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
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
difficulty or subtilty or profit in it either of which whensoever I can finde I professe I shall be most ready to enlarge upon it and now acknowledge it an obligation from the Author if he will point out to me where I shall have fail'd and in other particulars be more mercifull to the reader and my selfe To the 1. §. Chap. 2. Section 1 True it is and we grant it willingly that every proofe that is solid and good must be a notioribus and that every sure conclusion must also be deduced from no other premises or principles then such as be knowne and at least be as certaine as we desire the conclusion should be Neverthelesse we doe absolutely deny that this assertion of ours touching the Churches infallibility is by us offered to be proved by waies no better then our Adversaries offer to prove that she hath erred as this Inquirer pretends we doe for we affirme that our Churches infallibility is proved by reasons which are reall and true and that on the other side the adversary offers to prove the contrary onely by such as be no more then seeming and pretended Now true reason or authority is a way quite different from pretended and much better then it and therefore the Inquirers charge is false or at least light and ineffectuall Must all controversies in Philosophy be undecidable because both sides pretend reason or no suits of Law be judged because both sides pretend Law Certainly whatsoever both sides doe pretend yet there is but one side that hath it as namely but one side of Philosophers have true reason and but one side of contendents have true Law and so in like manner but one side of contending Christians have true reason for them Scripture or Tradition howsoever both may pretend it and therefore we doe not goe about to prove the Church is infallible by the selfe same wayes that you goe about to prove that she hath erred but by wayes that are quite different from them and the same but in name onely and no farther By which it followes that either you are deceived or we and it is not necessary that both And so much for this great and principall difficulty which troubled the Inquirer so much as he writ to London for the solution of it which thing surely was more then needed for it might have been done at Great Tue without consulting London about it or either of our two Vniversities We doe not maintaine as he falsely supposes that Reason Scripture and Fathers be all fallible universally speaking but in some cases only as namely reason is not fallible in such verities as be evident but in other that be not so it is Againe Scripture is a most certain rule whensoever it is certainly expounded otherwise it is not Lastly the Fathers be assured and undoubted witnesses of the Doctrines which were held in their time though not undoubted definers of them And by this answer all the three main propps of this Authors discourse are overthrown and fall unto the ground C. 2. Answ to the 2. Chap. Section 1 To the second Chapter I need only to put you in mind that when his Lordship saith the wayes of proofe that the Church of Rome can never have any errours are no better then those by which we offer to prove she hath erred and nameth three heads of Arguments from Scripture Reason and Ancient writers and proveth you to affirme all these are infallible because nothing is in your opinion infallible but the Church and from thence concludes that we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible because all the meanes proposed to induce that knowledge being of necessity somewhat else beside that only infallible must needs be fallible it will be very unsufficient in you to reply that his Lordship hath not said true in the first particular upon no other ground of proofe but only because you affirme that the Churches infallibility is proved by Reasons which are really true and that the contrary is by us offered to be prov'd only by such as be only seeming and pretended for this very thing that you affirme viz. that those your reasons are reall and true is a part of the very question in hand and as much denyed by us as the infallibility of your Church and therefore by your own rule of proceeding à notioribus cannot be proper means to conclude that his Lordship erred to him that will farre more easily be brought to believe that your reasons are not reall then that his Lordship erred in this particular and that will as readily confesse he erres as that those reasons are reall Section 2 It appeared strange to me that you should begin with such a petitio principii untill by reading on I discerned that this one meane Sophisme hath run through most Paragraphs of your following Treatise which is a shrewd infirmity in a confutation to take that for a principle granted and so bestow no proofe upon it which is by you known to be denied by us and yet to conceive that this will be able to satisfy our other importunities Section 3 2dly You must observe that his Lordship had said only this that your Churches infallibility is offered to be proved by no better wayes than those by which we offer to prove she hath erred which is an undertaking of his Lordship and not a bare assertion and sure you cannot say he offers to prove it by reasons onely seeming for you as yet know not particularly what those reasons are any farther then that they are from the same heads by which you offer to prove the contrary Section 4 And Thirdly if the Arguments which he offers be only seeming on his side yet if you marke it they are so seeming to him and as long as they seem to him to conclude that the Church hath erred the very same arguments or those that are no more seeming cannot assure him that she is infallible for by your own confession every solid proofe must be ex notioribus i. e. not only by media which are more true but which are more known to him to whom this proofe is offered and if you marke that is it to which his Lordship's argument drives that the reasons by which you prove the infallibility of your Church are such as you confesse your selves to be fallible Marke not which you confesse to be false but fallible your confessing them fallible is enough to his Lordship's turne though they should have the luck to be true because the infallibility of your Church on which as on a foundation and principle you must build in many after difficulties had need be infallibly asserted and knowne or if it be but fallibly will it selfe be fallible no conclusion ascending higher then the premises have ascended and so though it were true yet not fit to commence a principle of all other truths Section 5 Now that these reasons or premises of yours are fallible and by you acknowledged to
conclusion with that great popular argument that prevailes with so many a bare confidence of affirming it it is very remarkable what your next attempt is why in stead of that hard taske which lay so heavy upon your shoulders to get an easier if 't were possible and therefore you foresee that some may peradventure deny your Churches verity to be evidently credible Good Sir what is this but to suborne a weaker adversary to challenge you that you may be excused from fighting with the stronger we desire plaine dealing that you will prove your principles of probation to be certaine and manifest which is the thing you affirm'd and not to thinke to put us off with more obscure and lesse containing tearmes of your Churches verity being evidently credible For first your Churches verity i. e. I conceive its being the true Church for I hope you speak not now of its Metaphysicall verity or its being truly a Church for so it may be and be very fallible and very corrupt is an equivocall phrase and in what ever sense is not so much as your Churches infallibility for it may be a true Church and not be infallible i. e. upon supposition that what ever now it taught were actually true 't were yet possible it might erre even when it doth not nay if its verity should signifie that it were a true Church as perhaps you meane exclusively to all others i. e. that the Catholique Church were the Roman Church and the Roman the Catholique yet speaking of the present state of the Church i. e. of the present Roman Church though it were supposed to be the present Catholique Church yet may that be fallible again because those that are now in the truth may fall into errour and others rise up as they fall to be defendors of the truth and so the promise of God of keeping his Church from finall or totall falling be made good still Section 4 As for that other largest notion of the Catholique Church under which we confesse it to be infallible that of the universall Church all the world over without any restriction I conceive it impossible that by your Church which is the Church with an eminent restriction you should meane that and upon that ground it was that I affirm'd that the verity of your Church in what ever sense is not so much as its infallibility Section 5 Then againe your phrase of evidently credible is not sure so much as certaine and manifest for though evidently credible sound strangely and if it have any sense in it hath also some obscurity yet I shall suppose you meane by it that which is credible or may be believed and of which it is evident that it may the words Grammatically can beare no other sense then this that it is evident that they are credible now certainly to be evident and certaine is much more then to be credible though it be never so evident that it is credible For suppose me actually to acknowledge that you have some probable arguments that your Church is the true Church nay suppose it is so evident that you have such arguments that every man that hath common understanding will be ready to acknowledge you have so doth it thence follow that I or all others doe and must acknowledge that you have demonstrated it this is to make no difference between the two sorts of Arguments in Logick Topicall and Demonstrative or in a word to conclude that to be infallible which you durst not say was any more then credible for as for the word evidently added to it it cannot have such an influence on the word credible as to make that quite another or higher sort of things then it was Credible in the clearest or highest degree is but credible still as the eminentest or excellentest man in the world is a man still and therefore in briefe if we should helpe you to fewer adversaries then you have and take off that suborn'd enemy of yours whom you suppose to deny your Churches verity to be eminently credible you would have gain'd by it but little peace from his Lordship who would still require you to make good your pretension of infallibility which will be a much harder theme to declaime for popularly I am sure Logically then the credibility of the verity of your Church Section 6 As for your way of answering that objection because the objection is not needfull for us to make Any reply or confutation of your answer will be as unnecessary I shall onely report to other men from your owne pen one notable decision of yours that in a triall of huge importance concerning the credibility of the verity of your Church I must be faine to use your phrase right reason and every man 's owne conscience must be the Judge which being so great an act of complyance and favour both to those which assert reason and to those that maintaine the private spirit to be the Judge of Controversies i. e. to two sorts of men which have hitherto beene believed opposite enough to your infallibility it will be but gratitude to reward so great a bounty with a favourable interpretation of a good meaning and he should be very rude and uncivill who would not grant upon such your demand that you are no Socinian nor inclining to that sort of mis-believers for sure he that makes right reason the Judge of his very principles must needs be so rationall and ingenuous that he can never be an Heretique though he say the very things that Heretiques doe Section 7 As for your very excellent similie of the eies and the spectacles I shall not have a word to say to it save onely this that although you have gotten the inclosure and monopoly of spectacles I meane of imposing of an exterior Judge upon us yet other men may be allowed to have eies as well as you i. e. to have reason and conscience to Judge of your Judge and then the issue according to your premises being granted to you will be this that they whose reason and conscience tels them that 't is not evidently credible that your Church should be the true Church exclusively to all others shall not be obliged to believe it is so for their owne reason say you and Conscience is to be judge that they whose reason c. tels them it is so credible may believe it if they please nay if they have no arguments as credible to the contrary and upon impartiall search can finde none it is very reasonable for them to believe what to their conscience is so credible but if they have such arguments to the contrary or if it be their fault that they have not they are sure no farther bound to believe it if they are not Subjects of your Church then those dictates of their conscience doe extend to oblige them or if they are Subjects yet no farther then the doctrine of obedience rightly stated which will be too long a worke for a parenthesis
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
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
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
that have held contrary opinions to theirs now before they were defined or they knew them to be so why I say shall not the same implicit assent to whatsoever God would have assented to though I mistake what it is be sufficient When indeed to beleeve implicitly what God would have believed is to believe implicitly likewise what the Church teacheth if this doctrine be within the number of those which God commands to be believed Section 36 I have therefore the lesse doubt of this opinion that I shall have no harme for not beleeving the infallibilitie of the Church of Rome because of my being so farre from leaning to the contrary and so suffering my will to have power over my understanding that if God would leave it to me which Tenet should be true I would rather choose that that should then the contrary For they may well beleeve me that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant bookes and making my selfe giddy with disputing of obscure questions dazled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section 37 If I could believe there should alwayes be whom I might alwaies know a society of men whose opinions must be certainly true and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labour to discusse define all arising doubts so as I might be excusably at ease and have no part left for me but that of obedience which must needs be a less difficult and so a more agreeable way then to endure endlesse volumes of commentaries the harsh Greeke of Evagrius and the as hard Latine of Ireneus and be pained by distinguishing betweene different senses and various lections and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlam that would preferre these studies before so many so much more pleasant that would rather imploy his understanding then submit it and if he could thinke God imposed upon him only the resisting temptations would by way of addition require from himselfe the resolving of doubts I say not that all these bookes are to be read by those who understand not the languages for them I conceive their seeking into Scripture may suffice But if I have by Gods grace skill to look into them I cannot better use it then in the search of his will where they say it is to be found that I might assent to them if there I finde reason for it or if I doe not they may have no excuse for not excusing me Section 38 For whereas they say it is pride makes us doubt of their infallibility I answer that their too much lazinesse and impatience of examining is the cause many of them doe not doubt Section 39 Next what pride is it never to assent before I find reason for it since they when they follow that Church as infallible pretend reason for it and will not say they would if they thought they found none and if they say we doe find reason but will not confesse it then pride hinders not our assent but our declaration of it which if it do in any one he is without question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himselfe and it must be a very partiall advocate that would strive to acquit him Section 40 One much prevailing argument which they make is this that whosoever leave them fall into dissention betweene themselves whereas they in the meane while are alwayes at unity I answer first in this whereof the question is now they all consent Secondly when there is fire for them that disagree they need not bragge of their uniformity who consent Thirdly they have many differences among them as whether the Pope be infallible Whether God predeterminate every action Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight Which seeme to me as great as any betweene their adversaries and in the latter the Jesuits have Ancienter and more generall Traditions on their side then the Church of Rome hath in any other question and as much ground from reason for the defence of Gods goodnesse as they can thinke they have for the necessity of an infallible guide yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Heretiques and must us Section 41 If they say The Church hath not resolved it which signifies only that they are not agreed about it which is that we object I answer It ought to have done if conformity to the ancient Church be required in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austin who is very various I confesse in it delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtfull and to say it is lawfull for them to disagree whensoever they doe not agree is ridiculous for they cannot doe both at once about the same point Section 42 And if they say they meane by the Churches not having concluded it that a Councell hath not I answer that they condemne some without any and why not these Next I say that the opinion of the Diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of a Representative which hath its authority from the other and therefore if all extant for foure hundred years teach any thing it is more Heresie to deny that then any Canon of a Councell Section 43 But may not howsoever any other company of People that would maintain themselves to be infallible say as much that all other Sects differ from one another and therefore should all agree with them Would those not think they ascribe all other mens dissentions and learned mens falling into divers Heresies to their not allowing their infalibility to their not assenting to their Decrees and not suffering them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit as teachers of those things that come in question and to have all others in that place of Disciples obedient to them which is that which Nilus a Greek Bishop professeth that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans was the only cause of seperation between them Section 44 They use much to object How could errours come into the Church without Opposition and mention both of that opposition in History I answer they might come in not at once but by degrees as in the growth of a child and the motion of a clock we see neither in the present but know there was a present when we find it past Next so many Authors being lost who can make it certaine to me that from none of those we should have had notice of this opposition if they had come to us Next I say there are two sorts of errours to hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false or that is but profitable and probable Of the second sort that errours should come in it appears not hard to me and especially in those ages where want of Printing made books and consequently learning not so common as now it is where the few that did study busied themselves in School-speculations only when the Authority of a man of chief note had a more generall influence then now it hath and so as Thucydodes saith the Plague did in his
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
second §. Chap. 3. The Enquirer is here much mistaken for we are not at all offended with Protestants for their alleadging Scriptures but for their doing of it after a way which is fallible and uncertaine in which case we say Scripture can be no foundation of faith Wherefore though they alleadge Scripture and we also yet doth it not follow thence that the Protestants disprove the infallibility by the selfe same media or meanes by which we endeavour to prove the same It is true they attempt to doe so but that they doe it is denied The Scripture when surely sensed or expounded is a different medium from the same Scripture sensed unsurely or expounded falsely Now he that takes an unsure way which no reason or discretion commends unto him and leaves the sure which Reason does perswade him to be such if that man chance to erre it is easie to understand why God should be more offended with him then with others that doe not so but hold a prudent and contrary course The summe is that holy Scripture after such time as it comes to be knowne certainly for Canonicall and shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church foundeth an argument strong and invincible but when otherwise one that is probable onely or ad hominem and this latter we say is your case and out of this give a reason why your resolves are temerarious and presumptuous and in fine such wherewith God may be displeased justly forasmuch as no man ought to goe about this worke unadvisedly or expose his salvation without all need to chance and uncertainty as if he meant to build upon the sand C. 3. Ans To the third Chap. Section 1 I answer that through this whole Chapter the same fallacy returnes againe of satisfying his Lordship's argument by a bare affirming but not proving a thing which is as much denied by his Lordship viz. that your alleadging of Scripture for the infallibility of your Church is by an infallible and certaine way but our alleadging of it for every part of our religion is by a fallible and uncertaine For though you in tearmes affirme onely the latter of these that which is against us yet in charity to you I shall suppose you imply the former or if you will say you doe not I shall then answer that the granting of what you say doth not vindicate your Infallibility but onely accuse us not cleare your selves or if that which you adde by way of explication may passe for a proofe of it viz. that Holy Scripture when it shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church foundeth an argument strong and invincible but when otherwise onely probable and ad hominem I answer that this being applyed to the matter in hand to you and us must if it signifie any thing have this importance that the places of Scripture which you bring for the Infallibility of your Church are expounded according to the interpretation of the Church but the places which we bring for the severall parts of our religion are not so expounded And then I answer that by the Church you may and I conceive ought to meane the Vniversall Church truly so called without your ordinary clogge or restriction and then all that we require of you is to make your affirmation good and produce the places of Scripture which that Vniversall Church hath so expounded to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church which till you doe produce 't is petitio principii againe and then we shall shew our selves ingenuous and though we might reply something which ad homines might be answer yet shall we part with all other advantages of defending our selves and in plaine ground yeild you the cause and contend no longer with you Section 2 But if you meane by the interpretation of the Church the interpretation of the Church in the notion wherein we enquire whether it be infallible viz. that society of Christians which have been govern'd by the Pope Though then we might deny that you have any such interpretation of Scripture for your infallibility and justifie the deniall for if you please we will undertake to shew that some eminent persons in the Church of Rome perhaps Popes themselves never interpreted any Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church and that many other differ among themselves what is that Church which they affirme from Scripture to be infallible and that will amount to the same also yet we shall content our selves with this other answer that the interpretation of that Church unlesse Saint Peter himselfe or some other acknowledg'd to be inspired joyne in it is not Infallible and for you to say it is and not to prove it is a petitio principii againe And for any other notion of the Church which shall be said so to interpret when you shall fasten on it we shall undertake to make good either that it doth not interpret the Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of the Church or else that the Church in that notion is not infallible Section 3 As for the other part of your assertion which you principally insist upon in this Chapter that our case is contrary to yours i. e. that we found not our religion on Scripture expounded according to the interpretation of the Church we utterly disclaime it and for you to affirme it without proofe is petitio principii againe and to put it to a faire issue we make this offer that what ever proposition we affirme without shewing Scripture for it and that expounded according to the interpretation of the ancient Church we will presently forgo on your first instance and if you would pay us the like offer and your party make it good I doubt not but as turbulent a Sea as the state of Christendome is at this time the whole Church might quickly be at peace or at least the dissentient party not be considerable I remember a passage in Saint Hilary depredicating the Bishops of France as very happy men quòd aliam non cognovissent confessionem◠c. that they knew no other confession then that ancient and most simple which through all Churches from the Apostles age had been received And I am a little confident that that which first made and hath ever since fomented the breaches of that pretious body is the multiplying and imposing of new confessions and articles of beleife from the suggestion of private or lesse publique spirits and that hath made the body like Aristotle's insectills which for want of bloud runne out into a multitude of legs every such new article so multiplyed above the number of those which Scripture in the truly Catholique interpretation of it will authorize not onely as true but necessary to be so acknowledged being an effect of some want of bloud I meane charity in the Authors for though to teach any man any certaine truth be an act of charity yet to make an article i. e. to require every man to
of saying that it was necessary but rather the contrary and by saying it is impossible implies he cannot thinke it necessary and therefore when you affirme of his Lordship that by consequence of his Doctrine he imposes this impossible taske upon the illiterate and doe not so much as pretend to mention that consequence this is so clear a prevarication that you cannot take it ill at any friends hands to call upon you to confesse and retract it and of that nature is that other suggestion here that his Lordship seems to say that ignorant men doe assent to truth on no better grounds than others doe to falshood there being no such syllable here affirmed and if afterwards there be we shall there meet with it Section 4 The second part of the Argument is in relation to the learned proving that tradition cannot to them infallibly prove the Infallibility of your Church or be a rule by which to square your beleife in this particular so farre at least as to make it to them necessary to be beleived as your friends doe and must say it is because it is possible they may mistake in it and that mistake will not be damnable in them if they fall into it with a good conscience as possibly they may i. e. if they use their best diligence to find the truth by tradition and are not kept from it either by prejudice or passion though it should fall out they doe not finde it Section 5 This argument thus drawne out at length his Lordship confirmes by a cleare and pertinent instance suppose me in my inquest whether the Church may erre to enquire whether it ever hath erred and in that inquest suppose me to meet with some motives which really perswade me that the Church hath contradicted her selfe which if she hath done she hath certainly erred because both branches of a contradiction cannot be true but one of them must needs be false in this case it followes that I beleive she hath erred Wherein though it is possible that I may erre because the premises which I beleived true may be false yet because it is but an errour in my judgement that did so thinke and that being reconcileable in this case with sincerity will not be damning to me it will follow that it will be pardonable in me though never so learned that Tradition doth not convince me of the truth of that which I did really conceive it shewed me to be false it being as pardonable in the learned to beleive that errour which they conceive Tradition tells them as it was impossible for the unlearned to know what is Tradition Section 6 The whole weight of this part of the Argument lies in this that what ever is necessary to be beleived must be offered to be proved by a meanes wherein the learned at least cannot erre pardonably and therefore the Infallibility of the Church offered to be proved by Tradition that Tradition being a thing wherein the learned may erre pardonably is not proved by that meanes to be necessary to be beleived Or in a Syllogisme thus That wherein the learned may erre pardonably is not a meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church to be necessary to be beleived but Tradition is a meanes wherein the learned may erre pardonably therefore Tradition is not a meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church to be necessary to be believed Section 7 This is the summe of what his Lordship saith in the other part of that paragraph and to no part of this Syllogisme or of the materialls there out of which I have formed it doe you returne the least answer or deniall but rather confirme the Minor First by using Arguments to prove that it is a difficulty and knot common to Papists with Protestants to finde out the conformity of their doctrine with the Ancients which difficulty being granted will prove that in that matter the learned may erre pardonably Secondly by asserting that there be other notes of truth besides this of conformity with the Ancients and therefore that enquiry after that is not necessary to any man which seemes a disclaiming of that as of an unfit Argument Thirdly by saying that we know the conformity by the truth much easier then the truth by conformity From whence it will follow that conformity is a very ill Argument and the worse the Argument the more pardonable the errour in it And fourthly by the professed unfitnesse of this Argument at large dilated on by you with this conclusion that the conditions for the understanding of Tradition are so very hard that certainly God never imposed them on us On which grounds you offer us another meanes of proving it which shewes that this was unsufficient in your opinion viz. the conspicuous body of the present Church which if it be not a very fallible meanes also as in many respects I might prove it were particularly by this that the compasse of Christians that are of that Church of yours is not by common computation a third part of the Christian world is certainly very distant from Tradition which that it is not a meanes infallible in this matter is all that his Lordship now contends in that present Argument Section 8 The onely thing that is by you produced against this difficulty of using this meanes and so pardonablenesse of erring is the last period of the Chapter which commends the reading of the Magdeburgians as a readier way to know conformity then examination of places Section 9 To which I answer that if they have voluntarily confessed that there is constant Tradition for the infallibility of the Roman Church then have you fitly cited them if they have not or if upon my present instance you doe not shew that they have either directly or by certaine consequence then have you wronged them in this your affirmation and left your selfe no meanes to prove your conclusion by that medium Section 10 This is all I shall say to that long Chapter and in that I have shewed that through it you much mistooke the Argument proposed in the title of the Chapter the confutation of the fourth paragraph of which there being two parts you spake no word against either of them and therefore if I should allow every word of that Chapter to be true though you would be beholding to me yet would it be no advantage to you against his Lordship's present reasoning to which all you say is very extrinsecall and impertinent But that I may not lay too great an obligation on you by so liberall a grant I wil mention to you some infirm parts in that your discourse Section 11 I have touched on three already and your evidences that your Church and Religion is the true which you mention for the illiterate and are no one of them evidences may be added to the number which I need not prove because you have not attempted to prove but onely assert the contrary And so also your Divinity cited out
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
to none else as for example the same species which shew me a man in generall afarre off the selfe-same afterwards when he comes nearer being distinctly perceived doe shew me that man is this individuall as Plato for example and no other For reall species doe not represent unto us Entia rationis or Individua vaga but determinate Individuals namely as often as those species are distinctly and compleatly understood As for the Circles into which both this Enquirer and Chillingworth would cast us and make us dance within them whether we will or no they are but Chymaericall conceptions of fidling and trifling dispositions which love to have toyes wherewith to entertaine themselves and in this point of resolution as we have declared it already have no semblance of reality C. 8. Ans to the 8. Chap. Section 1 His Lordship supposing in charity that you had attempted to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church by its agreement with Scripture and Antiquity which is in effect by holding the truth You plainely tell him he is mistaken in you It seemes you defie such meane waies of proving yours to be the Church as accordance with Scripture or Truth you must have it by some more noble way of demonstration and if you would stand to this peice of gallantry and never urge Scripture or Fathers to prove your opinions but content your selfe with your being the true Church to prove all after it As I confesse I should not charge on you that Circle which his Lordship doth in this particular supposing as he thought favourably to you that you had proved the truth of the Church by the truth and consonancy to Scriptures and Fathers of your doctrines so I should have two quarrels more against you in stead of that one composed First that you would disclaime Scriptures and fly to miracles for such are your reall revelations as you interpret them by the verba signorum in the Psalme the signes being there interpreted by the wonders that follow that you would fly to Gods extraordinary providence when I presume you conceive his ordinary would have served your turne for sure if at another time a man should have asked you is not your accordance with the Scriptures and Fathers a prime proofe that you are the true Church I doubt not but you would be so well natured as to confesse it and why now should the Devils infirmity the feare of a Circle make you so cowardly as not to dare to owne so popular an argument especially when your fire comes downe slowly or your bath Col the voice from Heaven which is the onely proper notion that I know of a reall revelation is not very audible to us that are afarre off nor if we were to be put upon the racke doe we know or can confesse at this day that we or any of our Fathers ever heard that 't was so ever revealed that the Roman Church is the true or the infallible Church And besides when you know we Protestants are a little hard of beliefe and dare not credit your owne report that you have such ostensions and revelations and signes when you neither produce witnesse nor tell us when or what they were but give us farther ground of jealousie by an odde phrase let fall by you that those reall revelations of yours are motives no more then of credibility when as true miracles acknowledged to be such are grounds of Faith and he is an Infidell that believes them not and to be but a motive of credibility is but a petty thing that every topicall argument will take place of probable being more then credible in the ordinary notion of the words Section 2 The second quarrell that your words have brought upon you is your telling us without proofe that it is so but onely by giving a similitude to shew it may be so and so in your phrase to be a motive of no more then credibility which in him that concludes it is so is petitio principii againe that the same motives you use to prove the truth of Christianity against Infidels will prove yours to be the true Church which being confidently said we are so vile in your eies as not to be vouchsafed so much as the mention what they are unlesse by your former words we conclude you meane miracles much lesse any evidence concerning them And yet by the way the miracles by which we prove the truth of Christianity to Infidels must be those which we meet with in Scripture and not those other in your Legends and upon a strict survey and recollecting of all them and so comming as neare to them as can be I must professe I cannot see your Churches being the true Church in those miracles neare so clearly and distinctly as I can see the man afarre off to be one of my acquaintance when he comes neare me which you undertooke I should and made me try and therefore I hope will recompence me for the losse of my labour by giving me your reasons next time for your assertion that I may try againe whether your proofes are more lucky then your experiments Section 3 But then I cannot see why you should be scurrilous upon both his Lordship and Master Chillingworth for thinking you were in danger of the Circle in which sure Baron had deprehended your Friend Turnbull and in which you had beene engaged infallibly if you had but gone about to prove your Church the true Church by the truth or consonancy to Scriptures and Fathers of your opinions which way of proving me thinkes 't is possible you may stand in need of before you come to the end of your answer In the meane as the calling downe Hercules upon the Stage was wont to be a Character of a Tragicke Poet i. e. of a fabulous wonderfull undertaker Cum fabulae exitum explicare non potuerit so to fetch us in miracles and ostensions to prove that divine truth that you confesse must not be proved by the Scripture will passe for a peice of Poetry I feare instead of a motive of credibility and those that are chearfully disposed will be apt to tell you that you were faine to conjure hard and doe or pretend miracles or else you had beene enclosed in that Circle To the 9. and 10. Sections Chap. 9. To these I answer in a word that neither the Greeke nor any other Church can pretend the Primacy or Principall succession of Pastours that is to say from the President of the Apostle Saint Peter none I say besides Rome can pretend this and without this one noâ—e can be authenticall or sufficient to prove a Church or a succession of Pastours Ecclesiasticall and so the Enquirers starting-hole in the Greeke Church into which he alwaies makes his retreat is prevented and shut up against him By this also is the 10. Section answered for whatsoever Churches claime unto succession shall be alleadged it can no way evacuate that of Rome as hath before beene shewed
Ch. 9. Answ to Chap. 9. Section 1 Your answer to the 9. and 10. Sections signifies a great deale viz that you were so put to it by the conviction of his Lordships argument that to dis-intangle your selfe you have ventured to vent a peice of very severe divinity which my charity to you makes me hope you will not justifie and if you will yet your no argument produced gives me nothing to answer nor otherwise to reply then by denying as mercifully and obligingly to the world as you doe cruelly affirme viz that without succession sufficient from Saint Peter there is no succession sufficient to prove a Church or a succession of Pastours Ecclesiasticall and this is so strange a newes to our eares who were confident that what ever you deeme of the other two parts of three of the Christian world at this present you had allowed liberty to Apostles to ordaine Churches as well as and without succession from Saint Peter and indeed that that which in the second and eighth line of your Chapter you call the Greeke Church might have beene acknowledged to be a Church in the seventh that had you not said it in the most evident tearmes None beside Rome can pretend this and without this one none can be sufficient to prove a Church c. had there been any way imaginable but this to answer his Lordship's argument I should never have thought this had beene your meaning till I see you againe owne this severe doctrine I shall not take paines to confute it and when I see that I must say that his Lordship presumed you had not been so bloudily minded when he proposed to you the argument in those two Sections Section 2 And yet after all this I doubt not but with a little change his Lordships argument will still hold against you even after you have ventured on such strange practices to secure your self from it Thus suppose you had evinced that the succession from S. Peter were infallible and so proved the Roman Church to be so because none else pretended to succeed S. Peter yet this can be no sufficient ground of belief to the ignorant who cannot have any infallible foundation of belief that the Greek Church doth not pretend from S. Peter whether by S. Mark at Alexandria who might be ordained by S. Peter whose right hand they say he was in the penning of the Gospell or by Evodius at Antioch where S. Peter was Bishop seven yeares as your owne Baronius or by any other or to the ignorant it matters not by no other known way and even to the learned it is but an accidentall argument because if any other company had likewise claimed Succession from Saint Peter as they of Antioch do it had overthrown all that probation nay it is but an arbitrary argument which the adversary can confute by but denying for if any society of Christians so called would pretend to be from Saint Peter some other way then by succeeding him at Rome or submitting to his government your Church could make use of it no longer Section 3 As for that which you adde in a word of answer to the 10 Sect. that what ever Churches claime unto succession shall be alleadged it can no way evacuate that of Rome if it be applied to his Lordship's argument it is absolutely false for if Rome's claime to Infallibility together and to succession to Saint Peter be to be proved by this because none else pretends to it which is the argument which his Lordship here confutes then sure any other Churches claime or pretending to it will evacuate that claime or title that by that argument is pretended and contrary to this there is yet nothing shewed To the 11. Section Chap. 10. What mercy God will use in pardoning the errorurs of those men who doe seeke sincerely and yet misse makes nothing at all against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide because those misses or mistakings be cases extraordinary Besides I would know why any pardon should need for such innocent errours which be defects involuntary and so can be no crimes wherefore me thinks the discourse of our Enquirer in this Section is not coherent C. 10. Answ To the Chap. 10. Section 1 His Lordship's argument Sect. 11. is very strong against the collecting a necessity of an Infallible guide for the interpreting of Scripture from the topick of God's goodnesse by proposing another way of reconciling God's providence with his goodnesse in this matter which if it may be done concludes that other unnecessary viz. by mentioning a doctrine of more Evangelicall oeconomy in which errours may be reconcileable with mercy when God doth give grace to the diligent seeker to finde out truth or by this dilemma that without such an infallible guide upon the use of Reason in the interpretation of Scripture and search for tradition God will either give grace to finde what is so sought or pardon if he misse and so though it stand not with Gods goodnesse to damne him for every errour to whom he hath assigned no infallible way to finde out all truth yet to him that is confident that God will not damne any man upon such tearmes as the servant laid to his charge when he told him he was an austere man c. to him that teaches not such legall bloudy doctrine against God this argument of the Romanists will not be pressing at all this expedient of the Gospell-grace or Gospell-mercy being as fit for the turne of infirme soules as an infallible guide would be as indeed the state of imperfection wherein we are placed is as fit for our turnes when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Gospell is revealed and proportioned to it as Adam's Paradise of Supernaturall all-sufficient strength and innocence would be Section 2 To all which all that you returne is only this that all this is nothing against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide because those misses or mistakings are cases extraordinary To which I answer First that if it were supposed that against the ordinary provision of a guide the argument were not of force yet sure it might against the necessity of it and then that is all that is pretended to by his Lordship and that which alone is destructive to you and therefore 't is strange you should couple them together as so sociall things which are so distant and separable for sure though Evangelicall grace and mercy doe not exclude an ordinary provision of an infallible way but leave it in medio that God may if he will make that ordinary provision yet notwithstanding this it followes not that such a provision is required or nenessary There is a wide distance betwixt possible if God please and necessary to the vindicating of God's goodnesse now against the latter onely it is that his Lordship argues and is not at all concern'd in th' other and therefore I shall not need to examine whether the first be
in stead of temporall advantages to be their portion they may be disciplin'd to better and more honest thoughts nay if the doctrines tend to liberty I meane either as Mahomets did to all kinde of voluptuous living or that other liberty that some of your friends and some others that call themselves reformed but in my opinion are very farre from it have beene guilty of the shaking off the yoake of civill obedience to the Magistrate set over them by God it is then lawfull to coerce such innovators if the prudence of the State shall thinke fit But difference in opinion though it be in a Kingdome never so peaceably possest of the Catholique Religion if it tend not to any of these dangers nor be convincible of those impieties and designes will by no reason or consequence be involved in that number Section 18 This you seem to be content with when you adde that this severity must not be extended to all that any where teach or professe erroneous doctrines but upon better consideration of your following words 't is cleare that your restraint or exception lookes another way viz. that against those that are not the first invaders but another generation succeeding them whose errour is contracted by the vice of education c. the Church doth not execute the severity of the lawes In which words though we of this and all other Protestant Kingdomes at this day have so farre our parts as that if it were never so much in your power you ought upon these grounds not to hurt us because we are the progeny and not the first invaders yet seeing all the restraint is for the execution onely of the severity of the lawes and those lawes are supposed by you to be in force against Heretiques and so against us whom you call by that name we have great reason to thinke there is little kindnesse in this present restraint of yours Section 19 For to the utmost of my understanding of your words it remaines still free to you after this concession to be as severe to any as your power will enable you And if by us at any time any claime of favour should be put into your Consistory your answer probably would be by this dilemma either you are invaders and seeing beginnings are alwaies weakest all that are not able to resist or defend themselves shall goe for invaders and then you have no title to mercy by this tenure or else you are a numerous off-spring and progeny of them and so possibly able to resist and then you shall have mercy If we stand on these tearmes with you and your order for restraint of severity hold no longer then our strength to resist you then we shall scarce acknowledge the obligation but thinke our enemies on the other extreame as kind as you for both of you are good at being mercifull when you are on the weaker party but both very tyrannicall when you begin to be strong Section 20 If you were so constant to your articles of restraint as that all the prosperities of warre advantages of place and auxiliaries could not tempt you to a massacre of any save onely some one single corrupter and invader or two in an age I might then have reason to thinke I might have mistaken your meaning but certainly you have beene as cruell on the cubs as ever you were on the old foxes and made as little scruple to put many thousands to death in one night whom you could not thinke to be all leaders in factions or invaders as the stories of France will testifie and the very words of the bull of Vrban the eighth to encourage the King of France to root out the quadrupedes in Galliâ stabulantes c. as any one John Husse alone by himselfe at another time And that you will have this latitude to let loose your restraint again when time serves it may seeme probable by what you adde of Austria Stiria and Carinthia whose priviledges it seemes lasted no longer then you thought fit For assoone as you thought it seasonable they were presently pronounced seditious and conspiratours and so put to the sword and for France and Poland I wish the names of Massacres had never beene heard in either of them or at least that the Pictures of them with words of papall approbation were not to be seen at Rome to testifie what is the cause of your present kindnesse viz. the difficulty of the worke that the Protestants there at this time are not molested Section 21 As for your recrimination against Protestants seeing it is very universall suffer Catholiques in no place and very sharpe that they persecute Catholiques wheresoever they are stronger after a very violent mercylesse desperate manner slay imprison robbe banish defame c. I must beseech you either to prove it against this your Country or else to make it reparations and remember when time serves that when Protestants are thought to persecute you then presently 't is a proceeding much worse and more unreasonable then the Turkish Section 22 As for the truth of your suggestion certainly the number and strength of Protestants hath for many yeares surmounted that of Papists in this Kingdome and yet I shall be confident you will be posed to produce the example of any one since Queene Maries daies that in this Kingdome was put to death meerly for religion without being guilty of something else which by the knowne lawes of the Realme is lyable to the punishment of treason And for the other penall lawes in this Kingdome which are not Capitall but pecuniary mulcts c. I shall say that 't is somewhat hard that we must be thought worthy of all those bitter invectives which you yet farther adde because I conceive there was never any Kingdome that own'd any religion but there was some difference made betwixt that and all other in respect of temporall priviledges and favours and immunities and any such difference reaches neare as high and goes as deepe as pecuniary mulcts And beside it is not irrationall to say that the inflicting such mulcts may very probably tend to the quiet and so to the advantage rather then to the oppression of such sufferers it being not without example that the suspicions of the people and jealousies that the established religion shall be discountenanced having no deeper ground then an imagination that the Prince may have inclined to give toleration to the other party or but immunity from these punishments hath brought such odium upon the present government and sharpenesse on those thus thought to be favour'd that in comparison with these ill accidents a few pecuniary mulcts might passe for a priviledge as the letting of bloud is to be esteem'd by those who are entring into a plurisie for want of it Section 23 If upon these considerations such mulcts as these may not be conceived supportable I must confesse 't is an hard lot to be placed in a throne betwixt two contrary pretenders and as
petitio principii againe Section 5 As for your Conclusion of this dispute wherein you set the comparison betwixt two Arguments and say yours is much the better I shall not need debate that with you because they are not the two Arguments betwixt which his Lordship makes the comparison The first I confesse you have rightly set downe This Guide to my understanding teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse therefore it is not the Guide and this will be as good an argument as this other 'T is to my understanding contrary to the goodnesse of God that the Roman Church should not be an infallible Guide or that there should be no infallible Guide where there is none but the Roman Church therefore the Roman Church is so In this comparison the consequences are equally true and built upon the same ground that that which is against Gods goodnesse cannot be and the Antecedents equally affirmed according to severall understandings and then whether the other Argument which you bring be comparable to either it matters not Section 6 But when at last you give us a note that the argument from God's goodnesse doth not conclude that your Church is infallible but onely that it may be so I confesse you make me repent of all this unprofitable attendance I have paid you in following your argument thus farre when your selfe have given me directions to a shorter cut of answering viz by granting that it may be infallible that is that nothing in nature resists but that if God's pleasure were so it might be infallible but say we we have no evidence from God that it is his pleasure it should and therefore we conclude it may be deceived or may be fallible betwixt which two though there may be some difference as there is betwixt falli and fallibilem esse yet unlesse some evidence can be brought against one which cannot against the other they will be both equally true as farre as respects our knowledge or debate of them Section 7 And when you adde that 't is from other reasons that you conclude she is infallible and not from this of Gods goodnesse I answer that 't is cleare that his Lordship was now disputing onely against that reason taken from Gods goodnesse which it seemes you confesse was no reason and for your other reasons they are either confuted in other paragraphs of his Lordships Treatise or when you produce them shall be To the 31. Sect. Chap. 19. This Section is spent in the enquiring whether a man shall be damned for making a diligent and impartiall enquiry after the true religion of which he finds the infallibility of the Church to be a part supposing that his reason when all is done will not assent This is his Quaere and the same may be made concerning any other verity or point of doctrine as namely of the holy Scripture whether or no it be the word of God and what shall become of that man whose reason after an impartiall search made will not assent or againe about the truth of Christian Religion unto which after such a search made his reason will not condescend I answer first that it is a mockery to aske whether or no any Man shall be damned for making a good enquiry without successe and in effect it is the same as to enquire whether a Man shall be damned for doing a deed that 's commendable and good For this Question supposes that either the Enquirer or we were very simple Creatures and did not understand our selves or else that the Gentleman-demander was not in earnest but propounded it only for his recreation though at a time ill chosen and unseasonable and also in a matter about which there ought to be no jeasting I answer secondly that in a place where instruction and information may be had the case he puts is morally impossible to happen out for we deny that where the search is diligent impartiall and without prejudice and where againe information sufficient is to be had that there the reason shall not be able to assent and that wheresoever it cannot that same happens either through weaknesse or inhability of judgment and capacity or else by reason of some disordinate passion of the will by which the understanding is misled and darkened as in those who are refractary it for the most part falls out Which passion and prejudices arise sometimes from custome and education sometimes from vitious inclinations sometimes from a crookednesse and perversity of nature which doth refuse instruction Wherefore as it is no sufficient excuse for an Infidel to say I have searched diligently whether or no Christ be the true Messias or whether the Scripture be the word of God or no and after all endeavours used my reason will not assent so in like manner it is as little sufficient to alleage that after enquiry made about the true Church and her Infallibility your reason would not assent for in these cases we cannot grant any ignorance invincible or free that errour which possesses them from guilt Now what shall become of others who want instruction sufficient and have no crookednesse or backwardnesse in their will and die in ignorance is another point and different from this of ours and is to be resolved in the Question about the efficacy of Implicite faith to which I referre my Reader Chap. 19. Answ to Ch. 19. Section 1 In this Paragraph his Lordship askes a Question Whether supposing that he that never heard of the Church of Rome shall not be damned for not believing it infallible it can be thought that he that hath made diligent search and used honestly all meanes afforded him and yet doth not believe the Church infallible shall be damned for that not-believing this is the Question and to weigh it downe on one side that that latter shall not be damning when tother is not this reason is put in that in this matter all that that Man hath done in the second case more than in the former is onely the having diligently enquired which is presumed to be no damning sinne Section 2 In stead of the Question thus put you set another somewhat distant but I will suppose tending to the same effect whether a Man shall be damned for making a good enquiry without successe which you say is a mockery and so as I conceive ridiculous to affirme it and so Sir after all your descanting on his Lordship for asking this question it is apparent by our explication of it that upon the denying of that which you say 't is ridiculous not to deny it inevitably followes that that Man shal not be damned for denying the infallibility of your Church Section 3 And though you take paines to perswade that this case is morally impossible yet you must give us leave from your stating of the case wherein you say it is so viz when information sufficient is to be had to conclude your proofe a petitio principii againe for when wee deny your Church to
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
be no Argument Section 4 This being premised I pray observe in the second place the no force of this Argument against us unlesse it may also appeare that our departing from you is the cause of these Dissentions For if they be but onely consequent to it accidentally this ought not in all reason to be laid to our charge any farther then thus that this accidentall consequent is a probable argument of one of these two things either that you have better rules for the restraining of such Dissentions than we or else that you are more carefull in executing the rules you have and if either of these be said by you I shall then tell you 1. That it seemes this Argument concludes but probably though the proposition were granted and I believe I could urge as probably on the other side and conclude the excellency of our Reformation from that old saying of Clemens by way of Answer to your Objection both of Jewes and Heathens against Christianity taken from the Dissentions of Christians in the Primitive Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cause of them is because all things that are excellent are subject to the envy of Men and Devils and from thence to the sowing of seeds of Dissentions amongst them agreeably to that of our Saviour that as soon as the wheat was in the ground the envious sowed his tares Section 5 But then secondly for the preventing of such Dissentions I shall adde that though we have not pretence of infallibility and threats of fire to restraine Men from them yet we have other rules more agreeable to antient Church practice than either of these and though the weapon of our warfare are not carnall in your sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the taking away of life yet are they if they were executed mighty to bring downe or shut out Heresies For if you know it not I can tell you that Excommunication that soveraigne receipt of Christ and his Apostles the most perfect designe of charity to save and recover that which is lost to shame Men to reformation and upon contempt of that that secular rougher hand interposing the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and the Statute of Abjuration are very strong restraints and if they have not been so diligently executed as they ought to be though I hope you will pardon this fault yet he that will not must charge it onely on the Persons of our Magistrates and not on our Religion or the state of our Reformation And then let me adde that even these lawes and this execution of them or the like whether among you or us can extend no farther then to outward restraints and that onely of those that will be so terrified or to punishment of them that will not but not to preventing of Heresies in the inward rise or growth or sometimes in the breaking out whensoever ambition of being Leader of a Sect c. are more prevailing than feare of punishments which cases must be lookt for in every Church Section 6 To which purpose you may please to reflect upon your selves and tell me whether there were not good store of Hereticks before the times of the Reformation If not I am sure Irenaeus Epiphanius and Saint Augustine and Philastrius have abused us in their Catalogues and I beseech you but to remember the ridiculous Heresies of Galatia which Saint Jerome mentions on occasion of Gal. 3.1 in respect of which he conceives the Apostle calls them such fooles and thinks they were bewitcht particularly those of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that would have Cheese mixt with the Bread in the Sacrament which with two others of the like stamp there mentioned came from Ancyra the Metropolis of Galatia And yet I believe you would not thinke the Argument of much force if it should from your example against us be made use of by us either against those Apostolicall Churches or against the Roman Church ever since that so many Heresies are gone out of it and yet that would be as reasonable in us as in you it is to charge all the Heresies which have been in the World since Luther upon the Reformation Section 7 For let me aske you is the fault that you object to us in this matter that Hereticks are gone out from us That which wee have said will satisfie you that that is no argument that we are not a true Church for if it be it will be of force against the Catholique Orthodox Church in all Ages Or is it that they that thus dissent from us are suffered to continue among us if that be it then first there are also Dissenters among you continuing with you Secondly our Lawes and Canons are for the casting them out if their dissentings be Hereticall and that is all that you can pretend of these and if we have been more indulgent than you would have us that is but an errour of tendernesse first and then that onely the fault of Persons Section 8 Having said thus much which I conceive full ground of satisfaction to what you have or can say in this matter I might now adde that if you looke no farther then the Church of England even in these which I suppose you will count the worst times of it you cannot finde any greater or more dangerous Heresies avowed by any considerable Party than are owned by some of the Jesuits among you Section 9 I shall first mention that popular doctrine you know what I meane of Bellarmine resumed and confirmed not long before his death with his most advised care in his Recognitions Secondly the doctrine and practice of resisting and deposing lawfull Magistrates under colour of religion that I set it no higher even to killing of Kings Thirdly the opposing the Order of Bishops as expresly contrary to the sole-power enstated by Christ on S. Peter And also Fourthly the affirming it lawfull that evill may be done so it be in order to a publique good and that I trouble you with no more and yet give you reason to thinke that it is in my power I beseech you to believe that I have read Watson's Quodlibets and I could without much difficulty make a parallel betwixt these whom you so much charge and those whom you defend your hatedst Enemies and your dearest Friends that Booke being so richly able to furnish me with hints that I have surveyed the Writings betwixt the Seculars and the Regulars with the late controversie among you about the Bishop of Calcedons being appointed Ordinary in this Kingdome produced and in them the difference about the necessity of Confirmation and the non even now mentioned in the Canon of the Councell as also the Symbolum Jesuiticum c. and if we have any greater divisions among us yet than these I beseech you to let me know it from you for I believe 't will be no easie discovery and I shall promise to doe and pray my utmost that they may be
not very unhappy in his searches after truth or no I leave it by the searcher of all hearts to be determined C. 26. Answ to C. 26. Section 1 To your answer to the undiscernablenesse of errours that though they are not seene at the time they may be seene after I reply that I confesse it possible they may be seene after and that some are so very soone after but yet sure not all presently after at least not publiquely and vulgarly seene As they are seene so they may be made knowne to the world some a long time after others and this is sufficient to shew that the Authours of the errours may possibly not be seene discovered at all though the errour in processe of time chance to be so which will be most evidently true if it be farther considered what his Lordship affirmed that errours came in by degrees and not at once Section 2 To your question what it matters that sundry bookes are lost I answer that thus much it matters that from thence it followes infallibly that 't is possible there might be opposition against any doctrine though in the writings we have there be none mentioned and as you disprove not that so his Lordship desires not to have more acknowledged Section 3 Your next answer by retortion against Calvin will be of no force unlesse Calvin undertooke to be infallible Section 4 For the matter about the Chiliasts as you referre to your answer before so doe I to my reply onely from your favour or indulgence to that opinion during the time that it was held but as an opinion without censuring or condemning others but then withdrawing that favour when it arrived to that height I am very glad and joyfull to joine issue with you and charitably to suppose though I affirme it not that till you tooke upon you to condemne and censure others any opinion you held meerely as an opinion might doe you no irreparable hurt but now that you proceed to that insolent unmercifull height what mercy can you expect from your owne principles by which yet we that censure not condemne not are confident to hope for some kindnesse from you though not from other men Section 5 To the 48 Sect. I shall take your example likewise and to the last commend your ingenuity for commending that that deserved it so much and onely demand with what conscience you could thinke him very unhappy in those searches which you confesse to be so happy in proposing for sure if unhappinesse signifie the ill successe of his searches there can be according to your Principles no feare that they should by God be permitted to be unhappy or if it signifie any fault in them you cannot without uncharitablenesse and judging of hearts pronounce him guilty of it The Conclusion The generall result of all that which hath beene debated hitherto betwixt the Enquirer and me is in effect no other but that First the Catholique Churches infallibility is a soveraigne preservative against errour and against all dissention or dis-union in believing unto all those who doe acknowledge it and yeild submission thereunto Secondly that each new verity defin'd by that Church is to them a new path to heaven though on the other side to all such other as refuse to be directed by her it may prove just as the Enquirer is pleased to expresse himselfe a new path to walke in towards the Devill or one steppe more unto damnation And in this he was in the right and spoke truer then he was aware Now it is well knowne that all we Catholiques are guided by that same infallibility and againe that on the contrary all Anti-Catholiques doe resist it and what will follow out of this is no hard matter to collect Moreover this same infallibility a quality so unpleasing to the Enquirer cannot as he surmises make us sure if we be in errour never to mend for we all doe offer freely that if either he or any of his side be sure to disprove soundly and clearly the infallibility we will be as sure to mend and forthwith to relinquish it by which expected act of theirs we shall be reduced unto such good tearmes in which all Anti-Catholiques continually are that is to say to believe at randome reele wildly up and downe unconstantly and fall at variance amongst our selves as they doe and then I hope the Enquirer will be contented with us But the want on their behalfe of such an efficacious proofe as this hath beene the true reason why we have not hitherto thought of any alteration or comming towards them Certainly it is much better to be perswaded though falsly of an infallibility then to be sure to have none as you now are but to be wrangling perpetually falling out and fighting amongst your selves whereas before you were when as our Religion prevailed this inconvenience happened not So that in fine all the goodly fruits you have reaped from your impugning Church and Councels and in bringing in instead thereof a new invention of your owne is but the making of your selves and your Country miserable which daily by deare experience we finde And so much for the Enquirer's unadvised impugnation of the infallibility of the Catholique Church Chap. 27. Answ to the Conclusion Section 1 In your Conclusion which recapitulates the summe of these debates betwixt his Lordship and you your first result is acknowledged perfectly upon supposition that your Church were infallible but then whether it be or no that is the question still and its being taken by you for a Principle when 't is so farre from being supposed one is the cleare ground of the Irreconcileablenesse betwixt You and Us. For upon supposition that we were your Proselites in all manner of doubts besides yet your requiring us to believe you not onely in the right but infallible equally obligeth us to believe all that your Church can possibly ever affirme as what you doe already and then we must have a strong faith indeed to be able to beare such a burthen Whereas if you could but be brought to thinke it possible you might be deceived we could then finde place in you for Scripture and reason to make impression but till then you have that terrible prejudice against them whensoever they are produced against you and whensoever they are urged for you they are to little purpose onely to confirme you in the beliefe of that which you are already infallibly perswaded to be infallible that they are but temptations and shafts of Satan which the stronger they come and the more irresistibly the more is your faith obliged to resist them all and to that this one fortification is sufficient that you know that whosoever doubts of your infallibility is not fit to be heeded in any thing else Reason must cease to be Reason Scripture to be Scripture when it appeares on that Argument Section 2 And that sure is the reason that this Treatise of his Lordships which consists not of more
Paragraphs than convincing Reasons against your Infallibility is so easily rejected or forgotten by you that now you cannot acknowledge ever to have heard any such on that Theme And then I shall not attempt to hope to have so much either Logicke or Rhetorick as to make that impression on you Section 3 Onely let me desire you to consider the ground of your last period but one that certainly it is better to be perswaded though falsely of an Infallibility then to be sure to have none Section 4 Where first you must if you speake intelligibly intimate that your errour is better not onely than another errour but than truth for the Infallibility you suppose to be an errour when you so speake but the no-infallibility you doe not suppose to be no-truth Section 5 But then Secondly I am so farre from this opinion of yours that I conceive it hard to imagine any errour that could doe so much harme as this of the pretended Infallibility supposing it as now you doe to be an errour for that which brings a certaine possibility if no more of all errours after it and leaves no one falsity out of the Creed that 't is possible for all temptations to perswade your Church is certainly a complicated errour and may well be called Legion for nothing else can be so numerous as this I 'me sure not the believing you fallible though you were not so For that would be but one errour and no other necessarily consequent to it it being very possible for him that hath that opinion of you to thinke every thing else that you thinke to thinke you actually in the truth although it be possible you may be in the wrong Not to mention the great injury that that Infallibility if it did belong to you would in one respect be apt to doe you I meane to deprive your Church of all reward for any truths you preach there being no matter of reward where there is no possibility of doing otherwise nor capacity of a crown where for want of a pâ—ssibility of being overcome there is also an impossibility of obtaining victory Section 6 Thus have I given you an impartiall account how much or rather how little your Papers have wrought upon my understanding and truly as the end of my writing any thing was that I might satisfie your judgment so the maine end of my enlarging to so many particulars and as you may see by the expressions of my then-present-intentions at the end of the first Chapter to a length which I had resolved against by examining almost every period in your seven shâ—ets was to satisfie your desire signifiâ—d in putting your Papers into so many hands that to tell you truâ— after I had read them over and declined the having any thing to doe with them once then within few daies after found another way to come to my hands againe so that it had not beene civility toward you to have put you to any more trouble or farther to have tempted you to thinke your selfe victorious To fortifie you the better against that temptation I have beene perhaps more plaine and punctuall sometimes then would otherwise have beene necessary and if when you have read it over you finde any such plainnesse to have beene without cause upon your signification of your seâ—ce of any such my offence I will promise to aske your pardon meane while I shall not trouble you with any farther thoughts of continuing this Controversie peace and unity and amiâ—y of pennes and hearts being much a more lovely thing but desire that if any thing in your Paper as farre as it presses his Lordship be in your opinion unsatisfied it may in few words without such a large trouble as this be mentioned by you and then friendly debated betwixt us at any time of meeting of which whensoever by the meanes that this came to my hands you shall signifie to me your pleasure I shall not faile to serve you being indeed resolved never to be thus injurious to my Reader againe in civility to any man From my Study Sept. 23. 1645. An Appendix or Answer to what was returned by the Apologist TO this Reply of mine what was by the Apologist returned in the Margent of my Paper shall be now distinctly set downe as the Preface promised with a direction by some Letter of the Alphabet to that part of any Chapter of the discourse to which each of his Annotations were applied and affixed And for Answer to them I shall not need enlarging In the Introduction at the letter A this Annotation was set in the Margent I know of neither Scoffes nor Triumphs Answ That there are such the Reader will give credit to his owne eyes if he review the latter part of your first Chapter as also the close of the 8 and of the 15 Chapter And that you ought to know them i. e. acknowledge and reform them as being contrary the former to that Charity the latter to that Meeknesse which our Saviour left in charge with those that would be called by his name I hope you will discerne and confesse with me C. 2. B. the Annotation is I doe not treat here what is done by some but what in propriety of speech ought to have beene done To this I answer first That it being true as this Reply confesses that some Romanists used that stile of Catholique Roman Church though this Apologist did not This is fully sufficient to justifie his Lordships title because he was not bound to foresee that this Apologist would reforme the stile of others And secondly though it be not propriety of speech yet was that no argument neither because his Lordship that holds that Church fallible in greater matters might conceive it possible for them to be so in matter of propriety of speech nay was confident that so they were being not able to disbelieve his eyes and eares that of this they were guilty as improper as it is But then thirdly the matter is yet more cleare against the Apologist for though his Lordships title did not presage yet I which had read that Answer could see that he himselfe said that the Church Catholique was the Roman and the Roman the Catholique and that is the thing which I affirm'd from his owne words in that place to which that Annotation is prefixt And therefore for him to say that in propriety of speech this ought not to be done as it is an accusation of himselfe who was guilty of that impropriety so is it not a confutation of me who onely said he was so Ib. C. We speak here according to the rules of formall predication not for reprehension of the Enquirer but for rectifying the manner of speaking and stating the Question rightly Answ 'T is not imaginable how this note could advantage the Writers cause In the very place to which this note is affixt I am a proving by rules of formall predication that by what is said by the Romanists and
particularly by your self it is apparent that you affirme the Roman Church to be Infallible though not quatenus Roman this conclusion you deny not to follow from those rules but say you speak according to those rules And truly I have as yet no necessity to dâ—ny that you doe so nor shall I untill having affirm'd the Roman Church to be the Catholique you proceed to deny the Roman to be Infallible though the Catholâ—que be This you doe not yet distinctly deny though the whole controversie about the title of his Lordships booke shews that you are not very willing to stand to the affirmative When you doe so I shall make bold to put you in mind of those rules and in the meane onely to take notice of your owne confession that what you said was not for reprehension of the Enquirer which I must affirm to be a retrataction of your former writing which pretended to prove that in truth it was not so as in the Enquirer's title it is called This was then surely a reprehension of the Enquirer and if now you say you meant not to reprehend him this is to say you did not meane to doe what you did which being a â—â—ile of humility I shall never reproâ—ch or find fault with in you â—ut yet tell you that what you call in the next words of your Annotation your rectifying the manner of speaking and stating the Question aright is in my Answer proved to be contraâ—y to your owne manner of speaking and a cleare mis stating To which proofes as here you reply nothing nor is it imaginable how you should the matter being so evident viz that they that affirme the Roman Church to be the Catholique and the Catholâ—que to be infallible must needs affirme the Roman to be infallâ—blâ— so doe you in effect confesse that you had nothing to reply to the remainder of that whole Chapter which as it is the longest in the Book so by vindicating the fitnesse of his Lordships title and stating of the Question against your exceptions doth lâ—y very usefull grounds for the voyding your pretensions to infallâ—bility For if it be cleared by my first Chapter as I conceive it is and your Annâ—tations do not deny it to be that the Question is of the infallibility of the Roman Church then we that deny the Roman to be the Catholique must never be charged of denying the Catholique to be infallible nor be liable to the arguments that are brought against us upon that head which without question are the bâ—st you have though we deny it never so confidently of the Roman Id. D. Surely the meaning is very obvious Answ If it be I am sure the words doe not clearly expresse it for how should the editor of his Lordships tract to whom the former part of that period belongs in these words though no notice hath been taken of any answer given already take notice of giving licence for any other answer Give notice he might but that in my judgment is not to take and take notice you might but that I conceive would not cohere with the antecedents and any third way of rendring I confesse I imagin not and therefore still if the meaning be obvious it must be met with somewhere else then in the sound and contexture of the words but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall not be imputed to you it was onely an officiousnesse in me then to shew you it was such Id. E. These are bitter scoffes and no way grounded upon my words Answ That the phrase sad newes was grounded on your words there recited by me I must still affirme for they are most evidently a forme of complaining and that is all I meant by sad newes yet if to you it seeme to be a scoffe or bitter and both those in the plurall more scoffes than one in that single expression though my conscience doth not accuse me of any such intention yet I will fall at your judgement and beseech you to pardon me for it and to make you reparations promise to endeavour to offend no more against you or any other Adversary by any kind of bitternesse and for once be you pleased to imitate my resolution and remember that when another man spake it sad newes was a bitter scoffe and then perhaps your reprehension of me may worke a double cure and heale you also of some excesses Chap. 2. Answ to Ch. 2. A. I doe not beg the Question but deny what the Enquirer assumed as true and granted namely that our proofes of the Church are no other nor better than those by which you impugne it which assumpt of his we deny and whether justly or no must depend upon the triall and the examination of his proofes to follow after and therefore this deniall of mine is no petitio principii but a right and Logicall deniall which either the Enquirer or you were bound to disprove and not to tell us as you doe that we are bound to prove against the Enquirer who here chargeth us and susteineth the Person of the Opponent or one that argues against our Infallibility I am the Defendent and no Defendent can begge the Question my discourse is Apologeticall as the Title tells you Answ I did not venture to tell you that you were guilty of a petitio principii untill I had as I conceived made an ocular demonstration to you that it was such which you may please to review in the place or to save you that trouble I shall tell you the summe of it you deny a proposition which in that place 't is cleare that his Lordship proves and having not answered one word to his proofes which is in effect to deny the conclusion you then give a proofe or reason of your deniall for we affirme that our Churches infallibility is proved by reasons which are reall and true c. this reason of yours being as much denied by his Lordship as your maine conclusion against which he disputes ought in any reason to have beene backt with some firme proofe and of that kind you give none but your owne affirmation and because you doe not this I there call a petitio principii agreeably both to Aristotles notion of that Sophisme and to the notation of the phrase For principium or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being acknowledged to signifie the question for that or any part of it to be brought in to prove any thing that in that disputation is denied is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to begge the question or take it for granted and in effect to prove a thing by it selfe which is the most irrationall proceeding that can be If you are not yet convinced of this I shall yet farther give you a proofe of it from those antient Authours which can best judge of this matter the Interpreters of Aristotle Take one for all Magentius in his definition of this Sophisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A begging of the
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
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
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
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