then of the demonstrated probleme before me a certainty of adherence of which the believer is as fully possest and from it receives as strong motives to doe any thing proportionable to that belief as if the certitude of evidence were allowed him And this I conceive is a degree prettily advanced above motives of credibility for such is every the lowest probability nay almost possibility and non-repugnance whatsoever is possible to be being in it self and in case the opposite ballance be not otherwise weighed down credible i. e. possible to be believed also But this by the way and ex abundanti C. 9. Answ to C. 9. A. Why cannot the simple know this viz. that the Greek Church doth not pretend from Saint Peter as surely as they know the whole Christian Church pretends from Christ and from no other Answ Sir you are a little too hasty in your annotation for if you had but read on to the next lines you had received the answer to your question so far as my discourse is concerned in it viz. a specifying of divers wayes by which 't is possible the Greek Church might and one whereby one part of it doth pretend succession to S. Peter And then that which so manifestly may be and is will not I hope be so easie for ignorant men to know surely that it is not or so surely as that the Christian Church pretends from Christ and from no other Which yet if it have any difficulty in it not intelligible to some ignorant men I take no pleasure in frighting any with an apprehension that God wil ever damne those ignorants for not being sure of what is so difficult so their lives be believing and Christian and agreeable to what they doe know of Christ. C. 10. Answ to C. 10. A. No sure not against the ordinary necessity Answ The thing I say in that place is that his Lordships argument might be I shall adde is of force against the necessity of a guide meaning thereby an infallible one for such only is to our purpose and that that will serve his Lordships turne and destroy you I there farther prove by a full explication of the whole matter And therefore you must give me favour to leave out your epithete of Ordinary which you would have me interpose when my discourse in order to its end hath no need of it And if you tell me you put it in in your answer to his Lordship and that therefore I have not vindicated his Lordship from that answer unlesse I take it in also I must then confesse to you that I did not so understand your words all this is nothing against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide that the word ordinary was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be repeated to the word necessity but onely that it belonged to provision And now that I know your pleasure I shall more clearly returne my answer that his Lordship supposes some men and I confesse my selfe to be one of them to believe that to all who follow their reason in the interpretation of Scripture and search for tradition i. e. the constant interpretation of the Catholique Church concerning any difficulty God will either give his grace of assistance to find the truth or his pardon if they misse it To which purpose you may please to compare Justin Mart. quest ◠ad Orthod and to omit many more Facundus Hermian in def 3. capit ad Just l. 11. p. 491. p. 496. l. 12. pag. 513. Now to them that so believe the argument which you fetch from Gods providence to conclude an infallible guide will not saith his Lordship be sufficient to prove it because he still will be able to say that where imperfection is accepted meanes of perfection are not necessary if God will pardon weaknesses he need not give such a measure of strength as excludes all weaknesses if sincerity though with some mixture of sinne will serve turne here in viâ we need not expect from God that integrity of faculties which either was bestowed in paradise or will be in heaven to give us an unsinning innocence And if you will still interpose that this is nothing against the ordinary necessity because these are cases extraordinary I answer that this is a great mistake For under the Gospell or Evangelicall State under which all men have beene since the promise of Christ upon Adams fall there is no ordinary necessity of never missing or mistaking our naturall state being an estate of weaknesse is advanced by Christ into such a condition not wherein all weaknesse is excluded but wherein sincerity with mixtures of slips and errours shall be accepted and this as infallibly as innocence had beene rewarded under the first covenant made with Adam in the first state To the first Covenant which is stricti juris such pardon for slips might be extraordinary but to this second whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or gentlenesse is as much apart as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or strict justice was before this pardon for invincible infirmities is as ordinary as obligation to punishment for every slip had beene before this being a prime ingredient in that Covenant and not extraordinarii but ordinarii juris that under it such slips shall not be remembred In like manner as in this Kingdome Chancery though it be opposed to Common Law in one sence as that signifies strict law yet it is a part of our common law as that signifies the Municipall law or totall body of lawes by which this Kingdome is ruled Equity though perhaps it came in later and to repaire defects or excesses in the strict law being now as much every Subjects right and Writs out of that Court as legally required and granted and the whole processe in Chancery as clearely sec jura consuetudines Angliae and so as much Ordinary or secundum Ordinem as any thing that passes in the Common Pleas. And so much for your nice interposition of the word Ordinary to your pretended necessity of a guide where yet I might farther tell you that infallibility is not essentiall to or inseparable from a guide and therefore though the Guide were granted to be ordinarily necessary to the finding out of truth yet this would not come home to infallibility The antecedent I could make good at large if it were now seasonable Ibid. B. They i. e. misses and mistakings are called extraordinary because happening accidentally besides the provision of the law and not because they happen seldome Answ That misses and mistakings infirmities and ignorances doe happen besides the provision of the second or the Evangelicall Covenant is a mistake as was intimated then within few lines after those whereon your annotation was fastened and now at large proved in my last answer to your former annotation and I shall not need repeate it but onely tell you there is a law of Faith aswell as of workes and that in that law there is provision for errours aswell
emptynesse of these Papers and more then so to render a reason of it viz the fate which they were under by a necessity of attending this Apologist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yeilded them occasion of little variety unlesse they would extravagate Yet could he not resist the Reasons which charged it on him as a duty thus confidently to importune the Reader with the view of the whole matter as farre as it hath past between them setting downe that Answer to and this Vindication of his Lordships Arguments by Chapters and then not doe him the least injustice adding in the end of all the Answerers marginall Replyes and that concluding Sheet that even now was mentioned with a Rejoynder to that also By all this endeavouring to lay grounds for all men to judge how little truth there is in that so Epidemicall perswasion that there is no middle betwixt asserting an Infallible Judge and the falling headlong into all the Schismes and Haeresies of this present age My Conscience assuring me that the grounds on which the establish'd Church of England is founded are of so rare an excellent mixture that as none but intelligent truely Christian minds can sufficiently value the composition so there is no other in Europe so likely to preserve Peace and Unity if what prudent Lawes had so long agoe designed they now were able to uphold For want of which and which onely it is that at present the whole Fabricke lyes polluted in confusion and in blood and hopes not for any binding up of wounds for restauration of any thing that lookes like Christian till the faith of the reformed English have the happinesse to be weighed prudently and the military Sword being timely sheathed the Power and Lawes of Peace be returned into those hands which are ordained by GOD the Defenders of it H. H. Of the INFALLIBILITY of the CHURCH of ROME A Discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND Section 1 TO him that doubts whether the Church of Rome have any errors they answer that She hath none for She never can have any This being so much harder to believe than the first had need be proved by some certaine arguments if they expect that the belief of this one should draw on whatsoever else they please to propose Yet this is offered to be proved by no better wayes than those by which we offer to prove she hath erred Which are arguments from Scripture Reason and Antient Writers all which they say themselves are fallible for nothing is not so but the Church which if it be the onely infallible determination and that can never be believed upon its owne authority we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible for these other waies of proof they say may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to believe them Section 2 If they say that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine faith why are they so offended with the Protestants for believing every part of their Religion upon that ground upon which they build all theirs at once and if following the same Rule with equall desire of finding the truth by it having neither of those qualities which Isidorus Pelusiota sayes are the causes of all Heresies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pride and prejudication why should God be more offended with the one than the other though they chance to erre Section 3 They say the Church is therefore made infallible by God that all men may have some certain Guide yet though it be infallible unlesse it both plainly appeare to be so for it is not certaine to whom it doth not appeare certaine and unlesse it be manifest which is the Church God hath not attained his end and it were to set a Ladder to Heaven and seem to have a great care of my going up whereas unlesse there be care taken that I may know this Ladder is here to that purpose it were as good for me it had never been set Section 4 If they say we may know it for that generall and constant Tradition instructs us in it I answer that ignorant people cannot know this and so it can be no Rule for them and if learned people mistake in this there can be no condemnation for them For suppose to know whether the Church of Rome may erre as a way which will conclude against her but not for her for if She hath erred certainly She may but though She hath not erred hitherto it followes not that She cannot erre I seeke whether She have erred and conceiving She hath contradicted her selfe conclude necessarily She hath erred I suppose it not damnable though I erre in my judgement because I trie the Church by one of those touch-stones her self appoints me which is Conformity with the Antient. For to say I am to believe the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seem to me to doe so is to send me to a Witnesse and bid me not believe it Section 5 Now to say the Church is provided for a Guide of faith but must be known by such marks as the ignorant cannot seek it by and the learned may chance not to find it by though seeking it with all diligence and without all prejudice can no way satisfie me Section 6 If they say God will reveal the truth to whosoever seeks it in these wayes sincerely this saying both sides will without meanes of being confuted make use of therefore it would be as good that neither did Section 7 When they have proved the Church to be infallible yet to my understanding they have proceeded nothing farther unlesse we can be sure which is it for it signifies onely that God will alwaies have a Church which shall not erre but not that such or such a Succession shall be alwaies in the right not that the Bishop of such a place and the Clergy that adheres to him shall alwaies continue in the true faith So that if they say the Greek Church is not the Church because by its owne confession it is not infallible I answer that it may be now the Church and may hereafter erre and so not be now infallible and yet the Church never erre because before their fall from truth others may arise to maintain it who then will be the Church and so the Church may still be infallible though not in respect of any set persons whom we may know at all times for our Guide Section 8 Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church and not the Greeke because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquity they run into a circle proving their tenets to be true first because the Church holds them and then theirs to be the true Church because it holds the truth which last though it appeare to me the onely way yet it takes away it's being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing Section
9 Nay suppose they had evinced that some succession were infallible and so had proved to a learned man that the Roman Church must be this because none else pretends to it yet this can be no sufficient ground to the ignorant who cannot have any infallible foundation for their beliefe that the Church of Greece pretends not to the same and even to the Learned it is but an accidentall argument because if any other company had likewise claimed to be infallible it had overthrowne all so proved Section 10 Nay it is but an arbitrary Argument and depends upon the pleasure of the adversary for if any society of Christians would pretend to it the Church of Rome could make use of it no longer Section 11 The chiefest reason why they disallow of the Scripture for Judge is because when differences arise about the interpretation there is no way to end them and that it will not stand with the goodnesse of God to damne men for not following his will if he had assigned no infallible way how to find it I confesse this to be wonderfull true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let them excuse themselves that think otherwise Yet this will be no argument against him who believes that to all who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures and search for Tradition God will either give his grace for assistance to find the truth or his pardon if they misse it and then this supposed necessity of an infallible Guide with this supposed damnation for want of it fall together to the ground Section 12 If they command us to believe infallibly the contrary to this they are to prove it false by some infallible way for the conclusion must be of the same nature and not conclude more then the premisses set downe now such a way Scripture and Reason or infused faith cannot be for they use to object the fallibility of them to those that build their Religion upon them nor the Authority of the Church for that is part of the question and must be it selfe first proved and that by none of the former waies for the former reasons Section 13 The Popes infallibility can be no infallible ground of faith being it selfe no necessary part of the faith we can be no surer of any thing proved then we are of that which proves it and if he be fallible no part is the more infallible for his sideing with them So if the Church be divided I have no way to know which is the true Church but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquity and so judging accordingly But this is not to submit my selfe to her opinions as my guide which they tell us is necessary Which course if they approve not of as a fit one for a Learned man they are in a worse case for the ignorant who can take no course at all nor is the better at all for this Guide the Church whilest two parts dispute which is it and that by arguments he understands not Section 14 If I granted the Pope or a Counsell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their Decrees can be no sufficient ground by their owne axiomes of Divine faith For first say the most No Councell is valid not approved by the Pope for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum a Pope chosen by Symony is ipso facto no Pope I can then have no certainer ground for the infallibility of those Decrees and consequently for my beleife of them then I have that the choice of him was neither directly nor indirectly Symoniacall which to be certain of is absolutely impossible Section 15 Secondly suppose him Pope and to have confirmed the Decrees yet that these are the Decrees of a Councell or that he hath confirmed them I can have but an uncontradicted attestation of many men for if another Councell should declare these to have been the Acts of a former Councell I should need againe some certaine way of knowing how this declaration is a Councells which is no ground say they of faith I am sure not so good and generall a one as that Tradition by which we prove that the Scripture is Scripture which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them Section 16 Thirdly for the sence of their Decrees I can have no better expounder to follow then Reason which if though I mistake I shall not be damned for following why shall I for mistaking the sence of Scripture Or why am I a lesse fit interpreter of one then of the other where both seeme equally cleare And where they seem so I meane equally cleare and yet contradictory shall I not as soon believe Scripture which is without doubt of at least as great authority Section 17 But I doubt whether Councells be fit deciders of Questions for such they cannot be if they beget more and men have cause to be in greater doubts afterwards none of the former being diminished then they were at first Section 18 Now I conceive there arise so many out of this way that the Learned cannot end all nor the Ignorant know all As besides the forenamed considerations Who is to call them the Pope or Kings Who are to have voices in them Bishops only or Priests also Whether the Pope or Councell be Superiour and the last need the approbation of the first debated among themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines to great a part of Christianity and not resolvedly condemned by them for Heretiques were absent at the Councell of Trent make it not generall Whether if it be one not every where received as when the Bishops sent from some places have exceeded their Commission as in the Councell of Florence it be yet of necessity to be subscribed to Whether there were any surreption used or force and Whether those disanull the Acts Whether the most voyces are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all are required as Canus saith All the Councell cannot erre the most may which never yet agreed or Whether two parts will serve as in the Tridentine Synode a considerable doubt because Nicephorus Callistus relateing the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes them give three reasons One That the Bishop of Rome was not present The second That most did not agree to it Thirdly That others thither gathered were displeased at their resolutions which proves that in their opinions if either most not present agree not to it or all present be not pleased with it a Councell hath no power to bind All these doubts I say perswade me that whatsoever brings with it so many new questions can be no fit ender of the old Section 19 In those things in which before a Generall Councell have defined it is lawfull to hold either way and damnable to doe so after I desire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church to define
be so his Lordship was not content to affirme and so is himselfe farre enough from giving you example of begging the question but proves it by this argument because with you nothing is not fallible but the Church This may be dissolved into an hypotheticall syllogisme whereof you must deny one proposition or else the conclusion is forfeited If with you the Church be the only infallible then with you any other reasons by which you prove the infallibility of the Church are not infallible but with you the Church is the only infallible therefore with you any other reasons by which you prove the infallibility of the Church are not infallible Now if you look over your answer againe you shall find that your only exception commeth not home to any part of this syllogisme for you doe not so much as say that any thing is infallible but the Church Or if now you will see your want and make additions to your answer then say distinctly is any other thing beside the Church infallible or no If it be let it be named if it be not the conclusion is granted us And till this addition be thus made i. e. for this present answer of yours 't is I conceive manifest that you have said no syllable to the prime part of his Lordship's first Section Section 6 As for your instances of Phylosophy and Law suites they can prove nothing against his Lordship unlesse you can name some sect of Phylosophy that hath not only truth but infallibility and tell us which it is and prove that by arguments which are confest to be infallible till you have done that your instance is not pertinent and if ever you shall doe it 't will not be concluding against us unlesse you produce the like arguments for the infallibility of your Church against us which must be some other then are yet proposed Section 7 As for Lawsuits that they are determined to one side by the Judge doth not prove that that Judge is infallible which is the only matter of debate and if the contenders are bound to stand to his award it is because the Law and supreme Magistrate have commanded them to doe so and because this is evident and infallible that they have done so by the commission which the Judge hath from them And when the like is produced for your Church I hope all your Subjects will submit to it but then it must be moreover proved that all Christians are such Subjects or else we hope we shall not be involved under that obligation Section 8 As for your long deduction from whence you conclude that either wee are deceived or you and that it is not necessary that both should we grant it and professe our opinions that though both you and we are fallible yet only you are or can be deceived in this particular which we conceive is cleare because only you pretend Infallibility which we not pretending but affirming that we are not so cannot in this be deceived unlesse we be infallible but see not what it concludes against his Lordship whose argument depends not on any such assertion that both parties are deceived but only that your pretended Infallibility is by you proved by no other arguments then those which you confesse are fallible Section 9 What you adde by way of triumph and scoffe I must not answer but by yeilding you free leave thus to please your selfe and if this recreation tend at all to your health to advise you to do so still and whensoever it may be for your divertisement to reckon up the names of London Great Tue and the two Vniversities Section 10 After the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sang you at length bethinke your selfe that his Lordship had affirmed that Scripture Reason and Fathers are by you maintained to be all fallible and to this you answer by a distinction of universally speaking and in some cases onely and acknowledge that you affirme them all to be fallible onely in some cases Now first you ought to have given answer to his Lordship's proofe for what he said which was this that you affirme that onely the Church is infallible from whence it is a conclusion that therefore Reason and Scripture and Fathers are by you affirmed to be fallible whereas you letting the premises alone apply answer to the conclusion which is as much against Logicke as to deny it without denying the premises or shewing the falsenesse of them But then Secondly that which is fallible in some cases onely is by that acknowledged to be fallible and by that is proved unsufficient to prove another thing to be infallible in all things for if it be fallible in any case it may be fallible in this that it pronounces that other to be infallible and till there be some infallible argument produced that it is infallible in that particular pronouncing its Infallibility in other things will availe nothing or if it doe it may availe also for us to prove what we offer to prove from it that your Church hath erred Section 11 There is no possible avoiding of this but by saying and proveing it infallible in inducing your conclusion and false aswell as fallible in inducing ours for if it be true though it be fallible it will serve our turne but it must be both or will not serve yours you being obliged to prove the Infallibility of your Church by something which is it selfe infallible because it must be matter of faith with you which nothing is but what is infallibly induced but it is sufficient for us to beleive you and your Church fallible though we should make it no matter of faith that you are so which because you endeavour not to doe in this place it will be impertinent to examine the truth of what else you adde concerning the cases wherein you affirme Reason and Scripture and Fathers to be infallible any farther then thus that by your owne explication of the distinction and enumeration of cases I shall conclude that Reason doth not prove infallibly that your Church is infallible because the Infallibility of your Church is not an evident verity Scripture doth not prove it so because it is not certainly expounded to that probation Fathers doe not prove it so because it was not a doctrine held in their time and affirmed by them to be so Each of which negations of mine though they were as sufficient proofe as what you have offered to the contrary yet I shall undertake to make good against you if you shall thinke fit to call me to it by setting downe your reasons to the contrary Section 12 And so if on your supposition his Lordship 's three maine props were fallen to the ground which is another boast that had no more relation to the present matter then ground in truth and therefore I beseech you leave out such excesses hereafter yet your supposition being not so much as endeavoured to be proved the props stand as firmly as is desired To the
second §. Chap. 3. The Enquirer is here much mistaken for we are not at all offended with Protestants for their alleadging Scriptures but for their doing of it after a way which is fallible and uncertaine in which case we say Scripture can be no foundation of faith Wherefore though they alleadge Scripture and we also yet doth it not follow thence that the Protestants disprove the infallibility by the selfe same media or meanes by which we endeavour to prove the same It is true they attempt to doe so but that they doe it is denied The Scripture when surely sensed or expounded is a different medium from the same Scripture sensed unsurely or expounded falsely Now he that takes an unsure way which no reason or discretion commends unto him and leaves the sure which Reason does perswade him to be such if that man chance to erre it is easie to understand why God should be more offended with him then with others that doe not so but hold a prudent and contrary course The summe is that holy Scripture after such time as it comes to be knowne certainly for Canonicall and shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church foundeth an argument strong and invincible but when otherwise one that is probable onely or ad hominem and this latter we say is your case and out of this give a reason why your resolves are temerarious and presumptuous and in fine such wherewith God may be displeased justly forasmuch as no man ought to goe about this worke unadvisedly or expose his salvation without all need to chance and uncertainty as if he meant to build upon the sand C. 3. Ans To the third Chap. Section 1 I answer that through this whole Chapter the same fallacy returnes againe of satisfying his Lordship's argument by a bare affirming but not proving a thing which is as much denied by his Lordship viz. that your alleadging of Scripture for the infallibility of your Church is by an infallible and certaine way but our alleadging of it for every part of our religion is by a fallible and uncertaine For though you in tearmes affirme onely the latter of these that which is against us yet in charity to you I shall suppose you imply the former or if you will say you doe not I shall then answer that the granting of what you say doth not vindicate your Infallibility but onely accuse us not cleare your selves or if that which you adde by way of explication may passe for a proofe of it viz. that Holy Scripture when it shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church foundeth an argument strong and invincible but when otherwise onely probable and ad hominem I answer that this being applyed to the matter in hand to you and us must if it signifie any thing have this importance that the places of Scripture which you bring for the Infallibility of your Church are expounded according to the interpretation of the Church but the places which we bring for the severall parts of our religion are not so expounded And then I answer that by the Church you may and I conceive ought to meane the Vniversall Church truly so called without your ordinary clogge or restriction and then all that we require of you is to make your affirmation good and produce the places of Scripture which that Vniversall Church hath so expounded to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church which till you doe produce 't is petitio principii againe and then we shall shew our selves ingenuous and though we might reply something which ad homines might be answer yet shall we part with all other advantages of defending our selves and in plaine ground yeild you the cause and contend no longer with you Section 2 But if you meane by the interpretation of the Church the interpretation of the Church in the notion wherein we enquire whether it be infallible viz. that society of Christians which have been govern'd by the Pope Though then we might deny that you have any such interpretation of Scripture for your infallibility and justifie the deniall for if you please we will undertake to shew that some eminent persons in the Church of Rome perhaps Popes themselves never interpreted any Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church and that many other differ among themselves what is that Church which they affirme from Scripture to be infallible and that will amount to the same also yet we shall content our selves with this other answer that the interpretation of that Church unlesse Saint Peter himselfe or some other acknowledg'd to be inspired joyne in it is not Infallible and for you to say it is and not to prove it is a petitio principii againe And for any other notion of the Church which shall be said so to interpret when you shall fasten on it we shall undertake to make good either that it doth not interpret the Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of the Church or else that the Church in that notion is not infallible Section 3 As for the other part of your assertion which you principally insist upon in this Chapter that our case is contrary to yours i. e. that we found not our religion on Scripture expounded according to the interpretation of the Church we utterly disclaime it and for you to affirme it without proofe is petitio principii againe and to put it to a faire issue we make this offer that what ever proposition we affirme without shewing Scripture for it and that expounded according to the interpretation of the ancient Church we will presently forgo on your first instance and if you would pay us the like offer and your party make it good I doubt not but as turbulent a Sea as the state of Christendome is at this time the whole Church might quickly be at peace or at least the dissentient party not be considerable I remember a passage in Saint Hilary depredicating the Bishops of France as very happy men quòd aliam non cognovissent confessionem◠c. that they knew no other confession then that ancient and most simple which through all Churches from the Apostles age had been received And I am a little confident that that which first made and hath ever since fomented the breaches of that pretious body is the multiplying and imposing of new confessions and articles of beleife from the suggestion of private or lesse publique spirits and that hath made the body like Aristotle's insectills which for want of bloud runne out into a multitude of legs every such new article so multiplyed above the number of those which Scripture in the truly Catholique interpretation of it will authorize not onely as true but necessary to be so acknowledged being an effect of some want of bloud I meane charity in the Authors for though to teach any man any certaine truth be an act of charity yet to make an article i. e. to require every man to
hath influence on mens opinions but then still what ever their case be for believing the verity of your Church they can no way from thence be obliged to believe your infallibility Section 8 You confesse there may farther reply be made to you that these principles of yours are also question'd but take no notice upon what grounds of reason or Scripture they are question'd and so thinke you can deale with so unarm'd an adversary as you please by telling him they may be certaine and evident though they be question'd and perhaps I shall confesse to you that if they were onely question'd and no reason that were not by you easily answered brought to justifie such questioning it were sufficient which you say that questioning doth not disprove certainty and yet if every man's conscience be the Judge as you acknowledge then unlesse you can make it evident that that man's questioning is against conscience you will have no way to keepe it from being certaine and evident to him but when there be arguments produc'd to backe that questioning which you have no way to answer but by saying they may be certaine and evident for all that he that disputes with you will be excus'd to thinke he hath more reason to say and that you say must be judge that it may be otherwise To the 6. 7. Sections Chap. 7. No doubt there can be but God will reveale his truth to all such as seeke it with sincerity of heart and though both sides as the Enquirer objecteth may make use of this for an exterior allegation yet not as of interior helpe and preparation and therefore this sincerity is not a disposition unprofitable though it be a proofe inefficacious and thus much we grant willingly neither doe we challenge it as an argument of truth We grant him also that before such time as we can believe the Church we are to acquire sufficient principles for informing us which is she and also before we can believe upon her determinations we must have principles of knowing she is infallible and all this we make profession we doe de facto know Neither doe we take this Church to be a Proteus that is to say sometimes of one shape sometimes of another but a conspicuous body constantly adorned with the robes of truth and annexed to a Succession of Pastours legitimate from one age to another C. 7. Ans to Chap. 7. Section 1 Your answer to the sixth Section is by giving a distinction to tell us now both sides make use of the pretence of seeking truth sincerely and concludes that sincerity is not a disposition unprofitable though it be a proofe inefficacious which because you are willing to grant I will containe my selfe from springing any game or recreation for the Reader at this time of which he that were playsomely disposed would finde aboundant matter in the review of your distinction here applied and give you present payment for your favour by acknowledging that that which you grant is all that is begg'd from you viz. that God's promise of revealing of truth to those who seeke it sincerely is not at all an argument that they that pretend to the benefit of that promise must have reall title to it or consequently that they that have no other arguments to prove their Churches Infallibility but that they seeke truth sincerely and yet after that sincere search are of that opinion are to be heeded in their pretensions This justifies his Lordships sixth paragraph as fully as if you had subscribed it without your distinction Section 2 His Lordships seventh Paragraph consists of two things First a resuming of a part of his former argument which had beene onely mentioned but not inforc'd before that supposing the Church were proved to be infallible yet were not that sufficient to give any man certaine knowledge which were it Secondly a solid proofe of this affirmation by plaine reason because the granting the Infallibility of the Church did onely conclude that God would alwaies have a Church that should not erre but not that this was appropriated to any particular Church to such a Succession to the Bishop and Clergy of such a place c. Thirdly by a lively instance of the Greeke Church which though it were now in the right might hereafter erre and so the Greeke Church be now fallible and yet at the time that that erred another Church might arise the Champion of truth and so still the Church be infallible Section 3 To these two parts of the Paragraph your dispatch is short and annext to the nothing that was replied to the former Section to the first a liberall Grant of that which no man thankes you for that it is as necessary to know which that infallible Church is as that the Church is so but then saying and professing that you doe de facto know which is the Church and that she is infallible which beside that it is your old beloved petitio principii to say you know it offer no proof for it but your profession and a Latine word when the very thing that his Lordship was just a proving was that you neither did nor could know it comes not at all home to his Lordship's matter of shewing that the acknowledgement of the Infallibility of the Church doth not evict which is she For if 't were acknowledged that you did know it yet might it be by some other meanes and not by proving or confessing the Church to be infallible Section 4 As for his Lordship's proofe and instance added to his proposition 't was so despicable a thing that 't was not worth taking notice of but instead of any such thing you give us a declaration of your owne opinion that the Infallible Church was not a Proteus but a conspicuous body constantly adorned with truth c. which is againe the meanest begging of that which was just then denied and disprov'd and must so stand till you can annex reasons to your opinion and answers to his Lordships reasons To the 8. Section Chap. 8. We never goe about to prove our Church to be the true therefore because it holdeth with the truth or teacheth true doctrine as this Enquirer seemeth to suppose we doe but rather contrariwise because it is the true Church of Christ therefore we inferre it teacheth true doctrine but that it is the true Church we prove first of all and originally by reall revelations called in the Scripture Verba Signorum that is by signes ostensions or motives of credibility which motives for a great and sufficient part of them are the same by which we prove to Infidels the truth of Christianity it selfe For these same motives though when they are considered but in generall and as it were afarre off doe perswade Christianity but in generall without designing out in particular this or that Individuall Christianity yet neverthelesse the selfe-same being understood distinctly doe designe out a distinct and individuall Christianity and are applicable
lesse prove that he had so is there not added by you any other or indeed any tittle of answer to what is brought by his Lordship out of Irenaeus Section 15 His Lordship saith also in this Paragraph that they that were after against the Millenaries never quoted any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived 250 yeares after Christ this indeed sounds somewhat toward concluding that that was the doctrine of the first age not opposed by any prime Doctor and might be worth your pains in answering too but you endeavour not that neither but would make it improbable that if it were so generall a doctrine Dionysius should dare to oppose it This is very ill arguing against a matter of fact to aske how could or durst he there is nothing done so many yeares since but some probability may by a witty man be brought against it I confesse I acknowledge my opinion that there were in that age men otherwise minded as out of Justin it appeared and his Lordship saith nothing to the contrary out of any other evidences no more then we made it cleare he did out of Justin all that he saith is that Papias had gotten the Prime Doctours into the beleife of it and that no one of those two first ages opposed it that is wrote or interposed in any considerable manner against it Section 16 And if I were apt to change my opinion in this matter on easy tearmes I should goe neare to doe it upon the view of your proofe of the contrary so exceeding feeble and weake is it For supposing all the eminent men for those ages had beene for it upon the strength of some places of Scripture and Papias his report from Saint John it would not yet be very difficult for a learned man Dionysius Alexandrinus when no act of Councell had interposed or bound up that doctrine in the degree that he thought that those places of Scripture were misunderstood and that Papias had abused them in the same degree I say to declare his opinion and the grounds of it and never force or straine his owne conscience or incurre the blame of heresy by so doing Section 17 For what thinke you of another opinion that Irenaeus tooke up just upon the same tearmes of Christs being betwixt 40 and 50 yeares old for which he vouched Scripture as he did for tother and the authority of omnes seniores larger then Presbytery in tother testantur qui in Asia apud Johannem discipulum Domini convenerunt id ipsum tradidisse eis Johannem c. All the Elders witnesse it that were in Asia with John that he delivered it to them qui alios Apostolos viderunt haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt testantur de ejusmodi relatione they that saw the other Apostles heard the same of them and beare witnesse of such a relation This is as high an expression of Apostolicall Tradition if we will beleive Irenaeus as universally testified to be so as any could be thought to be And yet sure you would not thinke it a sinne against Conscience or obnoxious to the censure of Heresy for any man of meaner parts and authority then Dionysius Alexandrinus to have opposed this phansy and profest his opinion to the contrary you must know that there was not that perfect yoke of tyranny gone out upon all mens necks as now your infallible Church doth glory of that no man must oppose any the meanest assertion or opinion of the Doctours of the Church though not at all defied but presently he must be an Hereticke at least divinity was not turn'd into such an art that it must receive no grouth or sensible change but all goe on in the same tracke beleive nor understand no more in Scripture then the present Church understands and so in effect have all their skill in tongues and fathers and even their judicative faculty as so many unprofitable burthens upon them that must not be made use of to the discovery of an errour to the helping of the world to more light reforming any thing that is amisse in it Section 18 This which is one of the greatest moderne crimes in Christianity was not so ancient as those purer daies wherein life was as censurable as now false opinions I meane such as though supposed false are yet perfectly extrinsecall to the anology of faith wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impiety and piety divided the Church into erroneous and true members and teaching of opinions not before embraced so it were not with pride or judging of others could be well enough endured And so according to the old rule of distingue tempora doe but consider how distant those times are from these amongst you on one side and your opposite extreame that runne from you so farre till they meet you againe at the Antipodes on the other and you will give Dionysius Alexandrinus leave to dare oppose that doctrine of the Chiliasts though it had more generally then it did prevailed amongst them Section 19 Another argument you have against the generall reception of that doctrine that 't is probable Saint Dionysius the Areopagite opposed it I wonder one that asserts an infallible Church should deale so mightily in probabilities just as if a profound Geometer should use but Topicall arguments Now to see how you prove this probability 'T is proved by the workes now extant bearing his name What workes those are and how improbable to be his I could give you a large account by some hints which I remember Photius in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 helpt me to but I shall satisfie my selfe onely with answering your argument out of Philoponus briefely thus That in the places by you cited he mentions onely an Epistle of Dionysius to Polycarpus in which you know or may know there is no word of the Chiliasts and then that will be a very aliene testimony and very unable to countenance the bulke of those bookes under Dionysius his name which may all be spurious and in them the testimonies against the Chiliasts though that letter should be canonicall and now see I pray what your probability is come to Section 20 For your discourse about the Quartodecimani I will not divine how it came in here but am sure it hath no right to be taken notice of by me his Lordship having not said one word of them nor of any friend of theirs whose interests lye common with them and therefore shall I returne no word to that part of your discourse till you shew how I am obliged to it Section 21 What his Lordship saith out of Salvian you confesse to be true but see not what it makes against Tradition If you be not modest in concealing your knowlekge in this matter but really ignorant I shall then tell you His Lordship proves by this that the Church that suffers Salvian to be a member of it while he refuses to passe sentence of condemnation upon
beleive whatever we conceive to be truth is a great uncharitablenesse and a cause or occasion of more the adding to the necessary truths ordinarily being a forerunner of the abatement of the inventory of the necessary performances I meane of those which are indispensably required of us under Christ These last few lines I confesse to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I hoped might not be unwelcome to you If they be I am sorry you were troubled with it the seeing that there was nothing more in your Chapter which wanted answer gave me temptation and liberty for it To the third Section Chap. 4. The third Section is all true but concerns us nothing because amongst ours there is care enough taken for shewing which Church it is that is the true and infallible and on the other side much negligence and partiality in the enquirers after it in many of them at least though not in every one C. 4. Answ To the fourth Chap. Section 1 In your fourth Chapter though you are just in acknowledging the perfect truth of his Lordships third paragraph yet must you not be beleived on your bare word that you are not concern'd in it For I conceive it cleare that you are because that argument from Reason for such is that which is mentioned there as in the second paragraph the argument from Scripture and in the fourth the argument from Fathers or tradition which you use to prove the Infallibility of your Church viz. that it is therefore so made by God or that it is reasonable to thinke that God therefore so made it that all men may have some certaine Guide can never be able to conclude any thing unlesse it be made knowne by God as certainly or so offered by God to our knowledge that 't is our fault if we know it not both that there is such an infallible Church and which it is Now that God hath so made knowne these two it being impossible for reason to assure us any otherwise then by shewing us some sure word of prophecy I meane some revelation from God with sufficient evidence that it is revelation and this being not by you pretended to be shewed it availes little that you tell us that among yours there is care enough taken to shew which Church it is that is the true and infallible for if by shewing you meane demonstrating any way that it is so this you know we deny and saying it againe without proofe is petitio principii but if by shewing you meane the pointing us out that for the true and infallible of which you are a member we have little obligation or encouragement to beleive you say true being a witnesse in your owne cause I am sure no evidence that if you speake according to your judgement you are Infallible in that shewing or telling For if we had we must be supposed to have that evidence of your infallibility without because before your shewing and so to stand in little need of it To the fourth Section Chap. 5. The answer is that people illiterate may have evidence sufficient whereby to resolve and satisfie themselves without making any search into Histories Fathers or Scripture and therefore this Enquirers supposition is false and indeed it were a hard case if no man might be able to understand what he was to beleive without looking into all these and yet as hard as it is doth this Enquirer impose it upon all if not in expresse tearmes yet by the consequence of his doctrine As for our selves alone what need can we have for seeking out the true sence of Scripture and a conformity of doctrine with the Ancient more then other Christians have Surely according to this method of his all true religion whether in our Church or any other would be impossible to be learned by the illiterate and very hardly by any other men But what evidence can the illiterate have or rather from whence Out of the present face condition and visible practice of religion in the Church out of the antient monuments yet remaining that give in their depositions out of common fame and unsuspected testimonies out of the manifest perfections and excellencies both of the Church and Religion out of all which as from so many cleare signatures and characterismes of truth ariseth an evidence of credibility that this Church and this Religion are the true and whatsoever is once so creditable cannot possibly be false because for the verity of that the veracity of God doth stand engaged as Ric. Victorinus hath long since declared For it is a cleare case that all such things be true which God makes evidently credible and worthy of acceptance by the publique acts of his owne providence for otherwise that providence should publiquely entangle and deceive us by obliging us or at least publiquely and potently inducing and perswading us to believe that which were false and so by following that way which God hath signed out for us we should goe astray which thing can neither be done nor yet permitted to be done without imposture as all the antient Schoolemen doe observe By this meanes then are prudent publique motives able to make a certainty though not by their owne vertue yet at least by the vertue of the Supreame veracity which goes annexed with them Moreover this measure of evidence perceptible by the illiterate and weake though it be not so ample as others have or stand in need to have yet is it sufficient to sway their understanding and to call in the divine assistance for the supplying of whatsoever by reason of ignorance or incapacity is wanting in them Cum simplicibus est sermocinatio mea saith the Wiseman Therefore it is false and injurious to say as this Enquirer seemes to doe namely That such men as these doe assent to truth upon no better grounds then others doe to falshood The Enquirer's inference against the Church is this We thinke she hath erred therefore she may The Inference is good but the Antecedent is infirme and ought not to have beene made because he cannot have so great reason to judge she hath erred as on the contrary that she hath not in regard that it is farre more likely he himselfe erred in making that judgement of the Church then that the Church erred in making that judgement of the truth or that she hath contradicted her selfe it being farre more probable that a private man should be deceived then a whole Church Wherefore it is a great act of presumption and temerity in any single man though never so intelligent to judge the whole Church hath erred rather then himselfe The Enquirer saith that he tries the Church by her conformity with the Antients as she her selfe appoints But what then Doubtlesse she is not that way to be câ—nvinced forasmuch as every intelligent man will suppose that no particular man is able to examine that so well at she her selfe hath done before him and therefore may be pleased
as sinnes and that I hope belongs to all Christians for we are not under the Law but under grace Ib. C. And why so Answ I had before given you the reason viz because your discourse hath tended to inferre the one and not the other C. 14. Answ to C. 14. A. No man can binde another under paine of Anathema to beleive as he defines unlesse his definition be certaine Answ There was here very little occasion for this note For the businesse of Anathema's I had sufficiently restrained First by limiting them onely to excommunications as an act of Ecclesiasticall discipline upon the refractary and therefore Secondly not for matter of simple beleiving or disbeleiving but Thirdly for matter of disobedience to our lawfull Superiours and that disobedience againe not in refusing to submit our understandings but our wils and our consequent actions and Fourthly all this with stubbornenesse and perversenesse after the using of all milder courses And with these and the like limitations there will be no more difficulty to say an Ecclesiasticall Magistrate may excommunicate a disobedient refractary perverse Gain-sayer without undertaking to be infallible then to say a civill Magistrate may punish a Malefactour without being inerrable And therefore when you talke of binding to believe under paine of Anathema there is some mistake in that or if there were not yet Truth if it were on grounds of Scripture believed to be so would be as sufficient a foundation of so doing as the infallibâ—lity of the Judge For not onely every truth is in it selfe as certaine as that which is infallible every matter of fact that is so is as certainly true as any demonstration in Euclide and he that speakes it speakes as certainly true as if he did demonstrate yet is not in other things infallible for all that but he that beleives it with a full assent hath as little doubt of that truth as if it were before his eyes yet doth it not fide cui non potest subesse falsum on any supposition of its infallibility by which meanes though he pretends not to infallibility yet having no degree of doubt he hath that on which he will confidently build any action and even lay downe his life for such truths if they be of weight which if it be not ground enough to proceed on to an Ecclesiasticall censure against the stubborn and perverse you are very mercifully disposed and I will not provoke you out of it but rather give you my suffrage that no man be thus censured for matter of opinion but upon that light which is clearely deducible from the Scripture or universall tradition and then I shall confesse my sense that to anathematize men for any matter of doctrine of any lower alloy is though not formally yet interpretativè a kinde of pretending to infallibility usurping as much as if men were infallible which they that have the spirit but by measure should have so much humility in themselves and charity toward others as not to be guiltie of Ibid B. The sword preserves not inward unity nor satisfies the minde Answ I had no occasion to say it did I was speaking as your answer called me to it of discipline and unity or such unity as discipline produced which is outward unity as opposed to division and Shisme and yet let me tell you it were not unpossible to extend my speech to inward unity and satisfying of the minde For suppose a particular Church to have sufficient meanes to worke in the hearts of her sonnes this inward unity viz. by setting up the authority of Scripture as it is interpreted by the Fathers and receiving with due respect and obedience all Apostolicall Traditions These if duely revered by all Sonnes and Subjects would be able to keepe all of one minde in all matters of Faith and for lower points some kinde of liberty being allowed would preserve Charity as well and then while that Church were in this happie temper you may farther suppose the sword of violence to come in and disturbe all wresting out of her hands the use and exercise of those meanes and beating downe the authoritie and taking away the reputation of them And then in the case thus set you will surely grant that the rightfull sword if it might be so prosperous as to vanquish the disturber and restore what was thus violently taken away may prove no improbable meanes of preserving even inward unity in this sence and if you marke it we spake it not in any other And yet once more if we had we might have beene justified perhaps in our saying For Heresie being a piece of carnality in the Apostles judgement 't is possible that the outward smart that comes from the exercise of the power of the sword i. e. from temporall punishments may cure that disease and perswade them who instead of pleasure from their heresie reap nothing but paine and sorrow to make better provision for their owne flesh and blood and thinke of hearing that reason to which other honest mens eares are open and then that may produce inward unity also and these mens minds may be sufficiently satisfied with that truth coming thus to them tempore congruo at a fit season of working which at another time had beene rejected You see how little reason you had for that annotation C. 15. Answ to C. 15. A. Chillingworth saith it in termes and him also I desired to answer Answ Can you thinke this faire dealing His Lordship I made appeare from his words said it not And you cannot say he did But I hil say you did say it What is that to his Lordship or to me who undertake onely to vindicate his Lordship and had not that rich harvest of leasure to thinke fit to be retained any more in other mens causes on such joylesse termes as these in which rather then I would adventure to be engaged I should be content to be thought to have no degree of kindnesse to him especially hearing that you had three great volumes prepared against Master Chill But then I pray what is the meaning of him also I desired to answer Can you thinke fit to impose a thing on his Lordship which was said onely by Master Chillingworth and when you were disproved thinke you had still confuted Master Chillingworth also when you had only falsified not confuted his Lordship Sure Sir this is not faire Ib. B. I know very well this was objected by both of them and this I desired to answer whether it were in their bookes or no. Answ Here is more of the same streine But I did conceive by your title that you had confuted his Lordships tract that was published not any unwritten discourses which we have no way of knowing whether they past or no I am sure were not undertaken by me to be vindicated I never resolved to justifie all that you could say either of them said and I might be forced to be uncivill with you if I should enter any