the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seem to me to do so is to send me to a witnesse and bid me not beleeve it now to say the Church is provided for a guide of Faith but must be known by such markes as the ignorant cannot seek it by and the learned may chance not find it by can no way satisfie me If they say God will reveale the Truth to whomsoever seeks it these waies sincerely this saying both sides will without meanes of being confuted make use of therefore it would be as good that neither did 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 have a Church alwaies which shall not erre but not that such or such a succession shall be in the right so that if they say the Greek Church is not the Church because by its own 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 maintaine 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 Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church and not the Greek Church because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquitie they run into a Circle proving their Tenets to be true First because the Church holds them And then theirs to be the Church because the Church holds the Truth Which last though it appears to me the onely way yet it takes away its being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing Nay suppose that they had evinced that some succession were Infallible and so had proved to a learned man that the Roman Chruch 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 beleefe 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 overthrown all The chiefest reason why they disallow of 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 Ins Will if he had assigncd no infallible way 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 that beleeves that to them who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures God will either give his Grace for assistance to find the Truth or his pardon if they misse it And then this supposed necessitie of an infallible Guide with the supposed damnation for want of it fall together to the ground If they command us to beleeve 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 down Now such a way Scripture and Reason and infused Faith cannot be for they use to object the fallibility of these to those that build their Religion upon them nor the authority of the Church for this is part of the Question and must it self be first proved and that by none of the former waies for the former reasons The Popes Infallibility can be no infallible ground of Faith being it self no necessary part of Faith and 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 siding with them So if the Church be divided I have no way to know the true Church but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquitie and so judging accordingly but this is not to submit my self to her opinions as my Guide which they tell us is necessarie which course if they approve not of as fit for a learned man they are in a worse case for the ignorant who can take no course at all nor is he the better at all for his Guide the Church whilft two parts dispute which is it and that by arguments he understands not If I grant the Pope or a Councell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their decrees can he no sufficient grounds by their own axioms of divine Faith For first of all no Councell is valid not approved by the Pope for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum and a Pope chosen by Simony is ipso facto no Pope I can have then no certainer grounds for the infallibility of those decrees and consequently for my beleefe of them then I have that the choice of him is neither directly nor indirectly Simoniacall Secondly suppose him Pope and to have confirmed their decrees yet that these are the decrees of a Councell or that he hath confirmed them I can have'but an uncontradicted confession of many men for if another Councell should declare these to have been the Acts of another former Councell I should need againe some certain way of knowing how this declaration is a Councell which is no ground say they of Faith I am sure not so good and generall a one as we have that the Scripture is Scripture which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them Thirdly For the sence of their decrees I can have no better expounder then reason which if though I mistake I shall not be damned for following why shall I for mistaking the sence of the Scripture or why am I a lesse fit Interpreter of the one then of the other and when both seeme equally cleare and yet contradictory shall not I assoon beleeve Scripture which is without doubt of as great authority But I doubt whether Councells are fit deciders of Questions for such they cannot be if they beget more and men are in greater doubts afterwards none of the former being diminished then they were at ffrst 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 fore-named considerations who is to call them the Pope or Kings who are to have voices in them Bishops onely or Priests also whether the Pope or Councell be superiour and the last need the approbation of the first debated amongst themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines so great a part of Christianitie and not resolvedly condemned by them for Hereticks were absent at the Councell of Trent make it
either pious men have added or peradventure ambitious men encroached If he does not find a government of so high and Exotick strain that neither mans wit would dare to have attempted it neither mans power could possibly have effected it If he findeth not eminent helpes and no disadvantage to the temporall government I shall think there wanteth one Star in the Heaven of the Church to direct these Sages to Bethlehem But if God Almighty hath in all sorts and manners provided his Church that she may enlighten every man in his way which goeth the way of a man then let every man consider which is the fit way for himselfe and what in other matters of that way he accompteth evidence And if there be no interest in his soule to make him loath to beleeve what in another matter of the like nature he would not stick at or heavy to practise what he seeth clearly enough I feare not his choice but if God send him time and meanes to prosecute his search any indifferent while it is long ago known of what religion he is to be of After this followeth no order of Chapters because it is applied to the discourse which was occasion of it Although if what is already be not satisfaction unto the writing and the Author thereof for whose sake and contentment all that hath been discoursed hitherto hath been set down I confesse that I have not ability to give him satisfaction yet least it should be interpreted neglect If I did not make an application of it unto the writing I shall as breifly as I can for avoiding tediousnesse runne over the discourse And true it is speaking of the Church of Rome as this day it is the true Church of God I answer the doubter she neither hath nor can have any error which he need to feare and be shye of The which two limitations I adde for avoiding questions impertinent to our discourse The first for those which are concerning the connection of the Sea of Rome to the universall Church The latter to avoid such questions as touch that point whether the Church may erre in any Phylosophicall or other such like matter which questions are not so pertinent to our matter Neither doe I remit the Questioner unto Scripture for his satisfaction although I hold Scripture a very sufficient meanes to satisfie the man who goeth to it with that preparation of understanding and will which is meet and required Howsoever this I may answer for them who prove it out of Scripture that because they dispute against them who admit of Scripture and deny the authority of the Church if they can convince it they doe well though they will not themselves admit generally of a proofe our of Scripture as not able to prove every thing in foro contentioso That they say the Church is made infallible that we may have some guide I think it very rationall For nature hath given ever some strong and uncontroulable principle in all natures to guide the rest The Common-wealth hath a Governour not questionable our understanding hath some principles which she cannot judge but by them judgeth of all other verities If there should not be some such principle in the Church it were the onely maimed thing God had created and maimed in its principall part in the very head And if there be such a principle the whole Church is infallible by that as the whole man seeth by his eyes toucheth by his hands Neither can I deny but that the Author well excepteth or assumeth that there is no lesse necessity the Church should be known to be infallible or which is this Church then that there is one For if I should admit absolutely that it is necessary for every man to know the Church is Infallible precedently to the knowledge of which is the true Church I should forget what I had before said that satisfaction is to be given to every one according to his capacity It is sufficient for a Childe to beleeve his Parents for a Clown to beleeve his Preacher about the Churches Infallibility For Faith is given to mankind to be a meanes to him of beleeving and living like a Christian and so he hath this second it is not much matter in what termes he be with the first The good women and Clownes in Italy and Spaine trouble not themselves to seek the grounds of their faith but with a Christian simplicity seek to live according unto that their Preachers tell them and without question by perseverance come to the happinesse great Clearks by too much speculation may faile of Such therefore know no otherwise the Infallibility of the Church then because she telleth it them to whom they give credit as innocently as any child to his Mother The Church therefore was made infallible because so it was fitting for her Maker so it was fitting for her selfe so it was fit for that part of mankind that had more refined wits not because it was necessary for every one which was to come to her or live in her whereof the greatest part first commeth to her drawn by some of the meanes before delivered and beleeveth her about her infallibility Neither doe I remit him to a generall and constant tradition as if himselfe should climbe up every age by learned Writers and find it in every one I take it to be impossible Testimonies one may find in many ages but such as will demonstrate and convince a full tradition I much doubt Neither doe I find by experience that who will draw a man by a rope or chain giveth him the whole rope or chaine into his hands but onely one end of it unto which if he cleave hard he shall be drawn which way the rope is carried Tradition is a long chaine every generation or delivery from father to sonne being a link in it I send him therefore no further then to this present age where he shall beyond all doubtfulnesse find that this doctrine was delivered unto this age by the care of their Ancestors And if we seek upon what termes we find that upon a fixed opinion of damnation in failing and so that they had received it so from their fore-fathers upon the same termes with opinion that it had continued ever since Christ his time by this meanes And he who is able to look into the meanes how this can remaine constantly so many ages may find it not onely the far securer but an evidently infallible succession of doctrine inviolable as long as there is a Church And this doth not onely shew that there is one but which she is and that there can be no other For I suppose no man will be so senselesse as to say the Apostles preached one thing in one part and the contrary in another wherefore it will be agreed that once the Church agreed in her faith This supposed let us set the time when one part changed and will it not be evident that the changing Church being
the true sence of these Councels why should not the same disposition in us towards the Scripture be thought every whit as sufficient not onely to keepe us in unitie but to secure us from danger To conclude though unitie be a thing much spoken of by you yet I finde it chieflie onely in your discourse your differences are many and great onelie you say you agree in what is necessarie and make the measure of things necessarie what you agree in so the summe is you agree in what you doe agree which it is impossible you should not though you had carried away the bayes from Bibrias his Tombe eager against us and yet divided among your selves like the state of an Armie in Tacitus Manente Legionum auxiliorumque ubi adversus Paganos certandum foret consensu and if your Church brag of such an Unity I perceive a small matter will make her brag Resp Againe I do confesse most English men confesse a Trinity the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour but if to morrow any one or more of them light upon some Book of an Arrian Trinitarian or other Sect so wittily written that he putteth probable solutions for the places of Scriptures shewes slight waies how our well meaning fore-fathers may have slipped into such an Error what is there to retaine those men from disagreeing with the rest of their Bretheren and betake themselves to the Arrians And when the heat is past light upon some Rabbi who shall cunningly exaggerate the absurdities as he shall tearm them of the Trinitie Incarnation Say our Saviour did strange things in vertue of some Constellation and delivering these things so Oratorically that for a new heat some of these things shall seem more conformable then his Arrianisme what then shall hinder this man to become a Jew and at last to prove himself so great a Clerk as to write de tribus Impostoribus Take away the power of the Church which every man doth who taketh away the Infallibility what can retaine any man why he should not yeeld to that discourse which seemeth fairest seeing nothing is certaine Repl. And if you should meet with a book which should give probable solutions to the places of Scripture and reasons which you now think prove the authority of the Church and bring other though suppose but slight yet such as may seem strong Arguments to prove it not infallible and shew waies of the same kind how your ancestors may have slipt in that and by that into other errors what is there to retaine you with the rest of your Bretheren and betaking your selfe to us If you say this is impossible to be done so think the Protestants that the Arrians can give them no probable answer to their places of Scripture and such as will seem so to some is no imputation to their grounds since so may and do our Answers and Objections to some of you who thereupon leave you and yet you count not your grounds disparaged For my part I professe my self not onely to be an Anti-Trinitarian but a Turk whensoever more reason appeares to me for that then for the Contrary and so sure would you be too for the pretended infallibility of your Church could no longer hold you if you thought you saw reason to beleeve it fallible as you must do if all weighed more reason appeared of her adversaries side either your proofes of her authority not to be probable or else your Doctrinestaught by her more contrary to reason then her authority though probably founded yet not upon demonstrations is sufficient to caution and answer for It is true so long as you stick to this hold upon the Roman Church you are sure to receive no error but which she offers you and indeed you need not for those are enough but that destroied which is apter to be destroied then most of the Protestants as weaklier supported by reason then no error that a Protestant may fall into but so may you too and the other is but such a Priviledge as I may have by sticking to the English Church as well as you to the Roman And though this following your guide may be able as long as she keep her self to keep you from some Ditches into which you might otherwise fall yet it may lead you unto others and indeed there is no error but by this way you are liable too yea even of those which she now condemnes since though she changed her opinion which is neither impossible nor unlawfull yet you are by your blind obedience to believe that she had not and to submit your understanding in this Question to some distinction though without a difference These things then I dislike in what you say First Your saying as though there is nothing to retain a Protestant from being of any error when it shall appeare more probable to him then Truth therefore there were nothing to keep him from those errors whereas you should have considered that the greater probabilities may serve reasonably to hold him without a demonstration and the evidence of the thing without a guide and that if those be not ground enough for a man to fix upon in how ill estate are those of your Church in the Question concerning the Church in which they follow no guide nor have any demonstration but professe they yeeld to her authority but upon prudentiall motives which kind of arguments sure may as well and as fixedly preserve a Protestant in an Orthodox opinion against a Heretick as the authoritie of the Church no surelier founded can you against us That every man should yeeld to that discourse which seemeth fairest to him I confesse it is alwaies not onelie safe and fit but also necessarie even for them who receive the Infallibilitie of the Church since those who beleeve that beleeve it because that appeares fairest to them and as you object to us the possibilitie of being perswaded from the truth by some wittie Author why thinke you not the same Author may possiblie too appeare to you to destroy your prudentiall Motives and so consequentlie your whole Faith which is built upon the Church which is built upon them Secondlie I dislike your seeming to beleeve that any grounds which are not demonstrative are too slipperie to rest upon as not onelie being contrarie to reason but to your selfe who told me before that no more was required then a maine advantage on one side and that we had reason to be satisfied with Probabilities to guide our Actions in Religion or since by them we were content to regulate all the other Actions of our life Thirdlie I dislike in your own parties behalfe your saying that a Protestant is in good likelihood to turne Arrian for if you meane onelie that it is possible it concernes you as much as them since this seemes to inferre that the Scriptures doe make more probablie for them which if they did it is not Heresie and to contradict all those whom both parts call
as his great fall witnest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In that fatall Haile that made more Orphans then his Children Yet to do an ill or an uncivill thing he was an arrant Coward Though he was of Davids Stature of his Courage too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in this most like him afraid of nothing but to offend But what needs any body plead for his Civility more then this present Discourse where he excels his Antagonist in that as well as in reason and shewes that a Gentleman writ with a Scholars Pen. Before I shut up all my Lord one Vertue there is yet to be mentioned which of all that ever had relation to his Lordship I may not I must not ever forget and that was his Friendship That is a Vertue which by the unintermitted affliction of my life I have had more then ordinary occasion to make use of And that I must needs say was it which made all his other Graces and Excellencies relish to me He being the dearest and the truest Friend that through the whole course of my unhappy life I ever had the happinesse to meet with If it be a kind of pleasure to reade discourses of Friends and Friendship What is it to enjoy such a Friend in whom really was what Excellencie either History can record or almost Poëtry faine Nothing so hard in Lucians Toxaris that he durst not do and nothing so handsome in all Seneca's Lawes of Benefits that he knew not how to do and to out-do for his Friend Let your Vertuous and dear Grandmother my Lord and all your Kindred yet alive speak to this And your blessed Mother were she now alive would say she had the best of Friends before the best of Husbands This was it that made Tew so valued a Mansion to us For as when we went from Oxford thither we found our selves never out of the Universitie So we thought our selves never absent from our own beloved home But I dare say no more of this it being now a mellancholy thing I am sure to me to call back into my memory happinesse never to be recalled and to afflict my self anew with the consideration of what felicity I have out-lived Your Lordship is now the onely surviving pledge of that admired Father of whom-when we his poor servants have said all we can the Character will be farr too short It is in you and onely you my Lord to set him out truely and to resemble him to the life and that will be by taking that Evangelicall Counsell Tu autem fac similiter Do like him live like him and pardon me if I add one thing more like him Love My Lord Your Lordships most humble and affectionately devoted Servant TRIPLET The Preface to the READER THe eminent abilities in the most noble Author of the ensuing learned Discourse and learneder Reply can scarcely be imagined unknown to any whom this language can reach But if any such there be I shall desire them to learne the perfections of that most excellent Person rather from the Dedication then this Preface the designe of which is onely to give the Reader some satisfation concerning the nature of this Controversie in it selfe and of these Dissertations in particular The Romish Doctrine of their owne Infallibility as it is the most gcnerall Controversie betweene them and all other Churches excluded by them from their Communion So it is of such a comprehensive nature that being once proved and clearely demonstrated it would without question draw all other Churches so excluded to a most humble submission and acknowledgement nay to an earnest desire of a suddaine Reconciliation upon any Termes whatsoever For howsoever they please to speak and write of our Hereticall and obstinate persistance in manifest Errors yet I hope they cannot seriously thinks we would be so irrationall as to contradict him whom we our selves think beyond a possibillity of erring and to dispute perpetually with them whom onely to heare were to be satisfied But when they have propounded their Decisions to be beleeved and imbraced by us as Infallibly true and that because they propound them who in their own opinion are Infallible if notwithstanding some of those Decisions seeme to us to be evidently false because cleanly contradictory to that which they themselves propound as infallibly true that is the Word of God surely we cannot be blamed if we have desired their Infallibility to be most clearly demonstrated at least to a higher degree of evidence then we have of the contradiction of their Decisions to the infallible Rule Wherefore The great Defenders of the Doctrine of the Church of England have with more then ordinary diligence endeavoured to view the grounds of this Controversie and have written by the advantage either of their learning accurately or of their parts most strongly or of the cause it selfe most convincingly against that darling Infallibility How clearely this Controversie hath been managed with what evidence of truth discussed what successe so much of reason hath had cannot more plainly appeare then in this that the very name of Infallibility before so much exalted begins now to be very burthensome even to the maintainers of it Insomuch as one of their latest and ablest Proselytes Hugh Paulin de Cressy lately Dean of Laghlin c. in Ireland and Prebendary of Windfor in England in his Exomologesis or faithfull Narration of the occasion and motives of his Conversion hath dealt very clearly with the World and told us that this Infallibilitie is an unfortunate Word That Mr. Chillingworth hath cumbated against it with too too great successe so great that he could wish the Word were forgotten or at least layd by That not onely Mr. Chillingworth whom he still worthily admires but we the rest of the poore Protestants have in very deed very much to say for our selves when we are pressed unnecessarily with it And therefore Mr. Cressy's advise to all the Romanists is this that we may never be invited to combat the authority of the Church under that notion Oh the strength of Reason rightly managed O the power of Truth clearly declared that it should force an emment member of the Church of Rome whose great Principle is non-retractation to retract so necessary so fundamentall a Doctrine to desert all their Schooles and contradict all their Controvertists But indeed not without very good cause For he professes withall that no such word as Infallibility is to be found in any Councel Neither did ever the Church enlarge her Authority to so vaste a widenesse But doth rather deliver the victory into our hands when we urge her Decisions In all which Confessions although he may seeme onely to speak of the Word yet that cannot be it which he is so wearie of because we except not against the word at all but confesse it rightly to signifie that which we impugne neither do we ever bring any nominall Argument against it But as when Cardinall Bellarmine sets downe the Doctrine of
her entire And he that will shew the contrary must shew how it could come to passe that those who lived in such an age could say unto their children this we received from our fore-fathers as taught them by their fore-fathers to have been received from Christ and his Apostles from hand to hand which if it could not be the question is resolved that no error is in the Church of God which holdeth her faith upon that tenure And truly if the Author desire to examine many Religions let him look their main ground wherein they relye and see whether that be good or no. And I thinke amongst Christians he shall find but two Tradition and Scripture And the Catholique onely to relye upon Tradition and all the rest upon Scripture And also shall he see that relying upon Scripture cannot draw to an unity those who relye upon it and that more then one cannot relye upon Tradition which when I have considered I have no further to seeke for if I will be a Christian I must belong to one side By falling on the one side I see my fortune in thousands who have gone before me to wit that I shall be to seek all my life time as I see they are and how greatly they magnifie very weak peices On the other side I see every man who followeth it as far as he follow it is at quiet and therefore cannot chuse but think there to be the stone to rest my head upon against which Jacob his Ladder is reared unto Heaven The Author hath through his whole discourse inserted divers things which seem particularly to the justification of himselfe in the way of his search The which as I think on one side I should be too blame to exaimine for who am I to judge the Servant of another man so because I cannot think but that they were inserted for love of truth and to heare what might be said against them craving pardon if on presumption of that it is his will I anyway offend I shall touch the matter wholly abstracting from the personall disposition of any man And to begin a far of it is confessed amongst Catholiques that all sinne must be wilfull and so as far as any mans doubt in Religion is not by will but by force and necessity so far it is not culpable but may be laudable before God and man As was without doubt the anxious search of Saint Augustine for the truth which he relateth in his confessions for who is assured of being out of the truth must have time to seek it and so long this doubt is rationall and laudable That which must justifie this search is in common that which justifieth all actions that a man be sure in the aime he aimeth at and in the meanes he taketh not to be governed by any passion interest or wilfulnesse but that he sincerely aimeth and carefully pursueth in the search of the truth it selfe for the love of it and of those goods which depend of the knowledge of it This is a thing in which a rationall man can have no other judge then himselfe for no man knoweth what is within a man but the Spirit or conscience of man But he himselfe must be a rigorous Judge unto himselfe for it is very hard to know the truth when I say rigorous I mean exact and fearfull mis-deeming As holy Job was who said He was fearfull of all his actions Holy David but amongst all Saint Augustine doth more sweetly complaine of the misery of man not knowing his own dispositions and yet he was then forty yeares of age when passions and heates of youth which make this discussion harder are generally settled Besides this he must have this care that he seek what the nature of the subject can yeeld and not as those Physitians who when they have promised no lesse then immortality can at last onely reach to some conservation of health or youth in some small degree So I could wish the Author to well assure himselfe first that there is possible an Infallibility before he be too earnest to be contented with nothing lesse For what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good would he therefore think fitting to live without any Religion because he could not get such a one as himselfe desired though with more then a mans wish Were it not rationall to see whether amongst Religions some one hath not such notable advantages over the rest as in reason it might seeme humane nature might be contented withall Let him cast his accompts with the dearest things he hath his own or freinds lives his estate his hope of posterity and see upon what termes of advantage he is ready to venture all these and then return to Religion and see whether if he doe not venture his soule upon the like it be truly reason or some other not confessed motive which withdraweth him For my own part as I doubt not of an Infallibity so I doubt not but setting that aside there be those excellencies found on the Catholique party which may force a man to preferre it and venture all he hath upon it before all other Religions and Sects in the world Why then may not one who after long searching findeth no Infallibility rest himselfe on the like supposing mans nature affordeth no better Another thing may make a mans search faulty and is carefully to be looked unto I meane that it is easie for a man to mistake himselfe by too much confidence in himselfe or others He that will make a judgement in an Art he is not Master in if he be deceived is to impute it unto himselfe The Phrase commandeth us to beleeve every man in his Art he who knoweth and understandeth himselfe beleeveth not Therefore when we see Masters in an Art we are not skilled in oppose us we may beleeve we are in the wrong which will bred this resolution in the Author of the discourse that if himselfe be not skilled all those wayes in which he pursueth his search he must find himselfe obliged to seek Masters who be both well skilled and the matter being subject to faction also very honest and upright men or else he doth not quit himselfe before God and man I cannot part without one note more which is that it is not all one to incurre damnation for infidelity and to be in state of Salvation For the man to whom infidelity is not imputed may be in state of damnation for other faults as those were who having known God by his works did not glorifie him as they ought nay they may be damned through want of Faith and yet not be condemned for incredulity As for example sake if when they have sinned they know not what meanes to take to have them forgiven though they be without fault in not beleeving neverthelesse dying without remission of sinne they are not in state to come to life everlasting As the man who should venture into a Wood without a
expresseth her opinion That the Pope is the Head of the Church they know but whether Tradition teach him to be so of Divine or humane Right from God of Councels or tacite consent and what Power is included in that Headship a Mahumetan as much instructed as most of them and even his head-ship is ordinarily prov'd to them but out of some place of Scripture our of which they hear his Infallibility concluded too without being told the different degree in which those two Doctrines are to be held Secondly For the learned neither are they taught so well some of these things but that they differ concerning them and your self fly wholly speaking of them leaving them to agree among themselves His Opusc and as Cardinall Perron saies in one place he will do us Protestants when we differ suffering the dead to bury the dead If then neither are you all agreed by what to know your Church nor when she hath defin'd so that even what is of faith is undermined among you I find cause to beleeve that Tradition is no excellent Director of you even in your grounds no not to teach you to know that which should teach you all the rest And if you were yet at the same wicket and by the same degrees by which I have shewd that other errors both may and have not onely entered into your Church but ascended also to high places there this doctrine concerning your Director might have done the same True it is that very little is generally and constantlie taught in all ages to the people and that which is seldome is told them to have been so receiv'd from hand to hand by the verball Tradition you speak of and if they be at any time taught so and remember it yet they know not whether the next Curate teach the same at least if under the same notion and degree of Necessitie Indeed it would not be so intricate a worke as now adaies it is to be a Christian if your way had been onely followed but it is not this Tradition but the writings of past Ages which transmit to posteritie the opinions of the Doctors of past times many of them being erroneous and more unnecessarie out of these works the learned learne and teach againe in their workes what the greater part the unlearned scarce ever heare of out of these they settle the degrees your Doctrines are to be held in some as probable some true some almost necessarie some altogether and teach concerning others that some are false some dangerous some damnable whereas the vulgar have seldome their meat so curiouslie joynted to them but are told in generall for the most part unlesse some publick opposition or other occasion perswade them at some time to descend to teach them more parcicularlie that this is so good and this is not so And indeed the degree in which the last Age held such an opnion is both most hard to know not onely because the ignorant are seldom taught it by word of mouth and the learned have seldome occasion without some opposition to explaine themselves so farre in their writings but because also as many and as considerable Persons not writings as doe write we cannot know by the Authors what the whole Age thought true except the acceptation of that Doctrine were a condition of the Communion and most necessarie to be known because most of our controversies with your Church are as much if not more about the necessitie of her opinions as about the truth of them For we seeing plainlie that in the purest ages many of the chiefest Doctors have contradicted some of her Tenets without suspicion of Heresie are not able to conceive how a doctrine should from being indifferent in one age become necessarie in another and the contrarie from onely false Heriticall As time makes Botches Pox And plodding on will make a Calfe an Oxe Dr. D. especially if that way had allwaies been walkt in which you now speak of Object No judicious man can deny to see with his eyes if he have cast them never so little upon the present state of Christendome that there is one Congregation of men which layeth claime to Christ his Doctrine as upon this title that she hath received it from his Apostles without interruption delivered from Father to Son untill this day and admits not any Doctrine for good and legitimate which he doth not receive in this manner Resp What the Judicious of whom I am no member can do I know not but I not onely can but do deny it you meaning by that Congregation the Church of Rome for by seeing that not upon this but other kind of claim certaine Doctrines have arrived to the very brink of being defined I have cause to think that if they received none in upon on other grounds these would not be suffered to stand so neer the doore And indeed there being between your selfe such differences that Erasmus tels us Praefat. in Hillar that he who is a Heretick among the Dominicans is Orthodox to the Scotists sure one side hath admitted of a Doctrine for Legitimate which hath not been so received and then me thinks this being easily endable which it is by seeing which claimes such a delivery for if both do it then two Parts may which you deny if neither do then your whole Church goes by some other Rule that which doth upon that which you call the Catholique Grounds me thinks should have obtained a definition for her and the other which refists that Principle upon which they ought onely to build should have been suddenly and absolutely condemned This will appeare plainer if we consider the opinions of your Church by the Actions of her Head in a notable and late Example A great controversie being risen between the Dominicans and the Jesuites it was heard before Pope Clement let us see then what course he took to find which Part held the Truth since he was not likely especially in a time wherein by being more opposed then usually he had reasons to be consequently more cautious to chuse a new way by which truth was not wont to be found out by your side upon like occasions Did he send for the wisest and best men from all nay from adjoyning Parts to enquire of them what they had been taught by their Fathers to have been received by them uninterruptedly from the Apostles did he examine with which of them the first and purest ages sided did he consider which opinion would make us have the more excellent conceit of God and work most towards the expelling of Vice None of all these were his course but he appointed both sides to prove which of them followed Saint Austine and according to them he intended to give sentence if the advice of Cardinall Perron had not prevailed to the contrary But many days they spent in examining what he thought who thought so variously concerning it that he scarce knew himself which whereas before him
permit which being or depending upon matter of Fact cannot be known enough to be judged before examination of witnesses and the like be ended and if they willingly deferre the ending they are confess'd to be in fault by all men but those who hold Perjury to be none But you seem to conceive our grounds faulty as not leading even to a possible Unity whereas to a possible one I am sure they do since what is concluded out of them by many may be by all nay indeed am confident that all who receive the Scripture for the onely rule and believe what is there plain to be onely necessarie would if they truely beleeved what they professe and were not lead aside either by prejudice or private ends or some Popish relicks of holding what they have long been taught or following the authority of some by them much esteemed persons either alive or dead soon agree in as much as is necessarie and in concluding no necessity of agreeing in more there being no doubt but it would soone appear plainly what is plaine Besides if no grounds be sufficient for Unitie which produce not the effect then it seemes the grounds of your grounds those Arguments by which you prove that there is a Judge and a generall Councell is it are insufficient since they are not able to make all Christians about this question Again although a Judge and this Judge be received yet this is still an insufficient ground for Unitie since the Greek Church agree thus farre with you which is as farre as you agree with one another and yet are not so bound by it to any universall Unitie with them but that they esteem you Hereticks and are esteemed so by you and if you say that it is not because the grounds upon which the Infallibilitie of the Church are built lead not sufficientlie to Unitie that we joyne not with you in beleeving them to be infallible not because the determination of generall Councels is not a sufficient meanes of Unitie that the Greek Church admitting their authoritie admits not of your opinions but it is the fault of us and of them hardening our hearts against the truth then we may as well say that some of those who agree in our grounds yet disagree from our doctrine not that the grounds lead not to Unitie but that our Adversaries will not be lead or if as you doe and some others of you sometimes you confesse that they through an innocent error dissent from you and doe this without any imputation in this respect to your grounds I hope it will be lawfull for us to allow the same possipilitie without any disadvantage or prejudice to ours Besides say you though we agree to day yet we may not to morrow which to prove were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paines whollie lost we confesse For though Tully make it an expression of his contempt to Piso in an Epistle to Atticus Ita nihil est ut plane quid erit nesciat yet I take it to be a true saying of man in generall who knowes little of present things and nothing of future but this is common to us both for if we change not our opinions we shall agree as we doe and if you change yours you shall not which is possible for not onelie that opinion of the Infallibilitie of your judges decrees may it self be altered which holdeth together all the rest but some of you may holding that ground like the Greek either change their opinions concerning the authority of such or such a Councell as beleeving it unduelie called factiouslie carried or not generall as is pretended or not so consenting as is requisite or differ from the rest concerning the sence of the decrees for whereas you say you agree that the Church is an infallible Mistresse and when she interposeth her judgement the controversie is ended I answer that first some of you with whom I have spoken my selfe hold that the Churches authoritie in defining extends no further then to such points whereof Tradition is of one part as in many controverted there is I beleeve no such and that this rule she may transgresse and so erre Secondlie Neither the Dominicans nor their Adversaries are very readie to remain in suspence to await her decision but define all readie concerning her definitions Cum utraque pars tenax contendat suam non aliam posse definiri sententiam either part tenaciouslie urging that the contrarie opinion cannot be defined which if they did to fright the Pope from defining least the condemned partie being even before should after make a Schisme they obtained their end Thirdlie What are you the nearer to Unitie for your Infallible Mistresse the Church when you neither agree of any certaine and proper markes to know her by nor when it is that she interposeth her judgement some take it to be the particular Church of Rome others of which number you are all which communicate with her supposing the first to be true yet not being de fide it will serve but ill by your rules to build our faith upon and even when she delivers her opinion is not certainlie agreed whether the people of Rome be to have Votes or onelie the Clergie or of them onelie the Pope with the Cardinals or the Pope onelie without them if the Pope whether onelie in his Chaire and what circumstances arc required to his decreeing in Cathedra would beget more questions If all that communicate with her as you say it is as things now stand First I would know whether they be sure to be at all times the Church to that you refuse to derermine and so inclusivelie denie Secondlie It is not possible that such a multitude should ever give any sentence explicitelie nor can we ever know that it hath even tacitelie done so if they be to decree onelie by representation then how large a companie represents them with all their power of whom that companie is to consist how many of them are to agree to make it a binding sentence c. are things yet undefined and like to be and if any goe about to determine them their power being it selfe still a question could not end these Therefore whereas you say that we have no definitive sentence besides that truly to have one and not to know when we have one is much alike I answer that whensoever the Scripture shall seeme to us to have defined we are according to our doctrine readie to yeeld and so the controversie is ended and sure the Scripture may be said to be a definitive sentence as well as the written Councell of Trent and till then though we differ about interpretations of not plaine places we have as much Unitie as you who are not resolved upon the sence of manie decrees of that and other Councels and if a desire and diligence to finde the true meaning of them and an aptnesse to assent when it is found be thought to secure among you those who mistake
the Church in their positive tearmes Summus Pontifex cum totam Ecclesiam docet in his quae ad Fidem pertinent nullo casu errare potest We conceive he hath suffciently expressed the sence of the word Infallibility so that Infallibilis est nullo casu errare potest are to us the same thing It cannot therefore be the Word alone but the whole importance and sence of that word Infallibility which Mr. Cressy so earnestly desires all his Catholicks ever hereafter to forsake because the former Church did never acknowledge it and the present Church will never be able to maintaine it This is the great successe which the Reason Parts and Learning of the late Defendors of our Church have had in this maine Architectonicall Controversie And yet though the Church never maintained it though the Protestants have had such advantage against it though Mr. Cressy confessing both hath wished all Catholicks to forsake it yet will he not wholly forsake it himself but undertakes most irrationally to answer for it If the Church never asserted it if the Catholicks be not at all concerned in it to what end will Mr. Cressy the great mitigator of the rigor and defendor of the latitude of the Churches Decisions maintaine it If Mr. Chillingworth have had such good successe against it why will his old Friend Mr. Cressy endeavour to answer his arguments especially considering when he hath answered them all he can onely from thence conclude that Mr. Chillingworth was a very had Disputant who could bring no argument able to confute that which in it selfe is not to be maintained So unreasonable it is and inconsistent with his Concessions that he should give an answer at all but the manner of his answer which he gives is farr more irrationall For deserting the Infallibility he answers onely the authority of the Church and so makes this authority answer for that Infallibility from whence these three manifest absurdities must necessarily follow First When he hath answered all M. Chillingworth's arguments in the same manner as he pretends to answer them he must still acknowledge them unanswerable as they were intended by him that made them And no argument need to be thought good for any thing else if he which made it knew what he said as Mr. Chillingworth certainely did Secondly He onely pretends to answer those arguments as against the authority of the Church simply considered without relation to such an Infallibility which were never made against an authority so quallified And therefore whether the argument of his deare friend were to any purpose or no his answer manifestly must be to none Thirdly If hee intend to refute all opposition made to their Infallibility by an assertion of their bare authority then must he assert that authority to be as great and convincing which is fallible as that which is infallible that Guide to be as good which may lead me out of my way as that which cannot That Iudge to be as fit to determine any doubt who is capable of a mistake as he which is not And then I make no question but some of his own Church amongst the rest of their dislikes will put him in mind of that handsome sentence of Cardinall Belarmine Iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos ut non appellent ab eo Judicio quod erroneum esse potuit I once thought to have replied to those answers which he hath given to Mr. Chillingworth's arguments but his antecedent Concession hath made them so inconsiderable to me that upon a second thought I feare I should be as guilty in replying after my Objections as he hath been in answering after his Confessions Wherefore I shall conclude with an asseveration of min own which shall be therefore short because mine That the Reply of this most excellent Person Sola operarum summa praesertim in Graecis incuria excepta is the most accurate Refutation of all which can be said in this Controversie that ever yet appeared and if what hath already been delivered have had such successe upon so eminent an adversary then may we very rationally expect at least the same effect upon all who shall be so happy as to read these Discourses Which is the earnest desire of I. P. OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME A discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND TO him that doubteth whether the Church of Rome hath any errors they answer that she hath none for she never can have any this being so much harder to beleeve then the first had need be proved by some certainer Arguments if they expect that the beleefe of this one should draw on whatsoever they please to propose yet this if offered to be proved by no better wayes then we offer to prove by that she hath erred which are arguments from Scripture and ancient Writers all which they say 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 proofe may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to beleeve them If they say that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine Faith why are they offended with the Protestants for beleeving 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 Isid Pelus saith are the cause of all Heresie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pride and Prejudication why should God be more offended with the one then with the other though they chance to erre 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 never had been set If they say we may know for that generall 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 I seek whether she have erred and conceiving she hath contradicted her self conclude necessarily she hath erred I suppose it not damnable though false because I try the Church by one of the touch-stones which herself appoints me Conformity with the Ancients For to say I am to beleeve
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 necessitie to be subscribed unto Whether there were any surreption or force used and whether those disanull the Acts Whether the most voices are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all required which never yet agreed Or whether two parts will serve as in the Tridentine Synod A considerable doubt because Nicephorus Callistus relalating the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes him give three reasons One That the Pope of Rome was not present The Second That most did not agree to it The third That others thither gathered were displcased 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 end of the old Then if before a generall Councell have defined a Question it be lawfull to hold either way and damnable to do so after 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 this Doctrine That the Soules of the blessed shall see God before the day of Judgement and not be kept in secret Receptacles for without this the Doctrine of Prayers to Saints cannot stand and yet for denying this Bellarmine excuseth Pope John the 22th because the Church he meanes I doubt not a generall Councell had not then condemned it I desire to know why he should not be condemned as well without one as many Hereticks that are held so by their Church yet condemned by none which if he make to be the Rule of Heresie it had been happy to have lived before the Councell of Nice when no opinion had been dam nable but some against the Apostles Councell at Hierusalem because there had yet been no other generall Councell at least why should not I be excused by the same reason though I beleeve not a Councell to be infallible since I never heard that any Councell hath decreed that they are so neither if it hath can we be bound by that decree unlesse first made certaine some other way that it selfe is so If you say we must beleeve it because of Tradition I answer Sometimes you will have the not beleeving any thing not declared by a Councell to have power enough to damne that is when against any of us at other times the Church hath not decreed unlesse a Councell have and their error is pardonable and they good Catholicks Next as I have asked before how shall an ignorant man know it For he in likelihood can speak but with a few from whom he cannot know that all of the Church of Romes part do now and in past ages have beleeved it to be Tradition so certaine as to make it a ground of Faith unlesse he have some revelation that those deceived him not neither indeed can those that should inform him of the opinions of former times be certainely informed themselves For truely if the relation of Pappias could cozen so far all the prime Doctors of the Christian Church into a beleefe of the celebration of a thousand yeeres after the resurredion so as that no one of those two first ages oppose it which appeares plainly enough because those that after rise up against this never quoated any thing for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least two hundred and fifty yeares after Christ nay if those first men did not onely beleeve it as probable but Justine Martir saith he holds it and so do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sets it down directly for a Tradition and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this which is plainner then 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 ancients as well be deceived in other points and then what certaintie shall the learned have when after much labour they think they can make it appeare that the ancients thought any thing Tradition that indeed it was so and that either the folly or the knavery of some Pappias deceived them not I confesse it makes me think of some that Tully speakes of who arcem amittunt dum propugnacula defendunt loose the Fort whilst they defend the out-works For whilst they answer this way the Arguments of Tradition for the opinions of the Chiliasts they make unusefull to themselves the force of Tradition to prove any else by For which cause it was rather wisely then honestly done of them who before Fevardentius set him forth left out that part of Irenaeus which we alleadge though we need it not much for many of the Fathers take notice of this beleef of his yet he justifies himself for doing it by saying that if they leave out all errors in the books they publish that is I suppose all opinions contrary to the Church of Rome bona pars scriptorum Patrum Orthodoxorum evanesceret a great part of the writings of the Orthodox Fathers must vanish away 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 if there were no Tradition for them I would have you remember they can deliver their opinions possibly but either before the controversie arise in the Church upon some chance or after If before it is confessed that they writ not often cautiously enough and so they answer all they seem to say for Arrius 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 resolution to oppose hereticks enough I desire it may be lawfull for us to answer so too either one of these former waies or that it was as often they say too some Hyperbole when they presse us with the opinions of Fathers At least I am sure if they may deceive us with saying a thing is Tradition when it is not we may be sooner deceived if we will conclude it for a Tradition when they speak it onely as a Truth and for ought appeares their particular opinion Besides If Salvian comparing the Arrians with evill livers and that after they were condemned by a Councell extenuates by reason of their beleeving themselves in the right with much instance the fault of the Arrians and saith how they shall be punished in the day of Judgement none
damnation for any man to deny the Infallibility of the Church of Rome but for him onely that denies it obstinately And then I am safe for I am sure I do not Neither can they say I shall be damned for Schisme though not for Heresie for he is as well no Shcismatick though in Schisme that is willing to joyne in Communion with the true Church when it appears to be so to him as he is no Heretick though he holds Hereticall opinions who holds them not obstinately that is as I suppose with a desire to be informed if he be in the wrong Next Why if it be not necessary alwaies to beleeve the Truth so one beleeve in generall what the Church would have beleeved for so they excuse great men that have held contrary opinions to theirs now before they were defined or knew them to be so why I say shall not the same implicite assent serve to whatsoever God would have assented unto though I mistake what that is when indeed to beleeve implicitely what God would have beleeved is to beleeve implicitely likewise what the Church teacheth if this Doctrine be within the number of those which God commands to be beleeved I have the lesse doubt of this opinion that I shall have no harme for not beleeving the Infallibility of the Church of Rome because of my being so farr 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 chuse that that should then the contrary For they may well beleeve me that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant Books and making my self giddy with disputing obscure Questions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I should beleeve there should alwaies be whom I might alwaies know a society of men whose opinions must be certainely true and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labour to discusse and define all arising doubts so that I might be excusably at ease and have no part left for me but that of obedience which must needs be a lesse difficult and so a more agreeable way then to endure endlesse Volumes of Commenters the harsh Greek of Epiphanius and the harder Latin of Trenaeus and be pained by distinguishing between different sences and various Lections and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlem that would preferr these studies before so many so more pleasant that would rather imploy his understanding then submit it and if he could think God imposed upon him onely the resisting temptations would by way of addition require from himself the resolving of doubts yet I say not that all these Books are to be read by those that understand not the languages for them I conceive their seeking into the Scripture may suffice but he who hath by Gods grace skill to look into them cannot better use it then in the searching of his will where they say it is to be found that he may assent to them if there he find reason for it or if not they may have no excuse for not excusing him For whereas they say it is pride makes us doubt of their Infallibilitie I answer That their too much lazinesse and impatience of examining is the cause that many of them do not doubt Next what pride is it never to assent before I find reason since they when they follow their Church as infallible pretend reason for it and will not say they would if they thought they found none and if they say we do 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 himself and it must be a very partiall Advocate that would strive to acquit him One much prevailing argument which they make is this That whosoever leaves them fall into dissention between themselves whereas they in the mean while are allwaies at Unity I answer First In this whereof the Question is now they all assent Secondly When there is fire for them that disagree they need not bragg 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 fore-sight Which seemes to me as great as any between their Adversaries and in the latter the Jesuites have ancienter and generaller Tradition 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 think they have for the necessity of an infallible guide Yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Hercticks and must us If they say the Church hath not resolved it which signifies onely that they are not agreed about it which is that we object I answer It ought to have done so if uniformity to the Ancient Church be required in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austine who is ever various I confesse in it delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtfull and to say it is lawfull for them to disagree wheresoever they do not agree is ridiculous for they cannot do both at once about the same point and if they say they mean by the Churches not having concluded it that a Councell hath not I Answer First That they condemne some without any Councell and why not these Next I say the opinion of the diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of the representative which hath its authority from the other and therefore if all extant for the first four hundered yeares taught any thing it is more Heresie to deny that then any Cannon of a Councell But may not howsoever any other Company of People that would maintaine themselves to be infallible say as much that all other Sects differ from one another and therefore should all agree with them would not those think they ascribe all other mens dissentions and learned mens falling into diverse heresies to their not allowing their Infallibility 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 the place of Disciples obedient to them which is that which Nilus a Greek Bishop professed that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans was the chief cause of separation between them Next They use much to object how could errors come into the Church without opposition and mention both of them and the opposition to them in History I answer They might come not at once but by degrees as in the growth of a Child or motion of a Clock we see neither in the present but know there was a present when we find it past Next I say there are two sorts of errors To hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false or that
is but profitable and probable Of the second sort that errors should come in it appears not hard to me 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 Schoole speculations onely when the authority of a man of chief note had a more generall influence then now it hath and so as Thucidides saith the Plague did in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the disease that first settled in the head EASILY passed through all the body considering how apt men are to desire that all men should think as they do and consequently to lay a necessity upon the receiving that opinion if they conceive that a way to have it received And then if it were beleeved generally profitable as confession who would be apt to oppose their calling it neccessary for the same cause for which they called it so Besides If this error were delivered by some Father in the hot opposition of some Heretick it may be none would oppose it least the adversaries might take advantage by their dissention and he that disputed for the Orthodox side might lose by it much of his authority The word necessary it self is also often used for very convenient and then from necessary in that sence to absolutely necessary is no difficult change though it be a great one Then the Fathers use the word Hereticks sometimes in a larger sence and sometimes in a stricter and so differ in the reckoning them up some leaving out those that others put in though they had seen the precedent Catalogue and so the doubtfullnesse of the sence of these words might bring in error Names also as Altar Sacrifice Masse may have been used First in one sence and the name retained though the thing signified received change as it was once of an Emperour of Rome Tacitus cui proprium fuit nuper reperta I leave out scelera priscis verbis obtegere whose property it was to cover things newly found 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 beleeve that if the Protestants beyond the Seas would have thought Bishops as good a word as Super-intendents and so in other such things many who understand nothing but names would have missed the scandale they have now taken These waies I think these things may have come without much opposition from being thought profitable to be done and probable to be beleeved to be thought necessary to be both and how things may have been by little and little received under old names which would not have been so at once under new ones it is not hard to conceive The first of these being no such small fault but that part of the Montanists Heresies was thinking uncommanded fasting daies necessary to be observed which without doubt might lawfully have been kept so that no necessitie had been imposed But my maine answer is that if to be in the Church without known precedent opposition be a certaine note of being derived from the begining let them answer how came in the opinion of the Chiliasts not contradicted till two hundred yeares after it came in To condude If they can prove that the Scripture may be a certainer teacher of truth 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 suffcient 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 Ancients If they can prove that the consent of Fathers long together is a stronger Argument against us then against the Dominicans If they can prove though it be affirmed by the first of them that such a thing is Tradition and beleeved 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 beleeve it which were the more strange because Justin Martyr and Clements Alexandrinus among the Ancients and Erasmùs and Ludovicus Vives among the Modernes beleeve some Pagans to be saved I will subscribe to it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any man vouchsafe to think either this or the Authour of it of value enough to confute the one and informe the other I shall desire him to do it with proceeding to the businesse and not standing upon any small slip of mine of which this may be full and with that temper 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 the loud wind and that Epiphanius excuseth himself if he have called any Hereticks in his anger Deceivers or Wretches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I request him also to help to bring me to the Truth if I be out of it not onely by his arguments but also by his Prayers which way if he use and I still continue on the part I am of and yet doe neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither am willfully blind nor deny impudently what I see then I am confident that he will neither have reason to be offended with me in this world nor God for that to punish me in the next AN ANSVVER TO THE Lord FAVLKLANDS DISCOURSE OF INFALLIBILITY CHAP. I. NAture being not able to perfect the work of humane kind which shee had begun and bursting at those throwes and springings which her timely child gave to see the light of eternall life whereof the distaste of all things experienced in this world and certain sparklings sowed in our soule had given it a dim notice expected from her mercifull Creator the aid whereof how much greater the wonder was to bee and the necessity now divers thousand yeers by lamentable experience was more deer so much the readier was he and it was to send from his eternall brest his only wisedome to recount us wonders and averre them under the seal of his immutable truth He knew all secrets and could not be touched with suspition of ignorance he was all goodness and free from all calumnie of jealousie or envie who knew him could not mistrust him for beside those great Verdicts alreadie expressed in his favour his works gave assurance of his words he fulfilling in deeds whatsoever he perswaded in words and working to himself what he wished unto others Lo here the high and sage Master of our faith whose Oracles we cannot mis-doubt so we be
presently followed an unknowen Libertinage men yeilding themselves over to all concupiscence since they were perswaded they had no power to resist free-will being denyed I need not instance in prayer to Saints worshiping Images prayer for the dead and the like which is evident could not be changed without an apparent change in Christian Churches So that a doctrine contrary to faith is like a disease which although the cause be internall yet cannot the effects and symptomes be kept from the outward parts and view of the world The consequence which this note draweth is that it is not possible that any materiall point of Christian faith can be changed as it were by obreption whilst men are on sleepe but it must needs raise a great scandall and tumult in the Christian Common-weale For suppose the Apostles had taught the world it were Idolatry to pray to Saints or use reverence towards their Pictures How can we imagine this honour brought in without a vehement conflict and tumult in a people which did so greatly abhor Idolatry as the Apostles Disciples did I might make the like instance in other points if the whole History of the Church did not consist of the invasions made by Heretiques and the great and most violent waving of the Church to and fro upon those occasions We remember in a manner as yet how change came into Germany France Scotland and our own Country Let those be a signe to us what we may thinke can be the creeping in of false doctrine specially that there is no point of doctrine contrary to the Catholique Church rooted in any Christian Nation that the Ecclesiasticall History does not mention the times and combats by which it entred and tore the Church in peices Let it therefore remaine for most evidently constant that into the Christian Church can come no error but it must be seen and noted and raise scandall and opposition to shew it selfe as truly it is contrary to the nature of Piety and Religion And when it does come it cannot draw after it any others then such as first desert the root of Faith and Anchor of Salvation that is to be judged by what their fore-fathers taught them and affirmed to have received from their Ancestors as the Faith which Christ and his Apostles delivered to the whole world of their time and to such as ever claime and maintaine the right of succession as rule of what they beleeve Yet may this also be worthy of consideration that as in our naturall body the principall parts are defended by Bones Flesh Skinnes and such like defences in such sort that no outward Agent can come to offend them before having annoyed some of these so in the Catholique faith there are in speculation those we call Theologicall conclusions and other pious opinions and in practise many Rites and Ceremonies which stop the passage unto the maine principall parts of Christian beleife and action And about these we see daily such great motions in the Catholique Church that he must be very ignorant of the Spirit of God which quickneth his Church that can imagine any vitall part of his faith can be wounded while it lyes asleep and is insensible of the harm befalleth it for as in any Science a principle cannot be mistaken but it must needs draw a great shoale of false consequence upon it and lame the whole Science so never so little an error in faith can be admitted but in other Tenets and Ceremonies it must needs make a great change and innovation CHAP. IV. NOw let any discreet man consider what further evidence he can desire or peradventure what greater assurance nature can afford and not be of an awkward wilfulnesse to aske that which is not conformable to the lawes of nature Much like unto him who being sate in a chaire far from the chimney could not think of applying himselfe to the fire but was angry the fire and chimney were made so far from him The Phylosophers say it is indisciplinati ingenii to expect in any Art or Science more exactnesse then the nature of it affordeth As if a man would bind a Seaman to goe so far every day whether wind and weather served or no So in morall matters and such as are subject to humane action we must expect such assurance as humane actions beare If for the government of your spirituall life you have as much as for the managing of your naturall and civill life what can you expect more Two or three witnesses of men beyond exception will cast a man out of not onely his lands but life and all He that amongst Merchants will not adventure when there is a hundred to one of gaining well will be accompted a silly Factor And amongst Souldiers he that will feare danger where but one of a hundred is slaine shall not escape the stain of Cowardise What then shall we expect in Religion but to see a maine advantage on the one side we may cast our selves on and for the rest remem ber we are men creatures subject to chance and mutability and thank God he hath given us that assurance in a supernaturall way which we are content withall in our naturall and civill ventures and possessions which neverthelesse God knoweth we often love better and would lesse hazard then the unknowne good of the life to come Yet peradventure God hath provided better for his Church then for Nature since he loved her more and in his own Person did more for her Let us therefore examine the assurance he hath left her particularly It was found in the second Chapter upon this principle that so great a multitude of men as cleave to this ground to have received their faith by tradition could not conspire by lying to deceive their posterity And if I be not deceived this principle being granted the conclusion that this present Church is the true followeth in as severe a way of discourse as in Aristotles Organ is taught and exemplified in Mathematicall Writers whose use and art it is to put the like suppositions whence to enduce something out against their principle As in the said Chapter you are bidden to put what yeare or age such an error entred and it is evidently true that if it be true then that yeare or age conspired to tell a lye to deceive their posterity And as for the strength of their principle it selfe although no morall man can be so absurd as to doubt of it yet may we consider that the understanding being the part which maketh man to be a man and truth being the perfection of our understanding and true speech the effect naturall to true knowledge or understanding It is cleare that to speak truth is as naturall a fruit of mans nature as Peares of a Peare tree Grapes of a Vine Hony of the Bee and that it can be no lesse grafted in nature for men to speak truly then it is in any other naturall cause to yeeld the fruit for whose sake
little room and shut up your Oration into the compasse of some 3. Sillogismes thus you argue What company soever of Christians alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers as received from theirs as so come down from the Apostles that company alone must hold the truth But that company of Christians which are in communion with the Church of Rome only pretend this Therefore they alone hold the truth and the Church The Major you prove thus If such a company of Christians could teach falshoods then since it is granted that what was at first delivered was true some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity But neither of these are beleevable Therefore neither is it beleevable that such a company of Christians should teach falshoods The Minor you prove thus I mean that they alone pretend it for that they I mean all they pretend it you take for granted If it be incompatible with the Church of Romes doing it that any else should doe it then she does it alone But it is incompatible which is denied and not yet proved Therefore she doth it alone The severall parts of this Argument I mean first to Answer and secondly Whatsoever lyes scatter'd in your discourse any thing to this purpose or any other unanswer'd in the first part and thirdly I will reply to those Answers which you have been pleased to make to part of that Nothing which I writ wishing that this last work might have bin longer I mean that by answering it all and in order you had given me occasion to have dwelt more upon my Reply Now if I doe not shew that all of the Church of Rome do not nor cannot pretend this that for two to pretend it is not incompatible as having been so heretofore that those who alone pretend this may pretend it falsely that some men and in time all may mistake their Ancestors and have a mind in some cases to deceive their posterity and that it is not necessary for a whole age at once to joyn in doing it though it be done if I say I shew not this then let me not bee beleeved and if you can shew me that I have not shewed it I will promise to beleeve you First That the Church of Rome doth not nor cannot pretend that all their doctrine was received by them from their fathers as come down from the Apostles it appeares because when questions have risen about such things whereof there was before no speech yet if a Councell have determined them they are received with the same assent as if they had come from the Apostles and they professe now the same readinesse to receive alwayes any such definition though about a question now unknown and it is likely they have done what they professe they are ready to doe at least they shew that yours is not the ground upon which they build And I pray aske your selfe whether those that teach the common people who are the greatest part of your Church use to be askt about it by them or use to tell them that this they received from their Fathers as descended from the Apostles by a continuall verball Tradition For suppose they told them that this Tradition tels us yet they are not able to distinguish between such as is but Ecclesiasticall and Apostolicall or whether this be known to them onely by deductions or from ancient bookes and no such uncontinued line of teaching and not rather perswade them in generall to beleeve it what by Arguments drawne from Scripture what from reason what from Fathers Councels or Decretals I am not certaine what is their course but I am sure the most ordinary amongst the Ancients whom they pretend to follow was that when they had told the people that such a proposition was true they added neither is it I that say so but the Apostle the Prophet or the Evangelist and mentioned the place where they thought such a doctrine was included seldome speak of any verball Tradition lesse of such a one upon which you wholly rely except urg'd to it when that was impudently claim'd by some Heretique and when they did as the Asian Bishops about Easter Justin Martir about the age of Christ Saint Austine about communicating Infants Papius and Iraeneus about the doctrine of the Chiliasts then as Lucian tels us that when that Jugler Alexander sent to a City a Verse to be set upon their doores to keepe away the Plague those houses which used the remedy were more visited then those that did not so those doctrines which the Fathers did grace by writing verball Tradition in their foreheads were not lesse perhaps more apt to be after disbeleeved then the other which were not in that kind taught Now if the Ignorant be not expresly instructed that upon this ground they are to think that true which they are bid to beleeve especially where their religion is easily enough received onely for being that of their Country you must allow that the greatest part of your Church cannot nor does not pretend to have received all they beleeve under that Notion and to know they did you must have spoke with them all or have heard them all instructed for what is in some places so taught may be delivered upon other grounds in the very next Parishes From the Ignorant let'us come to the learned and see whether they doe not both beleeve more and require more to be beleeved then hath had any such pedigree as you imagine First then the great eloquent and judicious Cardinall Perron whom I preferre so much before all those of his side that have been Authors that if a Pigmy may be allowed to measure Giants I should think that the vast learning and industry of Bellarmine and Baronius might with most advantage to their party and no disgrace to them have been employ'd in seeking quotations for his large and monstrous understanding to have employ'd them he I say tels us and not from himselfe but from Saint Austine that the Trinity Pennance Free-will and the Church were never exactly disputed of before the Arrians the Novatians the Pelagians and the Donatists Now since without doubt the former ages disputed as well as they could and so could not instruct their Proselites better then they confuted their Adversaries I think it evident that more hath since been concluded then came from Tradition and that the way you speak of appeared not sufficient either to Cardinall Perron or Saint Austin But because Bellarmine being written in a more generall language is more generally though I thinke unjustly esteemed then Perron I will aske you a question of him when he excuseth Pope John the 22th for denying that Saints enjoy the beatificall vision before the day of judgement in which he was lead by a Troop of Fathers because the Church had not then defined the contrary did Bellarmine beleeve that then Christians had received from
by which I shewd in that paper which you vouchsafed to answer which I desire not to repeat to avoid both your being wearied and my own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that errors might come to be generall all those are waies by which the same errors might come to be thought to have proceeded from Tradition Saint Austin and Tertullian agreeing in the sence of the sentence which we read in the latter PLACE = marg n = * De Corouâ Si legem nusquam reperio sequitur ut Traditio consuetudini morem hunc dederit habiturum quandoque apostoli authoritatem ex interpretatione rationis and it is the more strange that Tertullian should allow any custome the authority of comming from the Apostles since in the same place he gives any man leave to beginne a custome so it be good which depends upon his reason as the reception of it does upon theirs that follow him and so make it a custome in these words Annon putas licere omni fideli concipere constituere duntaxat quod Deo congruat quod disciplinae conducat quod saluti proficiat dicente Domino cur non vobis ipsis quod justum est judicatis By which it seemes he was willing more should be beleev'd then was first taught and when that way had brought in any thing for there is the same reason of opinion as of actions and made it common then the former Rule serves to rivet it in under the false Notion of comming from the Apostles or having at least equall authority neither can you except against this as said by him when he was a Montanist since your side useth to brag of this and the like places as making for them To explaine my meaning the fuller give me leave to consider one question which shall be the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin In the first ages it is a thing granted that many Fathers beleeved her not onely not free from Originall sinne but not even from Actuall Wadd Pag. 271 after this second question came to be more considered and this first to be defin'd but yet those of the Amrmative opinion cannot but grant to those of the Negative that many Fathers sided with them or else they were impudent Quoters who claim three hundred nay Wadding p. 124. even in Saint Thomas his time they confesse that the Negative opinion was the more common doctrine and yet see I pray how things are altered We have now a History of some Treaties of two Kings of Spaine with two Popes by two Embassadours to perswade them to define the Affirmative The History is written by one Wadding an Irish-man his Secretary there I find that the Bishop of Carthage having Order from the Embassadour his Master to desire to presse nay almost to tear a Definition from his Holinesse about it tells him and not falsely that those who hold the Negative are Inter Catholicos soli pauci unius instituti viri Page 97. unus alter ab ill is edocti but a few of one onely Order and one or two of their Disciples His Master bids him urge for the contrary The opinion and subscription of so many Prelates Orders Page 90. and Universities the universall acclamation of the People the weighty necessity of cutting off scandals Page 400. nay saith he many Universities suffer none to take Degrees without making a Vow for the Defence of the Immaculate conception and for the Oppugners Page 57. Constat eos sentire aliter quà m universa docet Ecclesia they differ from the Doctrine of the Universall Church If then an opinion for which nothing is to be said out of Antiquitie and much against it which was even lately the lesse common opinion could grow to be held by so great a multitude in so high a degree in so short a time that the much greater part of the Church should now presse to have it defin'd and that so earnestly that to remove the opposing Fathers out of the way they make a confession very advantagious to us Hereticks that many things have been defin'd by their Church against many Fathers Page 127. you may easily see that Opinions may grow very generall nay grow to claim Tradition in one Age that were unknown in another for that they claim and prove only because of the the general reception in all Apostolicall Churches not of any such uninterrupted testimony of Fathers to their Children that so it hath been taught in all Ages You may see then that all your Church goes not upon your grounds since if they did so many of it that stand for the Affirmative must pretend to them and if they doe then sure the Pope must have confessed them to be witnesses beyond exception and would accordingly have defin'd if they doe not then this certain way of yours cannot keep false opinions out of a Church which makes not that their Rule You may also see that opinions first unknown after but particular may come not onely to be generall and to have Tradition claim'd for them but even to be defin'd since if a Generall Councell should now meet about this point it is plain without Gods immediate working to the contrary of nay I am confident that as it is observed of the Romans that they were twice as long in first conquering Italy as after all the world and as my Lord Bacon tels us of one who was wont to say That he had first with much paines gotten a little estate and after with little a great one so it is a much more short and easie work to bring this to a Definition then it was before to bring it thus far on the way towards one Which if it were brought it being already almost defined and ready to topple into a Doctrine necessary to salvation the contrary being forbidden to be either printed or publikely taught then if you forsake not your Religion you must forsake the Principle and joyn with Turnball who tells us That the Churches supreme definition of matters of Faith is the infallible word of God and together with the ancient Revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles makes up one Object which is to be held by the Catholike Faith By which it is plain he thinks more may be reveal'd and then must be held then was to the Apostles and by consequence could be delivered by them which is contrary to what you now say And indeed the current of Writers of your own side either knew not this opinion and Argument of yours or consideringly balk it else they might save themselves and their Readers the labour of writing and reading such infinite Quotations for though they speak often of Tradition yet they thinke themselves bound to prove it better then by the pretence of your present Church they pretend to receive it from the Ancient Writers not say they that Verball Tradition hath in all Ages been taught to all men to teach it their children
and that it never slept and you are the first whom I have met with who build upon this Indeed they know the Greeks have as much claim to such a one in truth to any as they and if they should say with you that it is incompatible for two to have it the Greeks may as well argue upon those grounds that the Romans claim it not because they doe as the Romans can that the Greeks lay no claim to it because their Church does And indeed direct experience shewes that this is not nor hath alwayes been the ground of Christians that it is not even amongst you we see by those multitudes who cry out to have a Doctrine defined which is so far from having any Tradition much lesse your kind of one for it that they labour with little successe to shew that there is none against them and make it plainly appear that upon your grounds they build not but prove out of Metaphoricall places of Scripture some at most but probable reasons and the Revelations of S. Bridget which are contradicted by those of Saint Katharine Wadding p. 334. so ill do your Saints agree in heaven that me thinks we may bee forgiven if we have some differences upon earth That this hath not been alwaies the way we see by the exam-of Origen who having been esteemed by all Christians as almost a Prophet no man in his time discovering that he taught contrary to what their Fathers had taught them Vincent Lir. was yet condemned many yeers after his decease and his followers counted Hereticks by the name of Originistae which had been impossible if the following Ages had thought Tradition the onely fit Rule to judge by and accompted nothing Tradition but what they received from their Fathers in expresse termes But if the opinions of Doctors counted the Gnomons and Canons of Truth for to that purpose speakes Nazianzene of Athanasius Wadd Pag. 282 and Saint Austine of Nazianzene and Pope Pius the fifth of Saint Thomas calling his doctrine the certainest rule of Christian religion a title deny'd to Scripture the definitions of Councels counted the highest Tribunals upon earth assisted by the power of Emperours which might doe much when almost all were under one as may be seen by the multitude which followed Constantine to Christianity and Julian from it and by Constantius as is complain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the twinckling of an eye transforming an Orthodox world into an Arrian if these waies I say might make a Tenet generall though no Tradition had come down at all concerning it and after it please to claim by a Tenure by which it came not in at first encouraged by some Rule of some Fathers to that purpose as some Frenchmen say of Cardinall Richelieu that since he had that title he claimes to have come from better Ancestours then he aimed at being an ordinary Person and Harry the seventh though he came to the Crown by his Wives right yet would hold it by his own and none after oppose that claime some not doing it because they thinke the opinion true and then care not though it be beleev'd upon false inducements some as being ignorant that ever it was lesse generall which before the late and happy resurrection of learning the best read Persons of their time might often be how deceiving a way is yours to discover what all ages have thought by what now a part of the present teacheth upon what pretence soever which when you have considered and not onelie that what I have said may be but by severall examples whereof I will touch some that so it is and hath been then I hope you will be so farre from expecting that I should be moved by your Arguments that your selfe will wonder that ever you were First then that the Chiliasts are Hereticks or your Church not infallible which counts them so is most certaine and most plaine and if you be in the right and that she teacheth nothing but what she hath received uninterruptedly downe from the Apostles then they must alwaies have been esteemed so by Christians whereas their doctrine is so farre from having any Tradition against it that if anie opinion whether controverted or uncontroverted except that Scripture which never was doubted may without blushing pretend to have that for it it must be this of theirs My Reasons are these The Fathers of the purest Ages who were the Apostles Disciples but once remov'd did teach this as receiv'd from them who professed to have receiv'd it from the Apostles and who seem'd to them witnesses beyond exception that they had done so they being better Judges what credit they deserv'd then after commers could possibly be All other opinions witnessed by any other Ancients to have Tradition may have been by them mistaken to have been so out of Saint Austin's and Tertullian's rules whereas for this and for this alone are delivered the very words which Christ us'd when he taught it Of the most glorious and least infirme building which ever in my opinion was erected to the honour of the Church of Rome Cardinall Perron was the Architect I mean his book against King James and that relies upon these two pillars that whatsoever all the Fathers he meanes sure that are extant witnesse to be Tradition and the doctrine of the Church that must be receiv'd for the doctrine of those ages and so rested upon If these rules be not concluding then the whole book being built upon them necessarily becomes as unconsiderable for what he intended it as Bevis or Tom Thumb If they be then this doctrine which is now hereticall in your Churches beleife was the opinion of the Ancient Church For if being taught by the Fathers of anie Age none contradicting it be sufficient this all for above two Ages and those the first teach not anie Father opposing it before Dionysius Alexandrinus 250 yeares after Christ at least that we know or Saint Hierome or Saint Austine knew and quoted wherein I note besides that both these Fathers either thought that no signe of the opinion of the Church or cared not though it were And if Fathers speaking as witnesses will serve let Pappias and Irenaeus be heard and believ'd who tels us it came to them from Christ by Verball Tradition and Justine Martir who witnesseth that in his time all Orthodoxe Christians held it and joynes the opposers with them who denied the Resurrection and esteemes them among the Christians like the Sadduces among the Jewes which proves that you have the same reason expallescere audito Ecclesiae nomine to grow pale at the mention of the Ancient Church Camp the nearest to the Apostles as we have to start at that of two hundred years agoe and to be asham'd of your Dionysius Alexandrinus as wee of Luther Thus that great Atlas of your Church hath helpt us to pull it down the same waies by which he intended to support it and though he have
which Saint Hierome gives as Saint Austine to the Pelagians that before Arrius arose the Ecclesiasticall Writers spoke minùs cautè with lesse circumspection though it brings some salve to the present objection yet it is a weapon against Tradition in generall for if through want of care the best and wisest men vs'd to contradict Tradition as you must grant they did then sure much more likely when they taught by word of mouth when lesse care is alwaies us'd then in Bookes and how then can any age be sure that by this reason of minùs cautè loquuti sunt their Ancestors have not mistaken their Fathers and mislead their Posterity Look but into Athanasius and see but what he answers to what is brought against him out of Dionysius Alexandrinus truly in my opinion when he strives to make it Catholique Doctrine he doth it with no lesse pulling and halling then Sancta Clara useth to agree the articles of the English Church with the Tenets of the Roman Consider what eighty Bishops and those Orthodoxe decreed against Paulus Samosatenus and if you make it consent with Athanasius his Creed I shall believe that you have discouer'd a way how to reconcile both Parts of a Contradiction This I say not as intending by it to prove the Arrian opinion to be true but that the contrary Party insisted not upon your grounds but drew their beliefe out of Scripture for if there had been such a common and constant Verball Tradition the chiefe Christians would not through want of Caution have contradicted it neither could Constantine if it had been then as known a Part of the Christian Religion as Christ's Resurrection have ever so slightly esteemed the Question when it first arose neither would Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria have remain'd any while in suspence as Zozomen saith he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this being then a Question newly started and spoken of before but by Accidents and so peradventure minùs cautè for the same Author saies that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were therefore faine to try it by Scripture esteeming Written Tradition as sufficient a Rule as Verball as you may see by Constantine's own words at the Councel of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bookes of the Evangelists and the Apostles and the Oracles of the Ancient Prophets teach us clearly what we are to think of the Divinity Let us therefore cut of these Divinity-inspir'd discourses seek the solutions of our Questions which being the Emperours Proposition and passing uncontradicted which the Bishops would not have suffr'd it to do if they had known yours to be so much the best and most certaine way and this so hazardous as you suppose we have reason to believe that they for want of your direction made the Scripture their Rule and sought out for Truth by the same way that we damnable Hereticks do and by that condemn'd the Arrians as not having such a Tradition as you speak of or if they had which is very unlikely counting it so insufficient as that they were not to conclude by that Neither did onely that ancient and not yours Councell but even your own Modern ones shew that they went upon other grounds since to have had every Bishop askt what he receiv'd from his Teachers as receiv'd from theirs as come downe from the Apostles would sure have been the shortest way to find Truth and if they had thought it the best too it would have sav'd the Friers at Trent many a long dispute out of Scripture Fathers and Reason and the Bishops many a weary session before any thing could be determined or the Parties brought to agree Besides there is another reason if I may be pardon'd a little insisting upon my digression which perswades me that your own Councels define not upon your grounds that is because suppose a thousand Catholique Bishops meet and define any thing yet wee know it is not among you believ'd de Fide without it be confirmed by the Pope which shewes plainly enough that you think not they went by such a Tradition since of that eighty so many persons from so many several Parts are witnesses beyond exception according to your own grounds and that their Infallibility is not thought to depend upon an Impossibility that in the matter of Fact what hath been taught under that Notion they should either deceive or be deceiv'd but upon an infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost which may be wanting to any company whereof the Pope is no part or of whose decrees he is no confirmer Now to return to my proofes that against the Arrians there was no such Tradition as you speak of at least that was the ground upon which they were condemned consider if you please that in that Epistle which Eusebius of Caesarea writ to some Arrians after the Councell of Nice he saith First that they assented to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantiall because also they knew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some eloquent and illustrious Bishops and Writers had us'd the Terme In which I note that neither claim'd he any such Verbal Tradition for this as you speak of and of that sort which he claim'd he names onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some as knowing too many had writ otherwise to give such a Tradition leave to be generall Secondly He saith they consented to Anathematize the Contradictors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hinder men from using unwritten words by which he saith and that truely that all confusion hath come upon the Church And if it be askt why the same reason made them not keep out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer That I believe or else he is not constant to his own reason that he meant onely those words to be unwritten which were in Scripture neither themselves nor equivalently whereas he took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in the Scripture in the latter sence And that by written he meant in the Scripture onely appeares by what followes that no divinely-inspired writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 using the Arrians Phrase it was neither fitting to say nor teach them Neither can you say that Eusebius being himself a secret Arrian prevaricated herein for Theodoret makes this Epistle an Argument against than which he would not have done if either it had seem'd to him to say any thing contrary to the Catholique doctrine or not to have oppos'd the contrary by a Catholique way at least without giving his leader some Caution concerning it All which reasons move me to think that the generality of Christians had not been alwaies taught the contrary to Arrius's doctrine but some one way others the other most neither as having been onely spoken of upon occasions and therefore me thinks you had better either say with the Protestants that the Truth was concluded as Constantine said it should be by Arguments from Scripture or as some of your own say of
almost all their doctrine in the subjection enjoyn'd to the Church taught some certaine markes by which men might at all times know her though you pretend to none hut such as the Greeke Church as much claime which is enough to scruple the ignorant and rightly too as the Roman as Antiquity Succession Miracles c. excepting onely communion with the Pope and splendor whereof neither are proper markes of the true Church that is such as can never be absent from her since the Heresie of a Pope which hath been and is not by your owne whole Church held impossible may take away the one way and a generall Persecution the other It appeares also by what you speake of the immediate join es of the descent that you suppose if any errour come in some one Age must joyn to teach it which by no meanes followes no more then one Age of them at Rome joyn'd to teach their Posterity Italian instead of Latine but some may have taught a Doctrine to be probable in one Age more then in the second and all in the third according to Seneca's observation The error of few especially when Notable Persons begetting the error of a multitude and againe the authority of a multitude deceiving Particular men and so by degrees it may be thought from Probable True from true fere de Fide from that absolutely a part of Faith and consequently to have come from Tradition whilst the contrary opinion being first believ'd the more improbable next false from false Temerary from temerary Haeresi proximum and from that absolutely Hereticall hath by almost insensible degrees met with a mighty change and is arriv'd at Hell before it almost misdoubted it And that these progresse-Doctrines have travel'd it is easie for any man to see who hath been but a little conversant in your own Books and whosoever denies it may as well deny that their is any green in Summer when there is hardly any thing else And for the Case you put that the wisest and best of the Townes where Doctrines were delivered should have met c. I both suppose that the controversie of who were best and wisest would not it self have been easily ended but allowing that it might have been easily done and would have been most usefully done yet it never was and so suppose the way never so good it was yet like a Medicine which be it never so Soveraigne can never cure if it be never taken Councells there have been call'd Ancient because lesse Modern and generall because lesse particular for the first was not till more then three hundred yeeres after Christ nor to the largest appeares it that ever any were summon'd from beyond the bounds of the Ancient Roman Empire though Christianity were much farther extended Some lesse meetings or Conciliabula there were indeed before but none of these accounted infallible by your selves though me thinks they should by your grounds and indeed it would go ill with your own infallibility if you should for of the two most notable the one defended Rebaptization and the other condemned Samosatenus and in doing so taught as plain Arrianisme if we might know mens meaning by their words which if we cannot all arguing especially from what any Authors say is ended as even Arrius himself was condemned for at Nice If these intended to discusse the Controversie out of the Principle you speak of and yet miss'd Tradition when they meant to have followed it then so might your best and wisest men have done too if they did not intend it then it seemes it hath not been held needfull alwaies by Catholikes to try Doctrines by that Criterium which you now prescribe Object Who can be ignorant what he was taught when he was a child as the ground and substance of his hopes for all Eternity Resp Truely the ordinary sort more then most easily For because either their mind wanders or their Teachers descend not to their capacities they commonly goe away both from publique Sermons and private Catechismes as if they had receiv'd instructions in a language as strange to them as that wherein they say their prayers Besides their own Fathers teach them little or nothing because that is as much as they have learnt themselves esperially in ignorant places and times their Ghostly Fathers teach them most but that much more concerning life then opinions so that though they were not ignorant of all they were taught yet they are absolute strangers to the greatest part of what your Church teaches And it now no more of their Religion be delivered by Verball Tradition what was then when many points which are now often taught though not constantly and in all places but upon occasions were not thought of in many yeeres Suppose that about the Question of what makes a Priest a convocation of men had met I mean of such who knew not what was taught in Bookes before Luthers time and what I say would be true in somewhat a lesse degree of this more instructed Age what account could they have given what they had been taught when they were Children Truely they could have said we know it to be the custome for our Bishops to make Priests and some of us have heard he onely is to make them what is done and taught in other places we know not Very far would they have been from all agreeing that they were taught when they were Children as part of the ground of their hopes for all Eternity by their Fathers as receiv'd from theirs as come down from the Apostles that he is no Priest to whom in expresse tearmes Commission is not given to offer for the living and the dead which now being objected to the Clergy of England perswades me that your Church teacheth more then generally men are taught when Children or indeed at any time by any Verball Tradition For not onely the Ordinary sort but even your most learned men knew not what is Tradition if that be still your Rule of Faith for they disagree among themselves whether some things be of Faith or no as for Example Whether the Pope can erre in the Cannonization of a Saint Wadd Pag. 30. for if all Questions were that way to be ended and such Traditions were evident as if they were such as you speak of they must be all your side must be soone resolv'd both in this and all other such Questions And if you say that indeed all Particular Doctrines are not taught by such a Tradition but that by so much as all are taught they know their Judge and Director concerning them and so are taught them implicitely I answer that the Vulgar although they are generally told that the Church is infallible yet I doubt whether they be either taught that this Doctrine hath had any such generall and uninterrupted a delivery or have heard much concerning those meanes by which she her-selfe is to he known or those Circumstances by which we are to know when she
from the Aposties Nay he absolutely affirmes that before Nazianzene no man ever taught any thing of her delivery without paine yet many thought the contrary Thirdly and lastly Pag. 202. For your absolute confutation he confesseth that we believe and hold in this Age many things for Mysteries of Faith which in former Ages did waver under small or no Probability and many Things are now defined for Articles of Faith which have endured a hard repulse among the most and the weightiest of the Ancient Doctors and no light contradiction among the Ancient Fathers and having reckoned up five Particulars The Validity of Hereticks Baptisme The Beatificall Vision before the day of Judgment The Spirituallity of Angels The Soules being immediately created and not ex traduce And The Virgines being free from all actuall Sinne He shuts it up thus Pag. 203. Many of these kinds of Opinions there are which sometimes declined to one Part sometimes to the other and contrary Favourers according to severall times untill a diligent and long disquisition being praemitted the Truth was manifested either by Pope or Provinciall or generall Councels nay and saies that the disquisition is made by conferring of Places of Scripture and Reason which is the way which you mislike These things considered Pag. 204. whosoever shall after say that your Church claimes all her Doctrines to have come by a Verball and constant Tradition to her from the Apostles I will not say that he is very impudent but I cannot think that a small matter will put him out of countenance for your part I esteeme you so much that I am confident you have not so little Nose as not to find the contrary nor so little Forehead as not to confesse it having received the Affidavit of such a cloud of Witnesses Object Whosoever pretend Christ his Truth against her saith that true it is she had once had the true way but by length of times she is fallen into grosse Errors which they will reform not by any Truth which they have received from hand to hand from those who by both Parts are acknowledged to have received their lesson from Christ and his Apostles but by Arguments either out of Ancient Writers or the secrets of Reason Resp This is no farther true then as it concernes the Protestants for the Greek Church will not suffer your proportion to be generall but forbid the Banes They pretend not to have made any Reformation but to have kept ever since the Apostles what from them was received Barlaam saier they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keep safe and whole the Tradition of the Catholique Church nay he proves his to be the found Part because by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing was ever more esteemed then her Tradition And he objects it to your Church that she doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disanull the Tradition of the Catholique Church and setting them at naught bring in strange and undenizon'd opinions And that Greeke who is joyned to Nilus and Barlaam in Salmatius his Edition disputing against a Cardinall chargeth you that you do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sow Tares among the Tradition of the Apostles and Fathers if when they make this claime they either say so and think not so or think so and erre then this proves that though the Roman Church did make that claime which you say she doth yet she too might either claime it against her Conscience or against Truth For this claime of the last cannot be denyed but by him who will imitate that Hamshire Clown of whom you give me warning and believe no more then he sees himself especially since your own Authors when they dispute for Traditions prove their authority from this profession of the Greeks but I cannot blame you to forget them if we would suffer you since they cannot be remembred but by your Religions disadvantage For I verily believe that if they had but one Addition which they want I mean Riches not onely most of them who leave the Protestants would sooner go to them then to you unlesse they would take their Religion as we take Boates for being the Next but money among you who though they dislike your pretended Infallibility that the Popes usurpations upon the rights of other Bishops his not ancient claime of power to deliver Soules out of Purgatory c And yet are frighted from joyning with the Protestants by want of Succession Vocation and such like Bull-beggers would goe over to them as I have heard Spalato meant to doe if they were not kept by an unwillingnesse to change the spirituall tyrannie of the Pope for the temporall of the Turke But although there were no such Churches or they made no such claime yet having shew'd out of your own Authors that some opinions have not been constantly delivered by Tradition but have entered into the Church upon the grounds which might at least possiblie deceive them of Scripture Reason and Revelation and others knockt apace to be let in I hope we may be excused for making a reveiw of all and examining what doctrines have been brought in if not by Scripture which we think reasonable at least by comparing what this age teacheth and requires with what the first Ages did to which we are encourag'd by your selves who make agreement with Antiquitie the chief mark of the Church unlesse you meane your selves to be onelie Judges even of those things by which you bid us to judge you For our examinations by reason I cannot tell why you mislike it since those who trust their own reason least trust it yet to chuse for them one whom they may trust against which all Arguments drawn from her fallibilitie without question lie Your Religion is built upon your Church her authoritie upon reasons which we think slight and fallacious and your selves think but prudentiall and probable ought we not then nay must we not examine them by Reason or receive them upon your word And allowing them probable reason yet I have still cause to examine further whether your superstructions be not more unreasonable then your foundations are reasonable for then I cannot receive a more unprobable doctrine then that is probable which it is prov'd by Yet in respect of things appearing divers at divers times I doe not like my own way so well as to esteem it absolutelie infallible but though I keep it because I account it the best yet I will promise to leave it when you can shew me a better which will be hard to doe because you cannot prove it to be better but by reason against which proofe and consequentlie against whatsoever it proves your own Objections remaine For to be perswaded by reason that to such an authoritie I ought to submit it is still to follow reason and not to quit her And by what else is it that you examine what the Apostles taught when you examine that by ancient Tradition and ancient Tradition by a present Testimonie Yet when
so it is absurd to expect as high a degree of Assent to the first as to the second of my objections being intended against those who will be infalliblly believed to be infallible upon probable grounds for they themselves give them no higher a Title and indeed that it self in my opinion is more then they deserve Object What shall we expect then in Religion to see a main advantage on the one Party we cast our selves upon Resp Truely such Advantage on your part I cannot see Neither if I did could I in reason joyn with you A maine advantage it is to have more Truth then any other Society of Christians but supposing you had so which is but a supposition for I verily believe if the Queston were but who had most Title to so much yee would appear to a dispassionate man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither third nor fourth according to the answer of the Ancient Oracle yet you withall require not onely that I should believe you erre in nothing but that you never can and then I had rather remaine in their communion I say not who themselves erred not but whose conditions of Communion were lesse rigorous and exacted not of me to professe they could not erre when I believe they do And if you answer that it would necessarily follow that if they had fewest errors they must have none because some society of Christians must be allwaies free from all this I shall absolutely deny and the more earnestly because I know this is a trappe wherein many have been caught who taking this for granted have examined the Doctrines of the most known Churches of Protestants and finding as they thought and peradventure truely some errors in them some Doctrines no way to be proved but upon Popish grounds and by that justifying those and some imputations imposed upon their Adversaries wherein their Tenets or the consequences from them were mistaken they then by the Doggs Logick have run over without smelling to the Church of Rome as knowing no other Society but these and being praepossest that one of necessity must be free from all error Whereas for my part as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who bound not themselves to believe absolutely the whole Doctrines of any Sect but pickt out what they thought accorded with reason out of them all were a wise sort of Philosophers so they seem to me reasonable Divines who speak Gods will as they did Truth for it is not to chuse by reason and Scripture or Tradition received by Reason which makes a Hereticke but to chuse an opinion which will make most either for the chusers Lust or Power and Fame and then seeking waies how to entitle God to it For since it would be a Miracle if the Errors of the Roman Church being long gathering could have been all discovered in a Day or if it had been possible for the first Reformers who having their eyes but newly open it is not strange if like the man in the Gospel they saw at first men walking like Trees and had but an imperfect apprehension of Truth especially being in Tullies state Quem fugio habeo Quem sequar non habeo I see whom to fly but not whom to follow not to have left some opinions untaxt which yet were errors nor to have expurged others which yet were none I cannot see why we may not in some points joyn with the one and with others in other and besides find some Truths which ly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well in the mid-way betweene the Parties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay in some points differ wholly from both Which Liberty if it were generally allowed and generally practised if particular interests were trod wholly under foot especially by the greatest and if such spirits as those of Cassander and Melancton were more common no considerable things would in a short time be left but all would flow againe in the same Chanell whereas this opinion that allwaies one part erres not is both prejudiciall to Truth and the best Unity which is that of Charity for it perswades them who have fewest errors to believe those to be none and to hate all opposers as Hereticks and of this your Church is most guilty which not onely affirmes that there is such a one but that she is it and prophesies as much of her selfe allwaies for the future as she promiseth for the present and upon this ground like him who having won nineteene games at Tables threw the Dice in the fire for not winning him the twentieth though we should yeeld to her in all points but one and that the least considerable she would yet throw us into the fire as Hereticks for dissenting from her in that Object You are bidden to put what yeare or age such an error entered and it is evidently true that then that yeare or age the Church conspired to tell a lie and deceive their Posterity Resp You would never be loved if you were a Poser and used to aske such hard questions for either you must mean by an opinion entering when first any man pofessed it or when first by all in communion with your Church it was assented unto If you mean the first it is impossiible to be answered for if one should ask who taught first that Christ was not begotten by God before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary through his power and the over-shadowing of the Holy Ghost one who knew little of Antiquity would answer Socinus a more learned Person would say Photinus another Paulus Samosatenus another might find before him Artemon and another yet before him Theodorus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with whom curious Logicians and great Readers of Euclid Aristotle Galen and Theophrastus were joyned and yet that he was the first we have no certainty for if a little of Eusebius had been lost Theodorus and Artemon had not been now heard of which may as well have happened to others before them either by want of being taken notice of by an Historian or by the losse of the History and not onely is this so in this but in all other points If you mean the second for so you must by your Inference though the words of the Question will bear both sences it is as impossible for you to receive an answer For how shall I know when all it is granted For suppose no Author to have been lost and me to have read and remembred them all yet as in England when the Calvinists opinion prevailed most as wise and learned men as those who writ though differing in opinion from the Authors yet opposed them not so publiquely but that many might believe the more generall Tenet to be received by all how should I know that the opinions of the Authors of severall Ages did agree with that of all equally wise and learned in the same times for if there be no greater certaintie of the opinions of all of one Kingdome in our owne Age think what Infallibilitie can
such cases where our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Notions concerning God teach us that such a Thing were contrary to Gods maine Attributes to do some of us conclude upon that ground that this he hath not done in these cases which onely concerne convenience of which we have much lesse certaintie begin at the other end and considering first what he hath done conclude that to be sufficiently convenient and so finding no infallible guide by him instituted suppose it convenient that there should be none Truely if convenience were the measure and our Understandings the measurers we should resolve that God hath made every Particular man at least every Pious man Infallible and so to need no outward guide which yet it is plain that he hath not done Though in my opinion in some sence he hath made every man who pleaseth Infallible in respect of his journys end though not of all Innes by the way certaine to find Heaven though he may misse many Truthes in Divine matters For the beliefe which God requires of being to be thought true of his word and that man be ready to believe and obey what he saies as soon as it shall appear to him that he hath said it and every man being able according to his meanes to examine what he hath said It followes unlesse God should damne a man for weaknesse of understanding which were as strange as if he should damne him for a weak sight or a feeble arme that every man is Infallible in his way to Heaven so he lay no blocks in it himself at least is undoubtedly secur'd of any danger of Hell For if they neither desire to avoide the trouble of enquiry through unwillingness to find that to be true which is contrary to what he now thinks and so to hazard either the affection of deare Friends or the favour of great Friends or the feare of some other humane Inconvenience as want of present meanes Improbability to get more or of that disparagement so terrible to flesh and blood of descending to confesse that they have so long erred like Frobenius qui potuisset vivere nisi puduisset aegrotare Eras Ep. who might have lived but that he was ashamed to confesse himself sick If I say none of these or the like things either keep him from seeking what is Gods will or from daring to professe it when he hath found it then such an Error having no reference to the will which is the onely fountaine of sin cannot by a just God be punished as a sin and the proofe of the necessity of an Infallible Director drawn from Gods care of his Church for his Elects sake is easily avoided But say you if there be a director it must be the Church and againe because you know that all congregations of Christians pretend to that Title in some sence as even the worst men call themselves by better Names then they deserve as Aristotle saith Rhetor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I may mistake our enemies Camp for our friends and serve against Christ whilst I think I fight under his Banner though even then I beleeve I should have a share in that prayer of his to whom none is denied Father forgive them for they know not what they doe unlesse you gave me some certaine marks to know the Church by you therefore say what you have before said that yours is it because that alone pretends to Tradition to which I answer what I before answered that the Greeks serve me to disprove the sufficiency of this Mark who professe that they hold the constant Tradition and that under that Notion they have both received what you deny and not received what you propose Object Let us consider in her Presence or Visibility Authority Power As for the first her multitude and succession make the one that she is ever accessible ever knowne Resp What you now say is not to prove your Church a Directresse but having as you think and I think not proved that already you now mean to shew that she hath the Conditions requisite in a Directresse But this I deny for neither is her presence or Visibility for all her multitude and succession such as were in a Directresse required For she besides that she must bring notice and proofes with her to prove that she is instituted by God to direct men and those plain and evident if she require meerly but our assent but if she require us to assent Infallibly then those Infallible which yours cannot do must also be so visible as to be known to all men if not as a Directresse at least as a Company of men which yours sure was not to those Nations which were lately discovered by Columbus But if you except and say she need onely be visible to all Christians though this exception need a proofe yet even this Condition your Church hath not allwaies had for I believe to those Christians whom Xaverius found in the East-Indies your Church had been as little visible as to those Pagans whom Columbus discovered in the West Besides beyond the Abissins how farre Christian Religion may be propagated and yet your Church unknown who can tell Besides even to most of them for any credible Testimony that appeares she may not be very visible But above all that reason being answered upon which you conclude that there is some Director and that ground being taken away upon which you build that yours is that me thinks it will be unnecessary to dispute long upon the Conditions required to that which hath no entity at all Object For Authority her very claime of Antiquity and Succession to have been that Church which received her beginning from Christ and his Apostles and never being all united under the universall government of ver fore-went it giveth a great reverence to her among those who believe her and amongst those who with indifferency seek to inform themselves a great Prejudice above others And if it be true it carrieth an infinite Authority with it of Bishops Doctors Martyrs Saints Miracles Learning Wisedome Venerable Antiquity and such like Resp There is no Question but any Church true or false which claimes to have ever kept the Apostles Doctrines uncorrupted and is infallibly believed to have done so must among those Christians who thus beleeve have even equall Authority with the Apostles But me thinks that this claime before proofe should to others be any prejudice for her especially to those who have great Arguments against her is unreasonable and if after consideration it appears otherwise she hath then onely helpt to weaken her Testimony and hath destroyed her Infallible Authority in any thing else Object There remaineth Power which no man can doubt but he hath given it most ample who considereth his words so often repeated to his Apostles But abstracting from that who doth not see that the Church hath the nature and proportion of ones Country to every one As in a mans Country he
since if not a generall one but one which seemed such were required how easie was it for false opinions to get in under that colour testified but by a few reputed honest men and so received by and transmitted from others of great and generall authoritie Secondlie how could you have found a better way to answer your owne Objection against the Chiliasts Tradition for want of being sufficientlie publique since if that had not seemed to them to have had this condition I mean if they had thought they should for this cause have excepted against it it had been impossible these Saints should have received it and concerning the publicitie of it and the number and authoritie of the deliverers they must of necessitie have been the best Judges who then lived and who were the more considerable Doctors of the most considerable Ages so that you must either confesse that a Tradition bindes not unlesse indeed generall or confesse that this doth supposing this not to have been generall which you cannot prove Object A likely example of this may he drawn from the Canonicall Bookes Resp I deny it to be now necessarie to Salvation to admit of any Bookes for Canonicall which it was lawfull for Christians in past ages to doubt of and which had no generall Tradition and againe this answer helpes against your selfe for it is plaine by Saint Hieromes Testimonie that the Roman Church received not the Epistle to the Hebrewes which the Easterne Churches received whose Testimonie according to your grounds she then should have beleeved to be beyond exception and it is plaine by Perrons Testimonie that the Easterne Churches received not the Macchabees when he saies the Church of Rome did Now it is plaine that the Receivers pretended to Tradition because nothing else could make a booke thought Canonicall whereas other opinions might be brought in by a false Interpretation of Scriptures and after being spread might be thought to come from Tradition So that according to your grounds and these testimonies not onely the Westerne Church ought to have beleeved the Easterne about the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Easterne the Westerne about the Macchabees but also they ought to have required this assent from each other which they not doing as they would have done if they had thought their testimonie so valid as you doe it followes that you doe differ from the Churches of the fifth and sixth age about what is exceptione majus you thinking that to be so which they thought not and againe from all the extant Doctors of the two first ages you thinking that not so which they thought was as also those two times agreed about it as little with each other as you with them both Object The third question may be how Christian Religion consisting of so many points is possible to be kept uncorrupted by Tradition which depending upon Memory and our memory being so fraile it seemeth cannot without manifest miracle conserve so great a diversity of points unchanged for so many ages But if we consider that Faith is a Science a thing whose parts are so connexed that if one be false all must needs be false we shall easily see that contrarily the multitude of divers points is a conservation the one to the right the other wherein we doubt Resp As in Judges when a battell was to be fought between the children of Israel and the Midianites the Midianites destroyed each other and left nothing to doe for Israel but onely to pursue them so truly your Objections worke so strongly upon your own Party that I have nothing left me to presse and much to applaud For for this very reason I beleeve that all necessarie points were given in writing and onely the witnessing that these were the Apostles writings was left to Tradition which was both much lesse subject to error as being but one point and that a matter of fact and could no other way be done because no writing could have witnessed for it selfe so sufficientlie that we should have had reason to have belleved it upon no other certificates and to this your answer seemes to me no way satisfactorie since first I deny Faith to be a Science it being nothing but an assent to Gods Revelations neither are those so connexed as you liberallie affirme and sparinglie prove Nay suppose they were yet though errors would be the lesse likely to enter yet when any one by any meanes were got in ' then this connexion would be a ready way to helpe it to let in all its fellowes Besides those opinions which may be superinduct as Traditions which such a connexion could not hinder if they were not contrarie to the true ones and of this sort is chiefly our question That therefore you are no better able to wind your selfe out of this inextricable Labyrinth is no wonder to me and no disgrace to you since a man may as well be good Logician though he cannot solve an unsolvable question as he may be exceedinglie skilled in Physick and yet not able to cure an incurable disease Besides that these Objections arose so at the first sight out of what was to be considered that it was as impossible for to avoid them as to answer them Object Let us consider in constant Nations their language their habits c. how long they continue among them Truly there is no Nation that I know whose language hath not PLACE = marg Resp and doth not daily palpablie suffer change Consider that of these English hourely denizoning words of all kinde of languages these of the Spaniards Italians and French almost made up out of Latine and that of the ancient Greekes unknown to those of this Age unlesse they learn it at Schoole Habits indeed some Nations alter lesse but some daily and none change not sometimes But this is little to the purpose since those Nations which have remained very constant in things which no considerable cause appeared to them why they should alter may yet have received new opinions especially if not contradicting the old taught them by such in whom they wholly relied as most go more hood-winkt in these matters then in those which are indifferent out of a Vitious humility or proved by Arguments which perswaded For when the reasons are probable as they may be for a falshood the Persons pressing them in themselves of authority as they may be and yet erre and the people to whom they are prest full of esteeme of their Teachers then meet the three waies of working perswasion which Aristotle mentions whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Especially when besides all these the rewards of beliefe proposed are more then extraordinary as also the danger of disbeliefe Wherefore I count it by no meanes reasonable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like sheep without more examination to walk in the steps of those who have gone before us Object See that forlorn Nation of the Jews how constantly it maintaineth the Scripture and how obstinately their Errors
Resp Truely I thank you Sir for this example since it puts me in mind of an Objection which else I. had utterly forgot Many of those errors which they hold as the Cabala and others I pray upon what other ground hold they them then this that they have been taught Moses delivered them to their Fathers as unwritten Traditions and that under that Notion they have descended Now may not they defend themselves in them by the very same Arguments which you use in this Treatise for the Church of Rome May not they say that they have received them from their Fathers who received them from theirs who must either have joyned in mistaking their Ancestors or in intending to deceive their Posterity whereof neither is credible May not they say what is said of these last Ages may be said upwards and upwards till they come to that wherein their Fathers received these Doctrines from Moses who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as worthy of credit in the delivery of these as in that of the ten Commandements and their Fathers witnesses beyond exception that these Doctrines be delivered May they not ask you in what year or age these errors entered among them and say it is evidently true that then their whole Church conspired to tell a lie May they not bid you besides consider the Notoriousnesse of the lie such as he is very rarely found who is so wicked as to venture upon besides the greatness of the subject and the damage ensuing to himself and his dearest Pledges May they not adde that the multitude of their Church is so dispersed through so many Countries and Languages that it is impossible they should agree together upon a false determination to affirm a falshood for a truth no Interest being able to be common to them all to produce such an effect This they may say and if they do and retort your own words upon your self I know not truely what new ones you will find to answer them in unlesse you change the whole course you now steere and come about the same way which I now use to you that is shewing by what waies such an opinion may have spread among them although not at first received and proving out of their owne Authors that this hath not been alwaies held a Tradition among them though now so accounted which is sometimes as I remember your owne Galatinus his way and the best that is But if to that they should againe reply out of your own words the Names onely changed that if what Moses delivered were certainely true and what he delivered be to be seen in what they beleeved who heard him and so till now it is evident that they who seek for truth in learned discourses must needs forego the most certaine and easie way of attaining what they aime at That Jew who should retort this and much more of this kind upon you and keep you to Tradition and make their present Tradition upon your grounds the Judge of that I am of opinion would make you as silent as if according to the Proverb you had seen a Wolf first or were a Pithagoricall-Freshman and you would wish you had never put into an enemies hand such a weapon against your self as this present discourse So that in Anna Commenas Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you have digged a ditch on either side of your selfe For either you must grant these Arguments not to be sufficient for your Party or you must allow them to be sufficient for a Jew Object Wheresoever Christians labour to convert Idolaters they find the onely Argument for their errors that they received them from their forefathers The King of Socotora thinking to please the Portugalls by reducing a Nation that had the Names of Christians to true Christianity he found them obstinately protest to him that they would sooner loose their lives then part with the Religion their Ancestors had left them Resp This is no newes to me who lived seven yeares in Ireland where this is all the reason the Vulgar either have or give for their Religion and it is the lesse strange when I remember Aristotle's Ethicks where he tells us of one who defended the beating of his Father thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it had been the lineall custome of his Familie to do so Yet for all this that those who earnestly desire to keep the Religion of their Forefathers and think they have done it may yet be deceived may appear to a Christian by the example of the Jews and to any Romanist by the example of the Grecians To your example of the answer to the King of Socotora I answer That either those heterodox Christians had been at first convened by Hereticks or by Catholiques If by Catholiques and your Church be that and your grounds be hers then it is plaine that men may grow inâ—â— great error who hold fast as they think upon Tradition and may swerve from that Rule whilst they think they walk by it If by Hereticks then it seemes Catholiques as you call them are not the onely Religion that have converted Nations and that note of the Church which isso daily and so eagerly prest appeares common to more then it And so you may take which horne of my Dilemma you please Object To come at length to give an answer to him that demands a guide at my hands I remit him to the moderne Visibe Church of Rome that is her who is in an externe sensible communion with the externe sensible Clergie of Rome and the externe sensible Head and Pastor of that Church If he ask me how he shall know her I must counter interrogate him who he is Is he an ignorant man is he unlearned yet of good understanding in the World Is he a Scholer and what Scholer A Grammarian whose understanding hath no other help then that of Languages Is he a Philosopher Is he a Divine I mean an Academicall one for a true Divine is to teach not to ask this Question Is he a Statesman For he that can think one answer can or ought to be made to all these may likewise expect that one cause may produce all effects Yet I deny not but all must have the same guide though they are to be assured of that guide in divers manners Resp I confesse Sir you come to the Demander but at length for till I had read further I had not known that your Treatise was intended for an answer to mine if I had not been told so when it was given me For hitherto as Baash a King of Israel in the Chronicles when he came against Judah assail'd not their Cities but built Ramoth against them so you have not attempted to destroy what I had said but raised another consideration a City a Ramoth of your own against which I have brought such battery as seemes to me sufficient to demollish it Now for your directions to a guide I answer supposing that there is one and that
Church will be found to abound in errors and to belie equallie her title being troubled her selfe with what she undertakes to secure others from like the Apothecary in Lucian who undertaking to cure all men of the Cough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could himselfe scarce prescribe his Medicine for coughing the while Besides of what sort soever the error be yet since the Condition of her Communion is to professe a beleife that she hath none such a one as to them who indeed beleeve so would not be dangerous yet to me who cannot professe this but against my Conscience how slight a one soever may be an occasion of damnation Againe as to me your answer appeares false so to those of your own side it will appeare hereticall to me it would give no satisfaction though you had proved what you but affirme because I desire to know an eternall not a temporarie Guide whereas if in your Church there should happen any Schisme your answer then would give me no meanes to resolve my selfe which part were the guide that is the true Church without a new and peradventure by the way an endlesse search To them it will give scandall because first you presuppose that we must know the Church by the Doctrine and the Doctrine by the Church and secondlie you imply a possibilitie that the Church of Rome is now but by accident and may come not to be the true Church and so all their confidence built upon her as the Directresse of all Churches and the eternall Admirall of Gods Fleet will appeare to have a very fallible foundation Besides in the cause of your Limitation I find more reason to commend your Discretion then your Ingenuitie for for the first if you had said that the Universall Church of Christ must alwaies be connected to the particular one of Rome which were to allow her Infallibilitie you knew Antiquitie to have said much against you and besides that this being not yet de fide among your selves nor evident in it selfe could not serve for a foundation to the whole bodie of our faith if you had absolutelie denied it you knew that you should incurre the displeasure of the most prevailing part of your own men and that then the maine and to the Ignorant the onely visible signe would bee taken away For the second if you had affirmed that the Church could erre in nothing how slight soever you would both have contradicted many of your own side as Stapleton by name and have asserted more then there were any colour of proofe for and would have wanted this distinction to retire to if you were confuted in any particular if you had restrained her Infallibilitie to things necessarie or weightie or the like then the question would again have risen which are those for many errors which we lay to her charge concerne not things indeed necessarie though she adde to the error that other of thinking that whatsoever she holds becomes necessarie by her holding it and then for all you have said the doctrine of Purgatorie might be false and yet she the Church and that infallible as farre as by your Doctrine her Infallibilitie had need to be extended Resp Neither doe I remit the questioner to Scripture for his satisfaction although I hold Scripture a very sufficient meanes to satisfie the man who goeth to it with that preparation of understanding and will which is meet and required Howsoever this I may answer for them who prove it out of Scripture that because they dispute against them who admit of Scripture and deny the authority of the Church if they can convince it they doe well though they will not themselves admit generally of a proofe out of Scripture as not able to prove every thing in foro contentioso Repl. If you hold Scripture to be so sufficient a mean I wonder Sir why you thinke not fit to remit me to it unlesse you thinke that you have severall sufficient waies to prove so evident a Truth by or thinke me not to come with meet preparation Indeed if that be as among you it is counted to come resolved not to judge of what the Roman Church holds by what the Scriptures say but to beleeve that they say whatsoever she holds then I confesse I come not with the Conditions required but if it be to come desirous to finde the Truth and to follow and professe it when I have found it in spite of all temporall respects which might either fright or allure me from so doing then I suppose that Charitie which hopeth all things will encline you to beleeve that I come as I ought to come untill some evident reason perswade you to the contrarie That the Scripture cannot prove every thing in foro contentioso I beleeve but all necessarie Truths I beleeve it can for onely those which it can are such I denie not but that a contentious person may denie a thing to be proved when his own Conscience contradicts his words but so he may Arguments drawn from any other ground as well as Scripture so that if for that cause you refuse to admit of proofes from thence you might as well for the same refuse to admit of any by any other kinde of Arguments And certainlie if the Scriptures I meane the plaine places of it cannot be a sufficient ground for such and such a point surelie it cannot be a sufficient ground to build a ground upon as the Churches Infallibilitie and therefore though it it seemes you desire so much that this be beleeved that so it be you care not upon what proofe yet a considering Protestant who is not as hot to receive your Religion as you are that he should may presentlie say when he is press'd by you with Scripture to this since this is a way of proofe which your selves admit not of an Argument from hence may bring me from my own Religion but never to yours because it is a beame which that relies much upon that by any other way then the authoritie of the Church no man can be sufficientlie sure of the meaning of Scripture That they say the Church is made infallible that we may have some guide I thinke it very rationall for Nature hath given ever some strong and uncontroulable Principle in all Natures to guide the rest The Common-wealth hath a Governour not questionable our Understanding hath Principles which she cannot judge but by them judgeth of all other verities If there should not be some Principle in the Church it were the onely maimed thing God had created and maimed in its Principall part in the very head And if there be such a Principle the whole Church is Infallible by that as the whole man seeth by his eyes toucheth by his hands Repl. Christ is our unquestionable and infallible Governour and his Will the Principle by which we are guided and the Scripture the place where this Will is contained which if we endeavour to find there we shall be excused though we
and by them your selves out of which allowing that there be such a one which I doubt of and that to be yours I shall beleeve that some may be saved till I see some more cause to thinke all error in Religion alwaies damnable which it is plaine by what after you say that you thinke not your selfe and the Church taken in this sence which is your sence may maintaine both Propositions or to shew you how much what you say would make against your selfe thus I argue The true Church must hold that none can be saved out of her but your Church denies not but that some out of her may be saved therefore yours is not the Church My Major is included in your own saying that those two Propositions are not maintainable together My Minor though false yet is also your confession where you say that the Churches Proposition is not so cruell as it seemes though the words be rough and therefore so ought you to make my conclusion too Besides those who exclude all from Salvation who are out of the Church in the other sence meaning by it the Elect as they are not like them in the wrong so they are not occasion of much harme like them who stiling the Church a companie of men of such a beleife and under such a government affirme an impossibilitie of being saved out of it for they giving no visible signe of who is in the Church for who can know the Elect but the Electer cause no want of Charitie nor frequencie of Warre and persecutions by it as the others doe who having made first a visible partition least those who are out of it may draw others out too they send them out of the world by way of prevention Resp But per adventure he is scandalized that the Catholick Church requireth actuall Communion externall with her which he thinketh may in some case be wanting without detriment of Salvation But how would he have the Church speake which speaketh in common but abstracting from such particular cases as may change wholly the Nature of the Question Repl. I am scandalized not because you require to Salvation joining with you in Communion but because also you require joyning with you in opinions and if it were onely this yet am not I any whit satisfied with what you say for it for with the true Church that is the Commpany of true believers in points any way materiall or rather the truest I conceive it not damnation sometimes not to communicate For if they have any never so slight errors and which appeares so to me which yet they will force me to subscribe to if I Communicate with them my assent would be damnable or if they require the same subscription to some truths which yet after my reall indeavours in inquiry appear errors to me I doubt not but my refusall is no way damnable Neither can I absolve your Church concerning this her saying for your reason because she speakes in generall wholly abstracting from particulars which change the nature of the Question for why doth she so why doth she not expresse her exceptions or at least tell us that the rule is not so generall but that it will beare some and not make men who know not that she intends to restraine at all what she so absolutely pronounceth and who will find no cause to take your bare word for her intentions many times at least to hate them as Gods enemies whom he loves as his friends and beleeve them to fry in Hell who shine in Heaven Howsoever if she use to expresse herself in rougher words then her meaning is how apt may she be to be mistaken in severall of her resolutions and consequently how easie is it for some age to have misunderstood the past and deceive the following Neither do I like your example because that is not to differ from the Church but to mistake her meaning though even he who should denie that there were three Gods if he thought that by the Trinitie your Church so meant must consequently think her not infallible and so by your grounds be consequently a Heretick Resp The current of Catholick Doctors that no man shall be damned for infidelity but he who doth wilfully misbeleeve and that to do so it is required that Faith be sufficiently proposed unto him and what is to be sufficiently proposed is not determined amongst them There wanteth not Divines who teach that even ignorantia affectata doth excuse from Heresie On the other side it is most certaine that no man is damned for not professing what he is not damned for not believing Wherefore profession being that which engrafteth a man exteriorly in the Church according unto the ordinary opinions of the Catholicks it followeth that no man is condemned for not being of the Church who is not for infidelity for which it is a very uncertaine Case who be damned and who be not Repl. As the King of Spaine after long calling the Hollanders Rebels at last for his own sake descended to treat with them as free States so those of your Religion when they hope to gaine a Proselite thunder out to him crudelity and without any of these Mollifications which you now use that extra Ecclesiam Romanam nulla est salus there is no salvation out of the Roman Church And Master Knot peremptorily avers that no Catholick of an entire fame ever taught that a Protestant so dying could be saved yet when they are press'd with the consequences they can as it seems vouchsafe to give us better words and find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enough to soften this opinion though such as bring them more disadvantage in other considerations then help in this For first as before it seemed that you are not fully agreed either about the authority of the councels or what constitutes the Church by your avoiding to speak concerning it so now it seemes that neither are you resolved of what constitutes an Heretick and then what remaines there for you to know if what you account infallible and what damnable be yet both uncertaine to you Secondly Since you confesse none to be a Heretique but he to whom the truth is sufficiently proposed and when that is you are not resolved what a more then Sythian Barbarousnesse is it to make a coale of a Christian onely upon suspicion of Heresie especially since the Pagans themselves had Christian Charity enough to perswade them that it was much better that a guilty person should escape then an innocent be punished much more should you rather suffer the tares to grow then venture to pluck up the corne with it and beleeve the best when the truth lies hid in a place so hard to search into as is the heart of man into which as none entered the Sanctum Sanctorum but the High Priest God onelie can have admittance Resp The other point was of putting Hereticks to death which I think he understandeth to be done vindicatively not medicinally I
Fathers who thinke enough plaine in Scripture not onely to keepe but also to convert men from Arrianisme as it appeares by their employing so solelie those Armes against them that they needed the admonition of a Heretique to counsell them to the use of another Fourthlie I dislike your saying that after being made an Arrian he is not unlikelie to turne Jew especiallie that he is likelie to be perswaded by any exaggeration of the Absurdities in the Trinitie since both Grotius and other Authors seeme to say that the Jewes have their Trinitie too in the same Notion and howsoever the Arrian is so fullie perswaded alreadie that those are absurdities that perswasion being almost the forme of that opinion which constitutes him an Arrian yet the exaggeration of them can never worke upon him And for the Constellation you speak of it were so irrationall and so unprovable a Crotchet that no Oratorie could ever make it seeme to a reasonable man to have any inclination to sence and a foole may be made beleeve any thing how contrarie soever to his grounds unlesse he be of those who are given over to vaine imaginations because they love darknesse better then the light and the fault of no particular mens understanding or will is to lead any man to condemne his grounds for they are to be accused not of whatsoever he concludes who holds or rather in this case hath held them but onelie of what he concludes reasonablie according to them Besides for this cause it appeares strange to me that trusting to Scripture alone and without meaning the Church for my certaine guide should bring a man into danger or parting with his Christianitie since nothing can hold a man longer then he beleeves it and as long as our ground the Scripture is by him beleeved no man can possiblie turne either Atheist or Jew and he who leaves to beleeve your ground the Church cannot by that be any more with-held from either Besides that I thinke it is impossible I am sure it is irrationall that any of you should beleeve in Christ upon the authoritie of Christs Church since beleeving the latter which claimes no authoritie but from Christ praesupposeth the beleife of him and so Christianitie is not the apter to be overthrown through the absence of that upon which it is not built I feare rather least your doctrine known to be grounded it selfe upon Tradition by such a way according to which a Jew would have much advantage of a Christian may incline a man to Judaisme and your sides generall slighting all waies of knowing Gods will but onely by the Church and then neither proving her power stronglier nor teaching how to know her plainer may make men sinke into Atheisme by being perswaded by you in letting goe other strong holds upon Truth and receiving such weake ones from you Not to speake of your loading Christianitie with such impossibilities as the Pillars of it which are not absolute Demonstrations of which it may be scarce any thing is in nature capable but lines and numbers are able to beare and using all your Wits and Industries to perswade men that it is equallie unsafe to refuse any part of your Religion as to receive none and so instead of making these your beleefs admitted for the sake of Christianitie causing Christianitie to be rejected because of them Resp But peradventure some may attribute Power to the Church without infallibilitie whom I would have consider but what himself saith For his Church by the Power it hath must either say I command you to believe or I command you to professe this whether you believe me or no. The second I think no enemy of equivocation will admit and the former it is as much as if it should say I know not whether I say true or no yet you must think I say true Repl. We having received a command that all things be done decently and in order and this being to be appointed by them whom either the Law of the Land if that consist of faithfull or the consent or custome of Christians hath appointed for Ecclesiasticall Rulers in this matter in every place the Church thus restrained to the Governours of the Church may have in some cases though not to your purpose power without the least Infallibilitie And for instruction which you aime at no Church can give it yours especially being too large a body ever to meet or joyn in doing it and if you restraine the Church to the Cleargie whereof yet many teach not and they too are too many for any man to be sure what they all agree in teaching and when they differ how shall I know which to follow otherwise then by your Rule which I have answered their duty indeed but not theirs onely though Principally is to instruct us in the way to Heaven which they doing in the Persons of Embassadors between God and us and having no absolute Letters of Credence to bid us to beleeve that God saies whatsoever they say he saies as much as can be wrested out of Scriptures for any present Church being said of the Scribes and Pharisees who yet proved themselves not infallible our best way is in my mind to examine their Commission and if they can shew that they treat according to that to submit to them as in the same case we must to any of the Layetie or rather to God of whose commands they are but Organs and if not to beware of their Leaven Yet it may be that some man may hold that such an opinion is to be beleeved onelie because such a Church proposeth it and yet not believe her Infallible since he may think her authoritie by reason of her Learning Multitude Sanctitie Unitie and Libertie to be more probable then any contradicting argument and that men are to assent to what is most probable and truelie if he could prove to me his Major I am alreadie so much of the opinion of his Minor that I should joyne with him in his Conclusion Resp So that if I understand any thing where there is no Infallibility there is no Power where no Power no Unity where no Unity no Entity where no Entity no Church Repl. How you tie Power to Infallibilitie I guesse but cannot how you tie Unitie to Power For how many things are all men even at Unitie about though one have no Power over another in them onelie cemented together by their clear evidence And how many more do whole Bodies and Sects of men agree about without any such power though they differ in other points as so do you too Do not Protestants agree with you about manie and the chiefest credenda and about almost all the meerely facienda Though not perswaded to this agreement by the Power of any Judge which they do acknowledge Nay if men could be at Unitie about no thing which were not proposed by some Guide or defined by some Judge endued with such a power how came all you to agree that
there is some such Guide and Judge required since sure you receive not that upon its own authoritie and if men may find the necessitie of a Guide and Judge without any Guide or Judge and remain in Unitie about that why may they not also about whatsoever is clearly taught by God which reason assures us to be all that is necessarie and if you say that all things necessarie are not clearlie taught because we do not though it proves not that we might not agree upon them then I replie that I may as well say that neither is it cleare that there is a Guide because we dissent from you in it although receiving the authoritie of the Scripture out of which Cardinall Perron confesseth that Saint Austine saith that both the necessitie of your guide the Church and she her self are to be known and reason which as they may be plain in this point for you and yet perswade us not so may they be in all necessarie points and yet we who make theirs our ground not perswade one another As little see I why there can be no Entitie nor Church where there is no Unitie For the first though there be small Unitie among Christians yet certainly Christians and their Religion have some Entitie indeed if what you say were true there were no Entitie in yours For the second I know not why two parties over-valuing their differences may not conceive each other to be none of the Church and so declare even by excommunications and yet remain both Parts of it for if a Husband misse-suspecting his Wife of Adulterie declare her to be no longer his Wife this cannot make her give over being so if the bond be indeed not broken as well as Chrysostome and Epiphanius both excommunicated by each other and yet both Saints or as particular men may by your own confession be interiorly in the Church although seeming out of it even to the Church her self and so those be both of the Church between whom there is no Unity For not onely in your own Cariophilus his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also though the persons have power yet if the cause have not sufficiencie I take you to agree that an excommunication is but a brutum fulem as Victors of the Asian Bishops The best therefore and strictest definition and which I think you will not refute which I can give for the Church is especially in that sence as out of it there can be no salvation those who are desirous to know Gods Will or Christs at the strictest for I am not certaine nor I beleeve is it defined among you whether an explicite knowledge of Christ be absolutely necessarie to Salvation though I know no guiltlesse ignorance of him can bring unavoidably upon any man eternall torments and ready when known to beleeve and follow it and sure many of these may eternally disagree even in points which are necessarie abstracting from particular cases and yet their differences not exclude them from the Church and consequentlie a Church may be without Unitie Quod erat demonstrandum Resp Now for the Controversies mentioned besides that there is a meanes to terminate them they be such as bring no breach of the ancient life and action of Christians which all those opinions do which for the most part are reputed to make Hereticks Repl. You saw verie well that if no Unitie no Church were a true Proposition yours hath in it differencies enough to destroy its being a Church and therefore are faine to applie what salves you can but all in vaine For your meanes to terminate them doth not make them not to be before they are terminated and consequently by your Rule yours is no Church till then Besides their bringing to breach of the ancient life and action of Christians proves not but one of them may be a Heresie since you say not your selfe that all Heresies are such but onelie for the most part and indeed to prove that you must be able to set down what those opinions are which before a definition may make a Heretick which I beleeve you will not venture to doe in haste though we much desire it at your hands that we may know if none of them be such Resp That some controversies amongst us are not resolved is a thing necessarie amongst humane affaires where things must have a time to be born to encrease to fall and the greater things are the greater is their Period Repl. It is true that some time to be taken notice of must passe between an opinions rising and being condemned but that so long they should run on and many of your Councels having since been held is sure not necessarie and shewes that you esteem not Unitie so necessarie as you pretend some opinions I am sure you can soon enough quash as that not long since risen in Spaine concerning Fornication being but a Veniall Sin And whereas you say the greater things are the greater their period though this be ture in some things yet not in this for sure the greater a difference is the greater necessitie is there that it be soon decided and so if your decision have power to effect it as you pretend among you it hath it must fall as soon as it is born like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Creatures that live but a day Resp Wherefore I do not see why this may hurt the Church more then the suits which hang in our Courts prejudice the government of the Land Repl. If any of these opinions be of that importance as that though uncondemn'd the Holders are Hereticks as some may be and my definition being concluded of such among you some of these may be some of them then sure they hurt the Church much and more then the Suites hurt the Government which their hanging hurts not at all though it hurts sometimes unavoidablie the Parties But if where there is no Unitie there were no Common-wealth as you say where there is no Unitie there can be no Church then the Government were much prejudic'd by the Suits as your Church by this rule is made no Church by the differences And indeed if men were not agreed about the power of the Governours as you are not about some of your questions it must be a maime to the government of any Common-wealth as consequentlie these are to the goverment of your Church Resp The last point of the Authors discourse is to shew how errors might have crept in wherein I shall have no opposition with him for I doe not thinke the question is how they should creep in but how they should be kept out Repl. Here Sir I cannot but beleeve that you intended to refresh your selfe with some Mirth as with Musicke between the Acts for though both our ends be that errors should not creep in yet the question was whether it were possible that they might creepe in and to my affirmative part it conduced to shew those waies by which either they
have entred or easilie might doe so this shewing how they may steale in teacheth how to keep them out as it is an aide to the saving of a Town to discover the breaches which cannot be guarded without they be first known Resp For the Fluxibility of humane Nature is so great that it is no wonder if errors should have crept in the wayes being so many but it is a great wonder of God that none should have crept in This neverthelesse I may say if the Author will confesse as I thinke he will not deny but that it is disputable whether any error in sixteen Ages hath crept in this very thing is above Nature For if there were not an excellency beyond the nature of corruptible things it would be undeniably evident that not one or two but thousands of errors had quite changed the shape of the Church in so many yeares tempests dis-unions want of Commerce in the body of the Church Repl. The greater wonder it were if your Church had no error the greater it is to me that upon one at most but probable Reason you should require all men to beleeve she hath none Neither doth it appeare to me disputable whether she have or no but evident that she hath not by Demonstrations yet by Probabilities of that multitude and weight upon which you say and say trulie that in all other cases we relie and venture that we most esteem whereas indeed you as you are of the imposing Partie ought to bring at least such proofes that you are fallen into none and as you are of the Infallibilitie-pretending-partie your proofes are likewise to rise from probable to Infallible Neither doe I conceive it to be probablie argued it is disputable whether this bodie of men have ever let in any error therefore it can never let in any since it is at least as disputable whether the Grecians have let in any yet you will not allow that upon this we should adjudge to her Infallibilitie Nay if it were demonstrative that your Church had yet never erred yet it would but unwillinglie follow that she never could since all things necessarie are so plaine without the confession of which you seeme to tax God and it is naturallie so plaine what is plaine that I cannot but thinke it a miracle that some one bodie of Christians among so many should be free from any such dogmaticallie-defended error especiallie if Truth were so indifferentlie sought after as it ought to be and Passion were not often called to counsell and Reason shut out of doores Resp But this one Maxime that she receiveth her Faith by Tradition and not from Doctors hath ever kept her entire And he that will shew the contrary must shew how it should come to passe that those who lived in such an Age would say unto our Children this we received from our fore-fathers as taught them by our fore-fathers to have been received from Christ and his Apostles from hand to hand which if it could not be the question is resolved that no error is in the Church of God which holdeth her faith upon that Tenure Repl. Not to repeat usque ad nauseam what I have heretofore answered as that others differing from you hold upon the same Tenure that your selves have not alwaies held nor hold not upon it c. I will onelie tell you what Cardinall Perron tels me of the Jewes out of Isidore and that is that they seeing in the book of Wisedome so cleare proofes of Christ plotted together to put it out of the Canon which serves not so much his turne if it were so as it makes against yours and shews how that might come to passe which you judge impossible the Posteritie of the Jewes having been deceived by this Complot although pretending at least and for ought appeares beleeving that the Tradition of their Church is still uncorrupted Resp And truely if the Author desires to examine divers Religions let him look their maine ground wherein they relie and see whether that be good or no And I think amongst Christians he shall find but two Tradition and Scripture Repl. First I allow not of your division for not to say now that you relie not onely upon Tradition these Protestants whose part in this I take depend not onelie upon Scripture but upon Universall Tradition too from which they receive that and would more if more seemed as clearly to them so to be delivered Secondly I think it reasonable not onely to examine what their Principles are but whether they do constantly follow them for a man may write awrie that hath a streight Ruler if he observe it not carefully Resp And the Catholiques onely to relie upon Tradition and all the rest upon Scripture and he shall see that relying upon Scripture cannot draw to an Unitie those who relie upon it and more then one cannot relie upon Tradition Repl. If all that relie upon Tradition be Catholicks you must admit the Eastern Churches into your Communion although you now account them both Scismaticks and Hereticks If all Catholicks do relie upon Tradition as their onelie grounds and Tradition be so sure and infallible and unmistakable a deliverer as you would perswade us how come so manie differences between you some ever counting those things matter of Faith which others do not which differences shew if they all relie on these Questions upon the ground you say they do that more then one may relie upon Tradition and neither can Tradition any more then Scripture draw to an Unitie those who relie upon it if either neither part do or either do not then Tradition is not the Common Tenure of Catholicks not onelie in different opinions but even in such as are most de fide and as both parts think nothing but a definition and some scarce that to make the Holders of the contrary to them Hereticks since if it were neither could one part of Catholicks relie upon any other then the Catholick ground neither is it to be doubted but that side which builds their opinion upon an Hereticall foundation against another beleeved upon a Catholick ground would long agone have been among you exploded and the Pope have been not onelie with so much paines perswaded but even of himselfe readie to have past his censure upon them if not for their superstructions yet for their foundation Resp If I will be a Christian I must be of one side Repl. If you mean I must be of one side that is take one of these grounds I answer That I take both one from the other Scripture from Tradition though not from the present Tradition of a Part but from the Universall one of the first Christians opposed by none but by them who were instantlie counted by the generallitie heterodox and as soon opposed as known If you mean that I must be of one side in points I whollie denie any such necessitie Resp By falling on the one side I see my fortune in thousands who
have gone before me to wit that I shall be to seek all my life time as I see they are and how greatlie they magnifie verie weak pieces On the other side I see everie man who followeth as farr as he followeth it is at quiet Repl. I see not but the greatest part of those who take the ground which you mislike are yet setled and confident enough in their opinion and if they continued alwaies seeking Truth for the love of it I know not why they should be the lesse likely to find Heaven Neither think I that you will say nay it is plaine by your own words that you will not say that Saint Austine had been damned if he had died in his search nor consequently any other in his case And whereas you say that all who follow the other are at quiet as farr as they follow it I answer So are all who fixedly beleeve themselves to follow an infallible although indeed a false Guide as the Mahumetans being led by their Mufty Which proves Quiet no sufficient caution for Truth nor Securitie for Safetie and that supposing yours the more easie and satisfying way it followes not that it is the more reasonable And for what you say of a mans duty to judge himself rigorously whether he seek as he ought I subscribe to that opinion and approve of your Councell Resp Besides this he must have this care that he seek what the Nature of the subject can yeeld and not as these Physitians who when they have promised no lesse then immortality can at last onely reach to some conservation of health or youth in some small degree So I could wish the Author well to assure himself First that there is possible an infallibilitie before he be to earnest to be contented with nothing lesse For what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good would he therefore think fitting to live without any Religion because he could not get such a one as himself desired though with more then a mans wish Repl. What you now say I confesse is very rationall as indeed all you say is as much as your cause will suffer and I require you not therefore to prove your opinions to be infallible by infallible arguments as necessarie to be done in it self but as necessarie to be done by them of whose opinions their Churches infallibilitie is not onelie a part but a ground and that the chief if not the onelie one and of which an infallible certaintie is the first and main condition of their Communion and our want of it one of their maine Objections against us Resp He that will make a judgement in an Art he is not Master in if he be deceived it is to be imputed to himself The Phrase commandeth us to believe every man in his Art he who knoweth and understandeth himselfe beleeveth not Therefore when wee see Masters in an Art we are not skild in oppose us we may beleeve we are in the wrong which will breed this Resolution in the Author of the discourse that if himself be not skild in all those waies in which he pursues his search he must find himself obleiged to seek Masters who be both well skilled and the matter being subject to faction also very honest and upright men or else he doth not quitt himself before God Repl. Truelie I am farr from being Master either in this or any other Art but if for this cause I ought to doubt and because much learneder persons oppose me I ought to beleeve my self in the wrong then so ought those of your part to do who are as Ignorant as I we having many much more learned then they who oppose them and take our part though therefore I think not of my self what Tully in a Complement would perswade one of his Friends that Nemo est qui sapientùs mihi possit suadere meipso yet I dare not chuse as you would have me some Master to search for me and beleeve him blind-fold though if I would I see no cause why to chuse any from among you who have so many able Teachers at home for you confessing that the matters are subject to Faction and it being certaine that not onelie who are honest is impossible to be known but that eagernesse and desire to have what they think Truth prevaile makes even the honest men sometimes deviate from the line of exact honestie and lie for God which he not onelie needs not but forbids as is to be seen too frequentlie in the Quotations of both sides I conceive it the best way to follow my own Reason since I know I have no will to cozen my self as they may have to cozen me Especially since neither could I build upon such a way an assent of such a degree as your Church requires since such Masters although learned which I being unlearned may be deceived in and honest which all men might be deceived in yet not infallible could not in reason make me infallibly certaine of the Orthodoxnesse of that side which they should chuse for me So that what was said by the Pagan Solomon Socrates who yet was no confident man of his knowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is my resolution too and indeed in effect if not whollie yet almost every mans for those who trust their Reason least yet trust it in this that some other instead of it is to be trusted and so chuse who they are to trust against which the Arguments either from the fallibilitie of Reason in generall or in this particular remaine equally an ignorant man being as likely to be deceived in the choice of his Guide as in that of his Way and that course being rather the shorter then the better as venturing in the same and no stronger a Bark onelie venturing all his wealth at once Resp It is not all one not to incurre damnation for infidelitie and to be in state of damnation for the man to whom infidelitie is not imputed may be in state of damnation for other faults as those were who having known God by his works did not glorifie him as they ought Repl. That men may be damned for other faults concernes not our Question nor indeed is any Resp Nay they may be damned for want of Faith and yet not be damned for incredulitie As for example sake if when they have sinned they know not what meanes to have them forgiven though they be without fault in not beleeving neverthelesse dying without Remission of sin they are not in sate to come to life everlasting Repl. This concernes no Christians none of which that I know differs from you in the necessarie meanes of obtaining forgivenesse for sinnes for though you require Confession yet you allow that Contrition will save without it Neither do I believe but an imperfect Repentance caused through faultlesse Ignorance of what it is for it to be perfect will still be accepted by him who reguards the Heart more then the Action indeed
acceptance of it which being no other then the church of all ages we have no more reason to beleeve that it hath preserved that free from Corruption then it self in a continuall visibilitie I answer That neither to giving authority to Scriptures nor to the keeping of them is required a continuall visibility of a no-waies erring body of Christians the Writers of them give them their authority among Christians nor can the Church move any other and that they were the Writers we receive from the generall Tradition and Testimony of the first Christians not from any following Church who could know nothing of it but from them for for those parts which were then doubted of by such as were not condemned for it by the rest why may not we remain in the same suspence of them that they did and for their being kept and conveighed this was not done onely by their Church but by others as by the Greeks and their is no reason to say that to the keeping and transmitting of records safely it is required to understand them perfectly since the old Testament was kept and transmitted by the Jewes who yet were so capable of erring that out of it they looked for a Temporall King when it spoke of a Spirituall and me thinks the Testimony is greater of a Church which contradicts the Scripture then of one which doth not since no mans witnessing is so soon to be taken as when against himself and so their Testimonie is more receiveable which is given to the Scriptures by which themselves are condemned Besides the generall reverence which ever hath been given to these Books and the continuall use of them together with severall parties having alwaies their eyes upon each other each desirous to have somewhat to accuse in their adversaries give us a greater certaintie that these are the same writings then we have that any other ancient book is any other ancient Author and we need not to have any erring Company preserved to make us surer of it Yet the Church of Rome as infallible a Depositarie as she is hath suffered some variety to creep into the Coppies in some lesse materiall things nay and some whole Books as they themselves say to be lost and if they say how then can that be rule whereof part is lost I reply That wee are excused if we walk by all the Rule that we have and that this maketh as much against Traditions being the Rule since the Church hath not looked better to Gods unwritten Word then to his written and if she pretend she hath let her tell us the cause why Antichrists comming was deferred which was a Tradition of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and which without impudence she cannot pretend to have lost And if againe they say God hath preserved all necessary Tradition I reply so hath he all necessarie Scripture for by not being preserved it became to us not necessarie since we cannot be bound to beleeve and follow that we cannot find But besides I beleeve that which was ever necessary is contained in what remaines for Pappias saith of Saint Mark that he writ all that Saint Peter preacht as Irenaeus-doth that Luke writ all that Saint Paul preacht nay Vincentius Lirinensis though he would have the Scripture expounded by ancient Tradition yet confesseth that all is there which is necessary and yet then there was no more Scripture then we now have as indeed by such a Tradition as he speakes of no more can be proved then is plainly there and almost all Christians consent in and truely I wonder that they should brag so much of that Author since both in this and other things he makes much against them as especially in not sending men to the present Roman Church for a Guide a much readier way if he had known it then such a long and doubtfull Rule as he prescribes which indeed it is impossible that almost any Question should be ended by Eleventhly He brings Saint Austines authority to prove that the true Church must be alwaies visible but if he understood Church in Mr Mountagues sence I think he was deceived neither is this impudent for me to say since I have cause to think it but his particular opinion by his saying which Cardinall Perron quoted that before the Donatists the Question of the Church had never been exactly disputed of and by this being one of his maine grounds against them and yet claiming no Tradition but onely places of Scripture most of them allegoricall and if it were no more I may better dissent from it then he from all the first Fathers for Dionysius Arcopagita was not then hatcht in the point of-the Chiliasts though some of them Pappias and Irenaeus claimed a direct Tradition and Christs owne words Secondly As useth this kind of libertie so he professeth it in his nineteenth Epistle where he saith that to Canonicall Scriptures he had learnt to give the reverence as not to doubt of what they said because they said it from all others he expected proofe from Scripture or Reason Thirdly The Church of Rome condemnes severall opinions of his and therefore she ought not to find fault with them who imitate her example Twelfthly He addes two reasons more The consent of the Fathers of all ages And the confession of Protestants To the First I answer That I know not of any such and am the more unapt to beleeve it because Mr. Mountague vouchsafes not to insist upon nor to quote any which I guesse he would have done but that he misdoubted their strength Secondly Suppose that all the Fathers which speake of this did say so yet if they say it but as private Doctors and claime no Tradition I know not why they should weigh more then so many of the now learned who having more helpes from Arts and no fewer from Nature are not worse searchers into what is Truth though lesse capable of being Witnesses to what was Tradition Thirdly They themselves often professe they expect not to be read as Judges but as to be judged by their and our Rule the Cononicall Scriptures Fourthly Let him please to read about the Immaculate Conception Rosa Salmeron and Wadding and he will find me as submissive to Antiquity even whilst I reject it as those of their own Party for they to prefer new opinions before old are faine to prefer new Doctors before old and to confesse the latter more perspicatious and to differ from those of former times with as little scruple as he would from Calvin whom Maldonat 6 Cap. St. Johan on purpose to oppose confesseth he chuseth a new Interpretation before that of all the Ancients which no witnesse but my eyes could have made me beleeve nay and produce other points wherein their Church hath decreed against the Fathers to perswade her to do so againe althoug Campian with an eloquent brag would perswade us that they are all as much for him as Gregory the thirteenth who was then Pope
To the Second I answer That Infallibility is not by us denied to the Church of Rome with an intention of allowing it to particular Protestants how wise and learned soever Thirteenthly He saies next that he after resolved to inform himself in other points which seemed to him unwarrantable and superstitious and found onely his own mistakes gave him occasion of Scandall To this I answer That I cannot well answer any thing unlesse he had specified the points but I can say that there are many as picturing God the Father which is generally thought lawfull and as generally practised their offerings to the Virgin Mary which onely differs from the Heresie of the Colliridians in that a Candle is not a Cake their praying to Saints and beleeving de side that they heare us though no way made certaine that they do so and many more which without any mistake of his might have given him occasion to be still scandalized For whereas he saith that those points were grounded upon the authority of the ancient Fathers which was refused as insufficient by Protestants I answer that none of these I name have any ground in the Ancientest nay the first is by them disallowed and if any other superstition of theirs have from them any ground yet they who depart from so many of the Ancients in severall opinions cannot by any reason be excused for retaining any error because therein they consent nor have the Protestants cause to receive it from them as a sufficient Apologie neither hath he to follow the Fathers rather then Protestants in a cause in which not the Persons but the Reasons were to have been considered For when Saint Hierome was by this way both brought into and held in a strange error though he speakes something like Mr. Mountague Patiaris me errare cum talibus Suffer me to erre with such men yet he could not obtaine Saint Austines leave who would not suffer him but answered their Reasons and neglected their Authorities Fourteenthly He speakes of his Religion super-infusing Loyalty and if he had onely said it destroied or weakned it not I who wish that no doubt of his alleagiance may once enter his mind to whom we all owe it but professe my self his humble Servant and no waies his enemy though his adversarie would then made no anser but since he speakes as if Popery were the way to obedience I cannot but say that though no Tenet of their whole Church which I know make at all against it yet their are prevailing opinions on that side which are not fit to make good subjects when their King and they are of different perswasions For besides that Cardinall D' Ossat an Author which Mr. Mountague I know hath read because whosoeuer hath but considered State matters must be as well skilled in him as any Priest in his Breviary tell us that it is the Spaniards Maxime That Faith is not to be kept amongst Hereticks and more that the Pope intimated as much in a discourse intended to perswade the King of France to forsake the Queen of England he saith moreover speaking in another place speaking about the Marquizat of Saluces that they hold at Rome that the Pope to avoid a probable danger of the encreasing of Heresie may take a Territory from the true Owner and dispose of it to another and many also defend that he hath power to depose an Hereticall Prince and of Heresie he makes himself the Judge So that though I had rather my tongue should cleave to the roofe of my mouth then that I should deny that a Papist may be a good Subject even to a King whom he accounts an Heretick since I verily beleeve that I my self know very many very good yet Popery is like to an ill aire wherein though many keep their healthes yet many are infected so that at most they are good Subjects but during the Popes pleasure and the rest are in more danger then if they were out of it To conclude I beleeve that what I have said may at least serve if he will descend to consider it to more Mr. Mountague to a further search and for Memorandums in it which if it do he will be soone able to give as much better Reasons for my conclusion that such a Visible Church neither need nor can be shewed as his understanding is degrees above mine I hope also by comparing the body of their beleefe and the ground of their authority the little that can be drawn out of the fourth of the Ephesians with the Miriads of contradiction in Transubstantiation he will come to see that their Pillars are too weak to hold up any building be it never so light and their building is too heavie to be held up by any Pillars be they never so strong and trust he will return to us whom he will find that the hath causelessely left if he be which I doubt not so ingenuous as not to hold and opinion because he hath turned to it nor to stay onely because he went FINIS