no way of knowing whether they past or no I am sure were not undertaken by me to be vindicated I never resolved to justifie all that you could say either of them said and I might be forced to be uncivill with you if I should enter any
9 Nay suppose they had evinced that some succession were infallible and so had proved to a learned man that the Roman Church must be this because none else pretends to it yet this can be no sufficient ground to the ignorant who cannot have any infallible foundation for their beliefe that the Church of Greece pretends not to the same and even to the Learned it is but an accidentall argument because if any other company had likewise claimed to be infallible it had overthrowne all so proved Section 10 Nay it is but an arbitrary Argument and depends upon the pleasure of the adversary for if any society of Christians would pretend to it the Church of Rome could make use of it no longer Section 11 The chiefest reason why they disallow of the Scripture for Judge is because when differences arise about the interpretation there is no way to end them and that it will not stand with the goodnesse of God to damne men for not following his will if he had assigned no infallible way how to find it I confesse this to be wonderfull true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let them excuse themselves that think otherwise Yet this will be no argument against him who believes that to all who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures and search for Tradition God will either give his grace for assistance to find the truth or his pardon if they misse it and then this supposed necessity of an infallible Guide with this supposed damnation for want of it fall together to the ground Section 12 If they command us to believe infallibly the contrary to this they are to prove it false by some infallible way for the conclusion must be of the same nature and not conclude more then the premisses set downe now such a way Scripture and Reason or infused faith cannot be for they use to object the fallibility of them to those that build their Religion upon them nor the Authority of the Church for that is part of the question and must be it selfe first proved and that by none of the former waies for the former reasons Section 13 The Popes infallibility can be no infallible ground of faith being it selfe no necessary part of the faith we can be no surer of any thing proved then we are of that which proves it and if he be fallible no part is the more infallible for his sideing with them So if the Church be divided I have no way to know which is the true Church but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquity and so judging accordingly But this is not to submit my selfe to her opinions as my guide which they tell us is necessary Which course if they approve not of as a fit one for a Learned man they are in a worse case for the ignorant who can take no course at all nor is the better at all for this Guide the Church whilest two parts dispute which is it and that by arguments he understands not Section 14 If I granted the Pope or a Counsell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their Decrees can be no sufficient ground by their owne axiomes of Divine faith For first say the most No Councell is valid not approved by the Pope for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum a Pope chosen by Symony is ipso facto no Pope I can then have no certainer ground for the infallibility of those Decrees and consequently for my beleife of them then I have that the choice of him was neither directly nor indirectly Symoniacall which to be certain of is absolutely impossible Section 15 Secondly suppose him Pope and to have confirmed the Decrees yet that these are the Decrees of a Councell or that he hath confirmed them I can have but an uncontradicted attestation of many men for if another Councell should declare these to have been the Acts of a former Councell I should need againe some certaine way of knowing how this declaration is a Councells which is no ground say they of faith I am sure not so good and generall a one as that Tradition by which we prove that the Scripture is Scripture which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them Section 16 Thirdly for the sence of their Decrees I can have no better expounder to follow then Reason which if though I mistake I shall not be damned for following why shall I for mistaking the sence of Scripture Or why am I a lesse fit interpreter of one then of the other where both seeme equally cleare And where they seem so I meane equally cleare and yet contradictory shall I not as soon believe Scripture which is without doubt of at least as great authority Section 17 But I doubt whether Councells be fit deciders of Questions for such they cannot be if they beget more and men have cause to be in greater doubts afterwards none of the former being diminished then they were at first Section 18 Now I conceive there arise so many out of this way that the Learned cannot end all nor the Ignorant know all As besides the forenamed considerations Who is to call them the Pope or Kings Who are to have voices in them Bishops only or Priests also Whether the Pope or Councell be Superiour and the last need the approbation of the first debated among themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines to great a part of Christianity and not resolvedly condemned by them for Heretiques were absent at the Councell of Trent make it not generall Whether if it be one not every where received as when the Bishops sent from some places have exceeded their Commission as in the Councell of Florence it be yet of necessity to be subscribed to Whether there were any surreption used or force and Whether those disanull the Acts Whether the most voyces are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all are required as Canus saith All the Councell cannot erre the most may which never yet agreed or Whether two parts will serve as in the Tridentine Synode a considerable doubt because Nicephorus Callistus relateing the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes them give three reasons One That the Bishop of Rome was not present The second That most did not agree to it Thirdly That others thither gathered were displeased at their resolutions which proves that in their opinions if either most not present agree not to it or all present be not pleased with it a Councell hath no power to bind All these doubts I say perswade me that whatsoever brings with it so many new questions can be no fit ender of the old Section 19 In those things in which before a Generall Councell have defined it is lawfull to hold either way and damnable to doe so after I desire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church to define
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
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
time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the disease that first setled in the head easily passed through all the body considering how apt all men are to desire that all men should think as they doe and consequently to lay a necessity upon thee reciving that opinion if they conceived that a way to have it received And then if it were beleeved generally profitable as for example Confession who would be apt to oppose their calling it necessary for the same cause for which they called it so Besides if this errour were delivered by some Father in the hot opposition of some Heretique it may be none of his side would oppose it lest they might take advantage by their dissention and he that disputed for the Orthodox side might lose by it much of his authority Section 45 The word necessary it selfe is often used for very convenient and then from necessary in that sense to absolutely necessary is no difficult change though it be a great one The Fathers use Heretiques sometimes in a large sense and sometimes in a stricter and so differ in the reckoning them up Some leaving out those that others put in though they had seene the precedent Catalogue The doubtfulnesse of the sense of those words might bring in errour Names as an Altar Sacrifice Masse may have been used first in one sense and the name retained though the thing signified received change which may have been the art of the Church of Rome as it was once of an Emperour of Rome Cui proprium fuit nuper reperta I leave out Sâ—â—lera priscis verbis obtegere whose property it was to cover things newly found out with ancient tearmes And the same Author tells us that the same State was as it were cheated out of her liberty because there did remaine Eadem Magistratuum vocabula The same titles of Magistrates and I believe that if the Protestants beyond the Seas would have thought Bishops as good a word as Superintendents and so in other such things many who understand nothing but names would have missed the Scandall they have now taken Section 46 These waies I thinke things may have come without much opposition from being thought profitable to be done and probable to be believed to be thought necessary to be both and how many things little by little may have been received under old names which would not have been so at once under new ones the first of these being no such small fault but that part of the Montanists heresie was thinking uncommanded fasting-daies necessary to be observed which without doubt might lawfully have been kept Section 47 But my maine answer is that if for an opinion to be in the Church without known precedent opposition be a certain note of being received from the beginning let them answer how came in the opinion of the Chiliasts not contradicted till two hundred years after it came in Section 48 To conclude if they can prove that the Scripture may be a certainer teacher of truths to them then to us so that they may conclude the infallibility of the Church out of it and we nothing If they can prove the Churches infallibility to be a sufficient Guide for him that doubts Which is the Church and cannot examine that for want of learning by her chiefe marke which is conformity with the Ancient If they can prove that the consent of Fathers long together if they had it is a stronger argument against us then against rhe Dominicans If they can prove that though the first of them affirme that such a thing is Tradition and believed by all Christians and this assertion till a great while after uncontradicted yet they are not bound to receive it and upon lesse grounds we are if indeed any can prove by any infallible way the infallibility of the Church of Rome and the necessity under paine of damnation for all men to believe it which were the more strange because Justin Martyr and Clemens Alexandrinus among the Ancients and Erasmus and Ludovicus Vives among the Modernes beleive some Pagans to be saved I will subscribe to it And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section 49 If any man shall vouchsafe to think either this or the Author of it of value enough to confute the one and enforme the other I shall desire him to doe it with proceeding to the businesse and not standing upon any small slip of mine of which sort this may be full and with that Civility which is fit to be used by men that are not so passionate as to have the definition of reasonable Creatures in vaine remembring that truth in likelyhood is where her Author God was in the still voice and not in the loud winde And that Epiphanius excuseth himselfe if he have called any Heretiques in his anger Deceivers or Wretches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I request him also to bring me to the Truth if I be out of it not only by his Arguments but also by his Prayers which wayes if he use and I still continue on the part I am of and yet doe neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither am wilfully blind nor deny impudently what I see then I am confident that neither he will have reason to be offended with me in this world nor God in the Next FALKLAND A view of the Exceptions which have been made by a Romanist to the Lord Viscount Falkland's Discourse Of the Infallibility of the Church of ROME SEPTEMB 11. 1645. THis day there came to my hands A Treatise Apologeticall touching the Infallibility of the Church Catholique in answer to another of the like argument lately published And although I have no temptation to spend any more time upon it then a single reading hath cost me nor to think it so dangerous a piece that I should not venture it abroad with the weakest sonnes of my mother without an appendant antidote or defensative against the poison of it especially being not obliged in any other notion then that of the respect I beare to the honour and memory of that noble Lord to vindicate his discourse from the exceptions here offer'd yet being not sure that I can excuse the so excessive thrift of a few houres which yet I could very gladly otherwise employ then in drawing one end of a saw in a controversie of this nature I shall give the Author of the exceptions or Apology in as few words as is possible the reasons why I am not moved by them much lesse perswaded that they are so extraordinarily lucky as to give as is pretended full answer to all that Master Chillingworth's large Book hath superstructed on this foundation And this I shall doe in such a manner that it may appeare that I desire onely to satisfie his reason and not make him payment of his scoffes or triumphs in that spirit of meeknesse which is proper for the restoring of one overtaken in an errour hoping in charity that he is such
lesse prove that he had so is there not added by you any other or indeed any tittle of answer to what is brought by his Lordship out of Irenaeus Section 15 His Lordship saith also in this Paragraph that they that were after against the Millenaries never quoted any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived 250 yeares after Christ this indeed sounds somewhat toward concluding that that was the doctrine of the first age not opposed by any prime Doctor and might be worth your pains in answering too but you endeavour not that neither but would make it improbable that if it were so generall a doctrine Dionysius should dare to oppose it This is very ill arguing against a matter of fact to aske how could or durst he there is nothing done so many yeares since but some probability may by a witty man be brought against it I confesse I acknowledge my opinion that there were in that age men otherwise minded as out of Justin it appeared and his Lordship saith nothing to the contrary out of any other evidences no more then we made it cleare he did out of Justin all that he saith is that Papias had gotten the Prime Doctours into the beleife of it and that no one of those two first ages opposed it that is wrote or interposed in any considerable manner against it Section 16 And if I were apt to change my opinion in this matter on easy tearmes I should goe neare to doe it upon the view of your proofe of the contrary so exceeding feeble and weake is it For supposing all the eminent men for those ages had beene for it upon the strength of some places of Scripture and Papias his report from Saint John it would not yet be very difficult for a learned man Dionysius Alexandrinus when no act of Councell had interposed or bound up that doctrine in the degree that he thought that those places of Scripture were misunderstood and that Papias had abused them in the same degree I say to declare his opinion and the grounds of it and never force or straine his owne conscience or incurre the blame of heresy by so doing Section 17 For what thinke you of another opinion that Irenaeus tooke up just upon the same tearmes of Christs being betwixt 40 and 50 yeares old for which he vouched Scripture as he did for tother and the authority of omnes seniores larger then Presbytery in tother testantur qui in Asia apud Johannem discipulum Domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis Johannem c. All the Elders witnesse it that were in Asia with John that he delivered it to them qui alios Apostolos viderunt haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt testantur de ejusmodi relatione they that saw the other Apostles heard the same of them and beare witnesse of such a relation This is as high an expression of Apostolicall Tradition if we will beleive Irenaeus as universally testified to be so as any could be thought to be And yet sure you would not thinke it a sinne against Conscience or obnoxious to the censure of Heresy for any man of meaner parts and authority then Dionysius Alexandrinus to have opposed this phansy and profest his opinion to the contrary you must know that there was not that perfect yoke of tyranny gone out upon all mens necks as now your infallible Church doth glory of that no man must oppose any the meanest assertion or opinion of the Doctours of the Church though not at all defied but presently he must be an Hereticke at least divinity was not turn'd into such an art that it must receive no grouth or sensible change but all goe on in the same tracke beleive nor understand no more in Scripture then the present Church understands and so in effect have all their skill in tongues and fathers and even their judicative faculty as so many unprofitable burthens upon them that must not be made use of to the discovery of an errour to the helping of the world to more light reforming any thing that is amisse in it Section 18 This which is one of the greatest moderne crimes in Christianity was not so ancient as those purer daies wherein life was as censurable as now false opinions I meane such as though supposed false are yet perfectly extrinsecall to the anology of faith wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impiety and piety divided the Church into erroneous and true members and teaching of opinions not before embraced so it were not with pride or judging of others could be well enough endured And so according to the old rule of distingue tempora doe but consider how distant those times are from these amongst you on one side and your opposite extreame that runne from you so farre till they meet you againe at the Antipodes on the other and you will give Dionysius Alexandrinus leave to dare oppose that doctrine of the Chiliasts though it had more generally then it did prevailed amongst them Section 19 Another argument you have against the generall reception of that doctrine that 't is probable Saint Dionysius the Areopagite opposed it I wonder one that asserts an infallible Church should deale so mightily in probabilities just as if a profound Geometer should use but Topicall arguments Now to see how you prove this probability 'T is proved by the workes now extant bearing his name What workes those are and how improbable to be his I could give you a large account by some hints which I remember Photius in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 helpt me to but I shall satisfie my selfe onely with answering your argument out of Philoponus briefely thus That in the places by you cited he mentions onely an Epistle of Dionysius to Polycarpus in which you know or may know there is no word of the Chiliasts and then that will be a very aliene testimony and very unable to countenance the bulke of those bookes under Dionysius his name which may all be spurious and in them the testimonies against the Chiliasts though that letter should be canonicall and now see I pray what your probability is come to Section 20 For your discourse about the Quartodecimani I will not divine how it came in here but am sure it hath no right to be taken notice of by me his Lordship having not said one word of them nor of any friend of theirs whose interests lye common with them and therefore shall I returne no word to that part of your discourse till you shew how I am obliged to it Section 21 What his Lordship saith out of Salvian you confesse to be true but see not what it makes against Tradition If you be not modest in concealing your knowlekge in this matter but really ignorant I shall then tell you His Lordship proves by this that the Church that suffers Salvian to be a member of it while he refuses to passe sentence of condemnation upon
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
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
please to give over this course of denying conclusions and not considering premises I will soone obey your advise and resolve to leave off contending Ibid. B. Our Authours have proved all that we in defending doe affirme and if the Enquirer had impugned their proofes we then would have tryed to defend wherefore that which we affirme and declare doth not rest upon a bare affirmation although I prove them not in this place as being here a meere Defendant and not an Arguer Answ This annotation being upon the same occasion and in substance the same with the former is already answered Onely I shall adde that if you affirme ought which your Authours in other Bookes bring proofe for this will not excuse you from a necessity of answering his Lordships arguments against that conclusion of your Authors or if it doe you must not passe for a Defendant His part it is to ward the Adversaries blowes and if he make a thrust himselfe he then turnes Offendent or Arguer and when he doth so he must take care his weapon have some edge I meane his affirmations some proofes annext or else they will wound no body As for the Enquirer i. e. his Lordship it was not his present taske to descend to an enumeration and impugning of all your Authours arguments though yet those which he could thinke of as your chiefe he hath insisted on and were he alive he would from your dealing here have little encouragement to seek out for others his intention was to frame arguments against your conclusion and if you had denied or answered them you needed not to have troubled your self to affirme any thing or if out of designe or ex abundanti you will you must be content to be call'd upon to prove it For call your selfe what you please you must be an Arguer when you so affirme Ibid. C. Yes sure by consequence it is Answ I am forced to aske your pardon if I know not certainly to what part of my discourse this Annotation belongs whether to the end of one period or the beginning of the other Yet it falls out luckily that which soever it is it is againe the denying the conclusion which you are very subject to for the end of the former period is the mention of a conclusion deduced from grounds immediately before specified And the beginning of the second period is a negation of mine with proofe immediately following it and before I come to the proofe For though c. you presently interpose your Yes sure by consequence it is but will not consider me so much as after my example to give the least proofe for what you say or take notice of that proof of mine C. 7. Answ to C. 7. A. I make no distinction here but suppose it made and also manifest Answ I only said you had given a distinction not made it and that supposed it made also and I then conteined my selfe from taking any exceptions to it onely I told you the applying of it to that place would have afforded some game if I had been so sportingly disposed And to that I pray consider how pertinent your Annotation hath proved I will not be provoked to adde more Ibid. B. Your part was to have confuted what I say and not so often and to no purpose repeat this Petitio Principii Answ If it be a sufficient confutation of any Sophister to finde out and tell him of his sophisme which ipso facto is worth nothing when 't is discovered as the title of Aristotles Booke of Elenchs supposes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being defined by Varinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a discovery of that which was hid and 't is manifest by comparing 1 Cor. 14.24 with v. 25. Eph. 5.13 then have I obeyed you in confuting what you say though I take not your advice for the way of it And indeed if it should be in any Duellers power to prescribe to his Adversary when he is in his danger that he shall not wound him this way but some other or if it were regular for you to forbid me to tell you of a Petitio principii when you are clearly guilty of it and when to evidence that against you is not onely the shortest but most logicall most expedite and most clear way of redargution your Adversary might be weary of playing out the prize though he were sure to conquer in it I shewed you that an Answerer might so carry the matter as to be guilty of Petitio principii and 't was but passion in you to check or tell me 't was to no purpose that I said you were so C. 8. Answ to C. 8. A. We have done it and doe it continually when occasion requires Answ I beseech you read over those lines of mine to which your Annotation is affixt and speak your conscience whether you think 't was fitly noted If you can be so partiall to your own creature I will not contend with you but onely tell you that as I conceive it impertinent so I see apparently that 't is contrary to that other speech of yours which within three lines I there recited from you For if you doe it continually i. e. prove the Roman Church to be the true by its agreement with Scripture c. as here your Annotation saith you doe how could you say his Lordship was mistaken in supposing you did so I wish you had first read out to the end of the period and then I suppose you would have fitted your Annotation to it the better Ibid. B. I doe not disclaime Scripture though I doe not hold it to be the first or formost proof either of the Church or of Christian Religion and would know how you your selfe would convert an Infidell or Atheist by Scripture beginning with that proof Answ You must againe remember what my last Answer mentions that in that place when his Lordship had supposed you to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church by its agreement with Scriptures and antiquity which is in effect by holding the truth you plainly tell him he is mistaken in you On this ground I must conclude and thinke it proved by that confession that you doe disclaime Scripture as farre as I said you did i. e. not to all purposes but to that of which the discourse was viz to prove your Church to be the true Church And 't is not enough to say that you doe not hold it to be the first or formost proofe c. For if it be used by you as any proofe at all that will also be a very probable meanes besides that it makes it evident that his Lordship was not mistaken in supposing it so to bring you into the circle which you were so carefull to avoid You see I am cleare from your Animadversion and so have no occasion to enter into that new controversie whether the Scripture be the formost proof either of the Church or of the Christian Religion though sure it may be
such debate with you Ib. C. Neither Arius Nestorius nor others could peep out for saying any thing against the doctrine received How then could this Dionysius have escaped if he had adventured any thing against all the Orthodox Answ You are very much given in stead of answering Reasons to deny Conclusions and if that were backt with Reason 't were yet very improper for a Respondent which you told us was your office at this time But then secondly in this matter you know that neither I nor his Lordship have said that all the Orthodox were for the Millennium And yet thirdly if they had yet the denying the Millennium being a more tolerable opinion than those other of Arius and Dionysius's opposition of the Chiliasts might passe more unresisted than Arius or Nestorius could doe Ib. D. Photius tells us there were Answers given though he recites them not and Schottus in his Notes hath resolved them Answ I will not take the paines to see or examine whether Photius say there were Answers If he recites them not I shall not be much moved with such blanke Papers The truth is this hath been the way to satisfie the hardest Arguments that ever were brought and confuting whole Books at once by having it given out that they are confuted or that Answers are made to them when what those answers are is not so much as intimated this is a very cheap way of confutations As for Schottus's Solutions if he have any they prevaile little with us I am sure they will not conclude that Photius foresaw or would have counted them of any moment to alter his opinion which was the onely thing I there had occasion to take notice of Ib. E. Though Philoponus cite but one Epistle yet elswhere he numbers him among the famous Doctors Basil Gregory c. thereby insinuating he had left workes as they had and not one single Epistle to Polycarpus This is but a conjecture but such both we and all must use in matters of fact and when we are to walke through darke passages of Antiquity Answ Sir you cited three places out of Philoponus to prove that Dionysius Arcopagita wrote those workes now extant bearing his name This testimony I told you would be nothing to your purpose unlesse it testified if not all those Bookes yet of some one wherein he wrote against the Chiliasts But this I shewed you was not done because those places mention nothing of his but an Epistle of Polycarpus and in that I advertized you there was nothing against the Chiliasts This it seems you cannot deny but being willing to say something say that elswhere Philoponus numbers him amongst the famous Doctours c. I have not now leasure to read over all Philoponus for that elswhere though I have reason to thinke that you that before cited the Chapters in Philoponus so punctually would have had the same charity to me again if it had suted w th your interests considering how little can be concluded from what you now cite out of him Dionys was numbred among the famous Doctors Basil Gregory c. doth it follow thence that all the workes now extant under his name were his or particularly that wherein he opposes the Chiliasts Nay would not a man rather conclude from that pretended testimony of Philoponus that the Authour under the name of Dionysius Arâ—op was some Writer about S. Basils or S. Gregories time with whom he is there consorted and that is somewhat later then Dionysius in the Scripture Nay if Philoponus really meant him would he not rather have given him the title of an Apostolicall Person than of a famous Doctor such as S. Basil c. As for the insinuation which you mention from this of Philoponus if it did conclude as you would have it that he left Workes as they did and not onely one single Epistle yet sure 't will not so much as once insinuate that they were the Works that we have under his name much lesse that peculiarly which opposes the Chiliasts least of all that 't was the Apostolicall Dionysius that really wrote all these But you confesse these but a conjecture and therefore sure 't will be a very weake prop to hold up infallibility especially when the conjecture if it should be supposed true would tell us that which we had not before been told from you that the Chiliasts doctrine was taught and so capable of being confuted so early as the Apostles times for with them this Dionysius lived You conclude that such conjectures as this you and all must use in matters of fact c. To which I answer that 't is possible you may be forced to it on supposition that you think your self obliged to vindicate your Churches Infallibility for 't is very possible there may be no better then such conjectures to sustaine it But believe me Sir I will never maintaine cause as long as God keeps me in my right wits which hath no better conjectures than these to sustaine it And for matters of fact so long agoe they are of all things in the World the unfittest to be believed upon such conjectures Because nothing but an authentick expresse witnesse can be ground of faith for such There is no matter of fact done yesterday but may if we will goe by conjectures I am sure as good and as probable as yours here be related 10000 waies for whatsoever may be some bold Affirmer may conjecture was and the more antient and more darke the passage was the more liberty there will be for such Conjecturers because the lesse possibility to confute any of them Ib. F. Salvian doth not refuse to condemne the Arian heresie but some of the Gothick Arians for it as men not guilty of the malice of it Answ If you looke againe you will find that both his Lordship and I say that Salvian refused to condemne the Arian Hereticks not heresie and this it seems you confesse with the restraint of Gothick Arians and this will serve our turnes perfectly and so we shall not quarrell about that but hope from your owne confession that he that is not willing to condemne all Protestants may escape as well as Salvian even in your censure C. 16. Answ to C. 16. A. The Councell of Constance doth not teach this viz that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks neither our Doctors hold it as Molanus Becanus Tannerus Layman Coeffecteau Coquaeus and others doe shew us Answ To teach is an equivocall word and may signifie to define by way of position or doctrine in universum In this sense I said it not nor doe now meane it of that Synod that they made any such determination that it should be unlawfull to keep faith with Hereticks or lawfull for any man in any case not to keep it But then to teach may signifie also to teach by example to lay grounds of doctrine for the justifying of such example And thus the Councell of Constance did teach it
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
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
a true Church will not pronounce you infallible your Church of Rome Primitive may have the truth and your Moderne Rome be filled with errors And therefore you may spare the paines of proving what we have no occasion at this time to deny that God engages his veracity to make good those things for which he gives us such rationall meanes of proofe to induce our assent For what ever else is your infallibility or your other errours for which we charge you are none of these things And if you mark it that which according to your discourse gives us such assurance of the truth of Christianity is the ostensions miracles publick acts of Gods providence not the Infallibility naturally inherent either in your Church or in any particular society of men nor the promise of God that any such society shall be infallible and visible to all that it is that infallible As for that which you covertly cast into the heape of the motives of Faith that 't was continued from age to age in the succession of Pastors in the chiefe seat that is no more a ground of the truth of Christanity then its succession in all other seats as I conceive you have your selfe let fall also The truth is the Preaching the Gospel over all the world and the reception in so great a part of it is an argument of the truth of Christianity among many others because it is the fulfilling of a Prophecy of their sounds going out into all Lands But this is farre from concluding the peculiar priviledge of infallibility of those who are under the Roman subjection By which 't is cleare that what you cite out of Irenaeus and Saint Aug. comes home no better to your point of infallibility then Aristotles Analytick principles which in the same place and elsewhere you cite also And therefore if all you say in that long Section were yeelded concerning the motives to Christianity and your way by bringing to the Church c. yet would you be as farre to seek as ever concerning your pretended infallibility To your 13. Sect. which is neerer indeed to your purpose I answere that being by your meanes brought to Christianity there is no need that I should find out any particular body of professors or Church of one denomination to which those motives to Christianity should so belong as to belong to no othey but that This sure I may better say without proofe then you have affirmed the contrary For doe you thinke it reasonable that Christianity being planted all the world over each man that is converted to it must finde out the Roman Bishop and those that are in subjection to him or not be accounted a Christian If he be borne at Jerusalem or converted there will it not serve his turne to communicate with that Church which hath given him Baptisme Was there any thing in his Creed could send him thither till the holy Catholick Roman Church was by mockery I conceive put in thither As for the line of succession of Ecclesiasticall Magistrates you must know that is to be found in other Christian Churches as well as in Rome and the Scriptures and Apostolicall verities descend downe to us in them also And what if in some passages of Antiquity the Sea of Rome should be found to be the Praetorian or Admirall in your stile i. e. the prime or principall Sea would this prove her infallible the Praetorian may spring a leake as well as any other and in case it should I doe not conceive that all other Ships of that fleet were bound to doe so too or else be counted fugitive because they are unwilling to run that unhappy fate of sinne or errour with her Sure if the Praetorian should casually or wilfully split upon a Rock you would not censure all others for Pyraticall that did not so too The reasons are visible why that Sea of Rome had the Primacy at some time and at other times other Seas put in their plea for it and if they obtained not yet was that an argument that it was never judged a matter of Faith because the Pretenders were not condemned for Haereticks even when it went not with them viz from the Imperiall Seat being placed in that City with which the Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might proportionably goe along just as your Praetorian is that ship where the Admirall resides or which peculiarly belongs to him But what is that to infallibility That honour which comes by sympathy with the Civill State is not like to be such a charme or amulet so to elevate above humane condition that it must presently set up for perfection Let your Church have all its due and customary respects but doe not so linke inerrablenesse with Principality unlesse you can bring some ground from Scripture for the union and because in all your Apology Annotations and Appendage you doe not so much as name any such I shall conceive you are too wise to claime by Tu es Petrus or any other so unconcluding an argument Believe me your prescription for some kinde of Principality from the possession of it continued to that Sea so many yeares is a better plea than any other and against that I am not now a disputing but onely adde that greatnesse saecular is no marke of infallibility As for your rule of judging by the Association with Rome which Assembly of Christians is legitimate which not that that is an infallible way of judging is not at all proved by your magnificent simile For first the fleet may be broken asunder by some tempest and so without any fault of any ship be divided from the Praetorian 2. The Praetorian may quarrell with all or any of the rest and by threats or bullets drive them from her and then if the cause be not just if it be for example upon no other crime but that the other ships judge it necessary to cast out some vessels or trumpery which they are resolved to be either uselesse or perhaps dangerous to the vessell and all the Passengers or againe because the rest of the ships are resolved to obey the commission that sent out the whole Fleet when the Praetorian was resolved to disobey it in this and the like cases 't is cleare that the Praetorian is the onely Schismatick Or if it be just yet the ships though confest guilty of that other crime or crimes which made that severity of the Praetorian just will yet not be guilty of a new crime of separation the reason is cleare because she is forced to that driven away and now ever since lies under it unwillingly 't is her infelicity not her crime her punishment not her fault Or if there be a fault in that viz That she doth not humbly confesse the fault and desire to be reconciled yet sure it will not be infinitely true that that is a fault when either she was guilty before of no fault but a pretended one
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
is a weaker ground then Catechismes as much as errours are more likely to get into the practice of the many then into the Bookes of the Learned or Authentique Writings of the Church and accordingly 't is observable in the particular of images that the common practice of men is much more grosse then the Writings of the Learned 't is impossible that that should ever be a guide quâ cundum which way we are to goe till it be some other way proved that we ought to goe that way Section 4 For the improbability of missing the See Apostolique and which be the Churches that live in communion with it we have no obligation lying on us to deny it his Lordship's words gave you no occasion to assert it nor can we see what at this time you can get by it when you acknowledge the Infallibility of Pope or Councell unnecessary to be knowne before any resolution of faith can be made Section 5 You adde and as for doctrine of beliefe c. This I should conceive you had spoken of before in those words what is to be believed and then your memory was short to put it in againe within five lines as if it had beene a new matter Section 6 I told you 't was not necessary after you had confessed the cause to insist on the matter of Simony which was an argument of his Lordships to defend it Yet that you may not complaine that any word of yours is neglected or lost upon us I have considered that also and aske you whether it be not true what his Lordship saith that a Pope chosen by Simony is ipso facto no Pope you durst not I conceive because you did not before deny it and if now you will take more courage let your minde be knowne and we shall not doubt to bring as Classicke Authors as your selfe against you If it be true then is your answer of no validity because of no truth for either that infallibility or whatever other power must be annex'd to him as a man which he may be indeed though he be not Pope or under some other relation which infallibly belongs to him neither of which I conceive you will affirme for then ten thousand to one some other will communicate with him in that claime or else he must be Pope when he is ipso facto no Pope or else that power must be annext to him by some body that may thinke him Pope when he is not and then either God must runne the errour or that power be given him from some other for that God should know him to be no Pope and yet give that power of Infallibility for if you speake of any other power it is not pertinent to him as long as he is peaceably received must First conclude that a no-pope may be infallible And Secondly that whosoever is so received by the Church is so which unlesse there be some promise of Gods to assure me that he hath promised it to the Churches blind reception will for ought I yet see conclude againe that either the chaire or the peoples errour gives him that prerogative Section 7 To the 15 and 16 Sections you reply no one word but referre it to your former answer whether if I knew which part of your answer it were for that immediately precedent I conceive 't is not for I hope the Simoniacall election hath nothing to doe with the decrees of Councels I should attend it but the scent being cold I am at a losse and so must be content to give over the game Section 8 Yet seeing I am on this matter of the Popes Infallibility because you have wholly avoided that question and by a kinde of stratagem diverted it and so not given me any occasion to defend his Lordship in that matter I shall a little consider the reader to whom I am much obliged if he shall have had patience to read thus farre i. e. to endure the penance of so much Nothing and give him a few collections of my owne to this purpose of the Popes infallibility not that I conceive they will from me finde any better entertainment then his Lordship's reasonings had done but because they are for the most part the concessions of your owne men from whence I here transcribe them Section 9 That the Pope is not onely fallible but even judicially subject to errour deviation defection and in Ocham's phrase haereticabilis to heresy apostacy Atheisme and in his practice to sinne of any the most hain us kinde and consequently to damnation irreversible I shall assert no farther then these honourable Names will avow and authorize me Among your owne Writers I meane Pontificians Lyra in Matth. 16. Waldensis l. 2. doctrin fidei antiq Gerson de exam doct consid 1 2 3. Adrianus Sextus the Pope in 4. sent de confirm qu. ult Driedo de libert Christ l. 2. c. 2. Cardin. de Turrecrem l. 2. c. 16. Almainus de author Eccles c. 8. ad 6. c. 10. de dom civ nat Eccl. concl 3. Archidiaconus Bononiensis in Grat. gloss in dist 19. contra Auxentium Catharinus in Gal. 2. Yea and the Councels of Constance and Basil and the Fathers generally there assembled which I hope tooke not up this doctrine from Luthers or Calvins dictates Section 10 To this purpose is it that we reade of Childebert King of France that he sent Ruffinus his Legate to Rome to enquire of Pelagius the Pope whether he had violated the Faith as Baronius testifies the same was suspected of him by the Bishop of Tuscia and other Bishops of Italy to whom he sent his Apologie saith the same Baronius So Gregory the first being under the like suspicion wrote his Apologie to Theodolinda Queene of the Longâ—bards So the Popes generally laboured to approve themselves to the Emperours and purged themselves before them Sixtus before Valentinian concerning the crime laid to his charge by Baessus Symmachus upon an accusation of forgery saith an Author in Goldastus all which are arguments that the Popes infallibility was in those daies unknowne to the world and the Popes themselves were not very perfect in it if they had they would have beene more confident then to have made Apologies Section 11 Farther yet the Bishops of Germany met at Brixia the Bishops of France at Mentz condemned the Pope for a disciple of Berengarius Or if the condemnations of such will not be of value against the Pope you gave reason even now leave to be the Judge and that and common sense may be so in this matter if you will but read the Epistle of Pope Zachary to Boniface è Cathedra a Papall and definitive rescript wherein he condemnes one Vergilius for an Hereticke for affirming that there were Antipodes which whether it were an errour in him I leave you to judge and professe my self to be of opinion that though it were 't was yet more tolerably discreet and pious then that of
universum yet it came to a debate whether the having Bishops was necessary or no On which soever it is it is enough to prove dissentions C. 26. Answ to C. 26. A. At least they might have been discerned as well as other errours were and the Authors of them also Answ This note being reduced to intelligible sence will I conceive be that the now Romish errours might have been discerned c. To which I answer that though they might yet First 't is possible that they might not Secondly very possible that being favoured if not brought in by those in authority among them they would not be branded or recorded for errours and then all that we their posterity can see may be onely that the tares are sowne but not punctually at what point of the night or who the man was that sowed them Ibid. B. No more for these then for other errours Answ His Lordship had occasion onely to speake of these but will say the like of all others whose originall is not discernible Ibid. C. In all ages errours were censured and condemned Answ All kinde of errours were not thought to be of such weight as that such heavy censures and condemnations which you lay on us should be fastened on them And therefore in case ours be not errours or but in materia non gravi in disputable parts as if you please to descend to particulars we will undertake to prove them those severe censures of yours being more contrary to charity may prove more dangerous to you then we shall otherwise affirme your opinions to be Ibid. D. I judge one of these two by the event and the other by the semblance of his making a search in manner as he ought Answ This is a darke speech which I doe not clearly understand if the meaning be that you judge the ill successe of his Lordships searches by the event and the fault of them by the semblance c. I must then tell you that the first is a very ill grounded judgement for no event hath proved the ilnesse of that successe unlesse like those in the Gospel you count them the greatest Sinners on whom the Tower of Siloah fell or like him of late that being willing to passe his opinion on a learned mans choice of a side in the differences in the Low Countries said onely this Illud notum est partes quas secutus non est praevaluisse si quis infelicitati hoc tribuat ego prudentiam non probo minus felicem and Busbequius tels us somewhat like of the Turkes judgments of good and bad enterprizes but rather on your owne principles I have already proved that they must be good in the successe which were so happy in proposing But then what you meane by the semblance of his making a search in manner as he ought by which you judge the fault in his searches I must confesse I doe not at all understand and therefore must be faine to confesse my selfe overcome and mastered though not by the reason yet by the obscurity of your writing and if that be a victory I wish you much good of it To the Conclusion A. I here contend no more but that our Church may be infallible notwithstanding any thing the Enquirer hath objected That she is so hath in due place been proved by others Answ If you had performed the former I meane satisfied all his Lordships arguments I should not require at this time the latter from you i. e. proving your Church to be Infallible I must then onely aske you in earnest whether you doe believe that no one of his Lordships arguments against your Infallibility for any one will serve our turne remaines unanswered by your Apology and then whether all that I have said to vindicate his Lordship be effectually answered in your marginall Notes and whether you can justifie all them against his last Reply If you are of this opinion in each I am to crave your pardon for this so gainlesse trouble but referre the matter to God and impartiall men to judge between us Ibid. B. If you would doe it we then would thinke it more than possible Answ The meaning of this annotation if it be sence must be this that if we Protestants could or would finde place in you for Scripture and Reason to make impression you Papists would then thinke it more then possible you might be deceived Which if it be the meaning I must then onely reply by prayer that God would so soften your hearts that they might be capable of that impression But if the words be indeed no sence but yet mistaken for some other words which would be sence then the likeliest thing that I can imagine is that you would have said somewhat to this purpose If you Protestants could by Scripture or Reason disprove our Doctrines we then would thinke it more than possible for us to be deceived Which though it were no huge Concession yet I should be glad to have it from you for then in effect your grounding of Faith on your Infallibility would be laid aside and then there would be no more truth in any individuall Doctrine of your Church than Scripture or Reason would inferre abstracted from the Authority of your Church which is all that at this time we demand from you And in that we are a little importunate seeing we have you now in a seeming good humour First because there is so much danger in insisting on that priviledge of Infallibility even in any particular wherein men are in the right because he that really doth stand yet may and therefore ought to take heed lest he fall but most eminently when a man chances to be in the wrong He that mistakes first in a piece of Divinity and after in a perswasion that he cannot mistake sealeth up that errour obstructs all entrance all approach all possibility of Reformation is fortified impregnable against all assaults either of reason or even the spirit of truth and by that one errour hath a kind of propriety in all other that can by the same hand be represented to him Secondly because we cannot but observe the prudence of your fellow-Champions Master Knot c. now of late who have chosen to vary the method from insisting on the severall points of difference betwixt us and them proving themselves to be the onely true Church from the particular truths profest by them and by no others to this other more commodious way of putting off all together by whole-sale of concluding the truth of all their assertions from the unerrablenesse of the Asserter manifesting that they are in the right because 't is impossible they should be in the wrong using all skill to perswade this one point and then confident on good grounds that no other can be resisted These two things put together will advertise you how seasonable an admonition it is to you that you will bestow a little paines on your Brethren to perswade them they are mortall
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