shewes ENOVGH your faith So that it is plaine he thought punishing for opinions to be a marke which might serve him to know false opinions by I beleive throughout Antiquity you will find no putting any to death § 27. unlesse it be such as begin to kill first as the Circumcellians or such like I am sure Christian Religions cheife glory being that it encreased by being persecuted and having that advantage of the Mahumetan which came in by force me thinkes De Regno especially since Synesius hath told us and reason told men so before Synesius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every thing is destroyed by the contrary to what setled and composed it It should be to take ill care of Christianity to seeke to hold it up by Turkish meanes at least it must breed doubts that if the Religion had alwaies remained the same it would not be defended by wayes so contrary to those by which it was propagated I desire recrimination may not be used § 28. for though it be true that Calvin hath done it and the Church of England a little which is a little too much for Negare manifesta non audeo excusare immodica non possum yet She confessing She may erre is not so chargeable with any fault as those which pretend they cannot and so will be sure never to mend it and besides I will be bound to defend no more then I have undertaken which is to give reasons Why the Church of Rome is fallible I confesse this opinion of damning so many § 29. and this custome of burning so many this breeding up those who know nothing else in any point of Religion yet to be in readinesse to cry To the fire with him and To Hell with him as Polybius saith in a certaine furious faction of an army of severall nations and consequently languages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of them understood onely this word Throw at him this I say in my opinion was it cheifely which made so many so suddainly leave the Church of Rome that indeed to borrow the Authors phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They needed not perswasion to doe it but onely newes that others had begun For as this alone if beleived makes all the rest be so too So one thing alone misliked overthrowes also all the rest If it were granted that § 30. because it agrees not with the Goodnesse of God to let men want an infallible Guide therefore there must be one and that the Church of Rome were that one yet if that teach any thing to my understanding contrary to Gods Goodnesse I am not to receive her doctrine for the same cause for which they would have me receive it it being as good an argument this Guide teaches things contrary to Gods Goodnesse therefore is not appointed by God as to say It is agreeable to his Goodnesse there should be a Guide therefore there is one And sure it is lawfull to examine particular doctrines whether they agree with that principle which is their foundation and to that me thinkes to damne him that neither with negligence nor prejudication searcheth what is Gods will though he misse of it is as contrary as the first can be supposed I would know whether he that never heard of the Church of Rōe shall yet be damned for not beleiving her infallible § 31. I have so good an opinion of them as to assure my selfe they will answer he shall not I will then aske Whether he that hath searched what Religions there are and finds hers to be one and her infallibility to be part of it if his reason will not assent to that shall he be dāned for being inquisitive after truth for he hath committed no other fault greater then the other Whether such an ignorance I meane after impartiall search be not of all the other the most invincible Nay grant the Church to be infallible § 32. yet me thinks he that denies it and imployes his reason to seeke if it be true should be in as good case as he that beleives it and searcheth not at all the truth of the proposition he receives for I cannot see why he should be saved because by reason of his parents beleise or the Religion of the Countrey or some such accident the truth was offered to his understanding when had the contrary beene offered he would have received that and the other damned that beleeves falshood upon as good ground as the other doth truth unlesse the Church be like a Conjurers circle that will keepe a man from the Devill though he came into it by chance They grant that no man is an Heretique that beleeves not his Heresie obstinately § 33. and if he be no Heretique he may sure be saved It is not then certaine damnation for any man to deny the infallibility of the Roman Church but for him only that denies it obstinately and then I am safe for I am sure I doe not Neither can they say I shall be damned for Schisme though not for Heresie § 34. for he is as well no Schismatique though in Schisme that is willing to joyne in communion with the true Church when it appeares to be so to him as he is no Heretique though he hold Hereticall opinions that holds them not obstinately that is as I suppose with a desire to be informed if he be in the wrong Why § 35. if it be not necessary alwayes 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 they knew them to be so why I say shall not the same implicit assent to whatsoever God would have assented to though I mistake what it is be sufficient When indeed to beleeve implicitly what God would have beleeved is to beleeve implicitly likewise what the Church teacheth if this doctrine be within the number of those which God commands to be beleeved I have therefore the lesse doubt of this opinion § 36. that I shall have no harme for not beleeving the infallibility of the Church of Rome because of my being so farre from leaning to the contrary and so suffering my will to have power over my understanding that if God would leave it to me which Tenet should be true I would rather choose that that should then the contrary For they may well beleeve me that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant bookes and making my selfe giddy with disputeing of obscure questions and dazled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caesariut If I could beleeve there should alwayes be whom I might alwayes know a society of men § 37. whose opinions must be certainely true and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synesius labour to discusse define all arising doubts so as I might be excusably at ease have no part left for me but that
they are to prove it false by some infallible way for the conclusion must be of the same nature and not conclude more then the premisses set downe now such a way Scripture and Reason or infused faith cannot be for they use to object the fallibility of them to those that build their Religion upon them nor the Authority of the Church for that is part of the question and must be it selfe first proved and that by none of the former wayes for the former reasons The Popes infallibility can be no infallible ground of faith § 13. being it selfe no necessary part of the faith we can be no surer of any thing proved then we are of that which proves it and if he be fallible no part is the more infallible for his sideing with them So if the Church be divided I have no way to know which is the true Church but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquity and so judgeing accordingly But this is not to submit my selfe to her opinions as my guide which they tell us is necessary Which course if they approve not of as a fit one for a Learned man they are in a worse case for the ignorant who can take no course at all nor is the better at all for this Guide the Church whilest two parts dispute which is it and that by arguments he understands not If I granted the Pope § 14. or a Councell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their Decrees can be no sufficient ground by their own axiomes of Divine faith For first say the most No Councell is valid not approved by the Pope for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum and a Pope chosen by Symony is ipso facto no Pope I can then have no certainer ground for the infallibility of those Decrees and consequently for my beleife of them then I have that the choice of him was neither directly nor indirectly Symoniacall which to be certaine of is absolutely impossible § 15. Secondly suppose him Pope and to have confirmed the Decrees yet that these are the Decrees of a Councell or that he hath confirmed them I can have but an uncontradicted attestation of many men for if another Councell should declare these to have beene the Acts of a former Councell I should neede againe some certaine way of knowing how this declaration is a Councels which is no ground say they of faith I am sure not so good and generall a one as that Tradition by which we prove that the Scripture is Scripture which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them Thirdly for the sence of their Decrees § 16. I can have no better expounder to follow then Reason which if though I mistake I shall not be damned for following why shall I for mistaking the sence of Scripture Or why am I a lesse fit interpreter of one then of the other were both seeme equally cleare And where they seeme so I meane equally cleare and yet contradictory shall I not as soone beleive Scripture which is without doubt of at least as great authority But I doubt whether Councells be fit deciders of Questions § 17. for such they cannot be if they beget more and men have cause to be in greater doubts afterwards none of the former being diminished then they were at first Now I conceive there arise so many out of this way § 18. that the Learned cannot end all nor the Ignorant know all As besides the forenamed considerations Who is to call them the Pope or Kings Who are to have voices in them Bishops only or Preists also Whether the Pope or Councell be Superiour the last neede the approbation of the first debated among themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines so great a part of Christianity not resolvedly condemend by them for Heretiques were absent at the Councell of Trent make it not generall Whether if it be one not every where received as when the Bishops sent from some places have exceeded their Commission as in the Councell of Florence it be yet of necessity to be subscribed to Whether there were any surreption used or force and Whether those disanull the Acts Whether the most voyees are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all are required As Canus sayth All the Councell cannot erre the most may which never yet agreed or Whether two parts will serve as in the Tridentine Synode a considerable doubt because Nicephorus Callistus relateing the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes them give three reasons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom 2 pag. 172. One That the Bishop of Rome was not present The second That most did not agree to it Thirdly That others thither gathered were displeased at their resolutions which proves that in their opinions if either most not present agree not to it or all present be not pleased with it a Councell hath no power to binde All these doubts I say perswade me that whatsoever brings with it so many new questions can be no fit ender of the old In those things in which § 19. before a Generall Councell have defined it is lawfull to hold either way and damnable to do so after I desire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church to define any thing and so bestow upon the Divell one path more for us to walke in to him If the infallibility of a Generall Councell be a point of faith I desire to know why it is so § 20. Scripture and Tradition seeme to me not to say so But if they did so I suppose you will grant they do of this doctrine That the soules of the blessed shall see God before the day of judgement and not be kept in secret Receptacles For else the doctrine of prayer to Saints cannot stand and yet for denying this doth Bellarmine excuse Pope John 22 of which beleife they know he was not alone because the Church he meanes I doubt not a Generall Councell had not then condemned it I desire to know why should not he be condemned as well without one as many Heretiques that are held so by their Church yet condemned by no Generall Councell which if he makes to be the rule of Heresie it had beene happy to have lived before the Councell of Nice when no opinion had beene damnable but some against the Apostles Councell at Hierusalem because there had yet beene no Generall Councell At least why shall not I be excused by the same reason § 21. though I beleive not a Councell to be infallible since I never heard that any Councell hath decreed that they are so Neither if it have can we be bound by that Decree unlesse made certaine some other way that it selfe is so If you say we must beleive it because of Tradition § 22. I answer sometimes you will have
OF THE INFALLIBILITIE OF THE CHVRCH OF ROME A Discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND Now first published from a Copy of his owne hand OXFORD Printed by H Hall Printer to the UNIVERSITY M.DC.XLV OF THE INFALLIBILItie of the Church of ROME TO him that doubts whether the Church of Rome have any errours they answer § 1. that She hath none for She never can have any This being so much harder to beleive then the first had need be proved by some certaine arguments if they expect that the beleife of this one should draw on whatsoever else they please to propose Yet this is offered to be proved by no better wayes then those by which we offer to prove she hath erred Which are arguments from Scripture Reason and Ancient Writers all which they say themselves are fallible for nothing is not so but the Church which if it be the onely infallible determination and that can never be beleived upon it's owne authority we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible for these other wayes of proofe they say may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to beleive them If they say § 2. that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine faith why are they so offended with the Protestants for beleiving every part of their Religion upon that ground upon which they build all theirs at once and if following the same Rule with equall desire of finding the truth by it having neither of those qualities which Isidorus Pelusiota sayes are the causes of all Heresies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pride and Prejudication why should God be more offended with the one then the other though they chance to erre They say § 3. the Church is therefore made infallible by God that all men may have some certaine 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 seeme to have a great care of my going up whereas unlesse there be care taken that I may know this Ladder is here to that purpose it were as good for me it had never beene set If they say we may know it § 4. for that Generall and constant Tradition instructs us in it I answer that ignorant people cannot know this and so it can be no Rule for them and if learned people mistake in this there can be no condemnation for them For suppose to know whether the Church of Rome may erre as a way which will conclude against her but not for her for if She hath erred certainly She may but though she hath not erred hitherto it followes not that She cannot erre I seeke whether She have erred and conceiving She hath contradicted her self conclude necessarily She hath erred I suppose it not damnable though I erre in my judgement because I try the Church by one of those touch-stones her self appoints me which is Conformity with the Ancient For to say I am to beleive the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seeme to me to doe so is to send me to a witnesse and bid me not beleive it Now to say the Church is provided for a Guide of faith § 5. but must be knowne by such markes as the ignorant cannot seeke it by and the learned may chance not to find it by though seeking it with all diligence and without all prejudice can no way satisfy me If they say § 6. God will reveale the truth to whosoever seekes it these wayes sincerely this saying both sides will without meanes of being confuted make use of therefore it would be as good that neither did When they have proved the Church to be infallible § 7. yet to my understanding they have proceeded nothing farther unlesse we can be sure which is it for it signifies onely that God will allwaies have a Church which shall not erre but not that such or such a Successiion shall be all waies in the right not that the Bishop of such a place and the Clergy that adheres to him shall all waies continue in the true faith So that if they say the Greeke Church is not the Church because by it's owne confession it is not infallible I answer that it may be now the Church and may hereafter erre and so not be now infallible and yet the Church never erre because before their fall from truth others may arise to 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 § 8. and not the Greeke because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquity they runne into a circle proving their tenets to be true first because the Church holds them then theirs to be the true Church because it holds the truth which last though it appeare to me the onely way yet it takes away it's being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing § 9. Nay suppose they had evinced that some Succession were infallible and so had proved to a Learned man that the Roman Church must be this because none else pretends to it yet this can be no sufficient ground to the ignorant who cannot have any infallible foundation for their beleife that the Church of Greece pretends not to the same and even to the Learned it is but an accidentall argument because if any other company had likewise claimed to be infallible it had overthrowne all so proved Nay it is but an arbitrary argument § 10. and depends upon the pleasure of the adversary for if any society of Christians would pretend to it the Church of Rome could make use of it no longer The cheifest reason why they disallow of the Scripture for Judge is because when differences arise about the interpretation there is no way to end them § 11. and that it will not stand with the goodnesse of God to damne men for not following his will if he had assigned no infallible way how to finde it I confesse this to be wonderfull true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let them excuse themselves that thinke otherwise Yet this will be no argument against him who beleives that to all who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures and search for Tradition God will either give his grace for assistance to finde the truth or his pardon if they misse it and then this supposed necessity of an infallible Guide with this supposed damnation for want of it fall together to the ground If they command us to beleive infallibly the contrary to this § 12.
the not beleiving any thing though not declared by a Councell to have power enough to damne that is when it makes against us at other times the Church hath not decreed unlesse a Councell have and their errour is pardonable and they good Catholiques Next § 23. as I have asked before how shall an ignorant man know it for he in likely hood can speake but with a few from whom he cannot know that all of the Church of Rome's part do now and in past ages have beleeved it to be Tradition so certainely as to make it a ground of faith unlesse he have some revelation that those deceive him not Neither indeed can those that should enforme him of the opinions of former times be certainely enformed themselves for truly if as they would perswade us the relation of Papias could cousen so farre all the Prime Doctours of the Christian Church into the beleife of the doctrine of the Millenaries so as that no one of those two first ages opposed it which appeares plaine enough because those that after rose up against this opinion never quoted any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least two hundred fifty yeares after Christ Nay if those first men did not only beleeve it as probable Dial. cum Tryph p. 307. lib. 5. cap. 33. but Justin Martyr layes he holds it and so do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenaeus sets it downe directly for a Tradition and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this which is plainer 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 by others deceived in other points And then what certainty shall the Learned have when after much labour they thinke they can make it appeare that the Ancients thought any thing Tradition that indeed it was so And that either the folly or the knavery of some Papias deceived them not I confesse it makes me thinke of some that Tully speakes of who arcem amittunt dum propugnacula defendunt loose the fort whilest they defend the out-workes for whilest they answer this way the arguments of Tradition for the opinion of the Chiliasts they make unusefull to them the force of Tradition to prove any thing else by For which cause it was rather wisely then honestly done of them who before Feuardentius set him forth left out that part of Irenaeus which we alledge though we need it not much for many of the fathers take notice of this beleife of his Yet he justifies himselfe for doing it by a worse blow to them then this it selfe which is saying that if they leave out all errours in the bookes they publish that is I suppose all opinions contrary to the Church of Rome bona pars Scriptorum Patrum Orthodoxorum evanesceret a good part of the writings of the Orthodox Fathers must vanish away But the Tradition that can be found out of Ancients since their witnessing may deceive us hath much lesse strength when they argue only thus § 24. Sure so many would not say this is true and joyne in opinions if there were no tradition for them I would have you remember they can deliver their opinion possibly but either before the controversie arise in the Church upon some chance or after If before it is confest that they write not cantiously enough and so they answer all they seeme 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 Heretiques enough I desire it may be lawfull for us to answer so too either one of these former wayes or that it is as often they say too some Hyperbole when you presse us in any thing with the opinions of Fathers At least I am sure if they may deceive us with saying a thing is a Tradition that is not we may be sooner deceived if we will say and conclude it for a Tradition when they speake it only as a Truth and for ought appeares their particular Opinion For besides if when Salvian § 25. comparing the Arrians with evill Livers and that after they were condemned by a Councell extenuates by reason of their beleiving themselves in the right with much instance the fault of the Arrians and sayes How they shall be punisht for it in the day of Judgement none can know but the Judge If I say they confesse it to be his opinion they must also confesse the doctrine of their Church to be different from that of Salvians times because he was allowed a Member of that for all this saying whereas he of the Church of Rome that should say so of us would be accounted Sesqui-haereticus a Heretique and a halfe Or else they must say which they can onely say and not prove that he was so earnest against ill men that for the aggravation of their crime he lessened that of the Heretiques and said what at another time he would not have said which if they doe will it not overthrow wholly the authority of the Fathers Since we can never infallibly know what they thought at all times from what they were moved to say by some collaterall consideration Next to this certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome § 26. which averseth me from it next comes their putting all to death or at least paines that do so where they have power which is an effect though not a necessary one of the first opinion and that averseth me yet more For I doe not beleive all to be damned whom they damne but I conceive all to be killed whom they kill I am sure if you looke upon Constantine's Epistle written to perswade concord upon the first disagreement between Alexander and Arrius you will find that he thought if the Bishops of his time had at first thought otherwise he would have beene sure better informed that neither side deserved either death or damnation and yet sure this question was as great as ever rose since For having spoken of the opinions as things so indifferent that the Reader might almost thinke they had beene fallen out at Spurn-point or Ketle-pins he adds Niceph. Tom. 1. p. 555. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For that which is necessary is one thing that all agree and keepe the same faith about divine providence I am sure in the same Author Moses a man praised by him refusing to be made Bishop by Lucius because he was an Arrian and he answering Tom. 2. p. 206. That he did ill to refuse it before he knew what his faith was Answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The banishing of Bishops
of obedience which must needes be a lesse difficult and so a more agreeable way then to endure endlesse volumes of commentaries the harsh Greeke of Evagrius and the as hard Latine of Irenaeus and be pained by distinguishing betweene different senses and various lections and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlam that would preferre these studies before so many so much more pleasant that would rather imploy his understanding then submit it and if he could thinke God imposed upon him only the resisting temptations would by way of addition require from himselfe the resolving of doubts I say not that all these bookes are to be read by those who understand not the languages for them I conceive their seeking into Scripture may suffice But if I have by Gods grace skill to looke into them I cannot better use it then in the search of his will where they say it is to be found that I might assent to them if there I finde reason for it or if I do not they may have no excuse for not excusing me For whereas they say § 38. it is pride makes us doubt of their infallibility I answer that their too much lazinesse and impatience of examining is the cause many of them do not doubt Next what pride is it never to assent before I find reason for it since they when they follow that Church as infallible § 39. pretend reason for it and will not say they would if they thought they found none and if they say we do finde reason but will not confesse it then pride hinders not our assent but our declaration of it which if it do in any one he is without question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himselfe and it must be a very partiall advocate that would strive to acquit him One much prevailing argument which they make § 40. is this that whosoever leave them fall into dissention betweene themselves whereas they in the meane while are alwayes at unity I answer first in this whereof the question is now they all consent Secondly when there is fire for them that disagree they need not bragge of their uniformity who consent Thirdly they have many differences among them as whether the Pope be infallible Whether God predeterminate every action Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight Which seeme to me as great as any betweene their adversaries and in the latter the Jesuits have Ancienter and more generall 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 thinke they have for the necessity of an infallible guide yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Heretiques and must us If they say § 41. The Church hath not resolved it which signifies only that they are not agreed about it which is that we object I answer It ought to have done if conformity to the ancient Church be required in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austin who is very various I confesse in it delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtfull and to say it is lawfull for them to disagree whensoever they do not agree is ridiculous for they cannot do both at once about the same point And if they say § 42. they meane by the Churches not having concluded it that a Councell hath not I answer that they condemne some without any and why not these Next I say that the opinion of the Diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of a Representative which hath its authority from the other and therefore if all extant for foure hundred yeares teach any thing that is more Heresie to denie that then any Canon of a Councell But may not howsoever any other companie of People that would maintaine themselves to be infallible say as much § 43. that all other sects differ from one another and therefore should all agree with them Would those not thinke they ascribe all other mens dissentions and learned mens falling into divers 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 Greeke Bishop professeth that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans was the only cause of seperation betweene them They use much to object § 44. How could errours come into the Church without opposition and mention both of that opposition in history I answer they might come in not at once but by degrees as in the growth of a childe and the motion of a clock we see neither in the present but know there was a present when we finde it past Next so many Authours being lost who can make it certaine to me that from none of those we should have had notice of this opposition if they had come to us Next I say there are two sorts of errours to hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false or that in but profitable and probable Of the second sort that errours should come in it appeares not hard to me and especially in those ages where want of Printing made books and consequently learning not so common as now it is where the few that did study busied themselves in Schoole-Speculations only when the Authority of a man of cheife note had a more generall influence then now it hath and so as Thucydides saith the Plague did in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the disease that first setled in the head easily passed through all the body considering how apt all men are to desire that all men should thinke as they doe and consequently to lay a necessity upon the receiving that opinion if they conceived that a way to have it received And then if it were beleeved generally profitable as for example Confession who would be apt to oppose their calling it necessary for the same cause for which they called it so Besides if this errour were delivered by some Father in the hot opposition of some Heretique it may be none of his side would oppose it least they might take advantage by their dissention and he that disputed for the Orthodox side might loose by it much of his authority The word necessary it selfe is often used for very convenient § 45. and then from necessary in that sense to absolutely necessary is no difficult change though it be a great one The Fathers use Heretiques sometimes in a large sense and sometimes in a stricter so differ in the reckoning them up Some leaving out those that others put in though they had seene the precedent Catalogue The doubtfulnesse of the sense of those words might bring in errour Names as an Altar Sacrifice Massa may have beene used first in one sense and the name
retained though the thing signified received changes which may have beene the art of the Church of Rome as it was once of an Emperour of Rome Cui proprium fuit nuper reperta I leave out Scelera priscis verbis obtegere whose property it was to cover things newly found out with ancient tearmes And the same Author tels 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 beleive that if the Protestants beyond the Seas would have thought Bishops as good a word as Superintendents and so in other such things many who understand nothing but names would have missed the Scandall they have now taken These waies I thinke things may have come § 46. without much opposition from being thought profitable to be done and probable to be beleived to be thought necessary to be both and how things little by little may have beene received under old names which would not have beene so at once under new ones the first of these being no such small fault but that part of the Montanists heresie was thinking uncommanded fasting daies necessary to be observed which without doubt might lawfully have beene kept But my maine answer is § 47. that if for an opinion to be in the Church without knowne precedent opposition be a certaine note of being received from the beginning let them answer how came in the opinion of the Chiliasts not contradicted till two hundred yeares after it came in To conclude § 48. if they can prove that the Scripture may be a certainer teacher of truths to them then to us so they may conclude the infallibility of the Church out of it and we nothing If they can prove the Churches infallibility to be a sufficient Guide for him that doubts Which is the Church and cannot examine that for want of learning by her cheife marke which is conformity with the Ancient If they can prove that the consent of Fathers long together if they had it is a stronger argument against us then against the Dominicans If they can prove that though the first of them affirme that such a thing is Tradition and beleived 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 the necessity under paine of damnation for all men to beleive it which were the more strange because Iustin Martyr and Clemens Alexandrinus among the Ancients and Erasmus and Ludovicus Vives among the modernes beleive some Pagans to be saved I will subscribe to it And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sophoc If any man shall vouchsafe to thinke either this § 49. or the Author of it of value enough to confute the one and enforme the other I shall desire him to doe it with proceeding to the businesse and not standing upon any small slip of mine of which sort this may be full and with that Civility which is fit to be used by men that are not so passionate as to have the definition of reasonable creatures in vain remembring that truth in likelihood is where her Author God was in the still voice and not in the loud wind And that Epiphanius excuseth himselfe if he have called any Heretiques in his anger Deceivers or Wretches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I request him also to bring me to the Truth if I be out of it not onely by his arguments but also by his prayers which waies if he use and I still continue on the part I am of and yet doe neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither am wilfully blind nor deny impudently what I see then I am confident that neither he will have reason to be offended with me in this world nor God in the next FALKLAND FINIS