acceptance of it which being no other then the church of all ages we have no more reason to beleeve that it hath preserved that free from Corruption then it self in a continuall visibilitie I answer That neither to giving authority to Scriptures nor to the keeping of them is required a continuall visibility of a no-waies erring body of Christians the Writers of them give them their authority among Christians nor can the Church move any other and that they were the Writers we receive from the generall Tradition and Testimony of the first Christians not from any following Church who could know nothing of it but from them for for those parts which were then doubted of by such as were not condemned for it by the rest why may not we remain in the same suspence of them that they did and for their being kept and conveighed this was not done onely by their Church but by others as by the Greeks and their is no reason to say that to the keeping and transmitting of records safely it is required to understand them perfectly since the old Testament was kept and transmitted by the Jewes who yet were so capable of erring that out of it they looked for a Temporall King when it spoke of a Spirituall and me thinks the Testimony is greater of a Church which contradicts the Scripture then of one which doth not since no mans witnessing is so soon to be taken as when against himself and so their Testimonie is more receiveable which is given to the Scriptures by which themselves are condemned Besides the generall reverence which ever hath been given to these Books and the continuall use of them together with severall parties having alwaies their eyes upon each other each desirous to have somewhat to accuse in their adversaries give us a greater certaintie that these are the same writings then we have that any other ancient book is any other ancient Author and we need not to have any erring Company preserved to make us surer of it Yet the Church of Rome as infallible a Depositarie as she is hath suffered some variety to creep into the Coppies in some lesse materiall things nay and some whole Books as they themselves say to be lost and if they say how then can that be rule whereof part is lost I reply That wee are excused if we walk by all the Rule that we have and that this maketh as much against Traditions being the Rule since the Church hath not looked better to Gods unwritten Word then to his written and if she pretend she hath let her tell us the cause why Antichrists comming was deferred which was a Tradition of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and which without impudence she cannot pretend to have lost And if againe they say God hath preserved all necessary Tradition I reply so hath he all necessarie Scripture for by not being preserved it became to us not necessarie since we cannot be bound to beleeve and follow that we cannot find But besides I beleeve that which was ever necessary is contained in what remaines for Pappias saith of Saint Mark that he writ all that Saint Peter preacht as Irenaeus-doth that Luke writ all that Saint Paul preacht nay Vincentius Lirinensis though he would have the Scripture expounded by ancient Tradition yet confesseth that all is there which is necessary and yet then there was no more Scripture then we now have as indeed by such a Tradition as he speakes of no more can be proved then is plainly there and almost all Christians consent in and truely I wonder that they should brag so much of that Author since both in this and other things he makes much against them as especially in not sending men to the present Roman Church for a Guide a much readier way if he had known it then such a long and doubtfull Rule as he prescribes which indeed it is impossible that almost any Question should be ended by Eleventhly He brings Saint Austines authority to prove that the true Church must be alwaies visible but if he understood Church in Mr Mountagues sence I think he was deceived neither is this impudent for me to say since I have cause to think it but his particular opinion by his saying which Cardinall Perron quoted that before the Donatists the Question of the Church had never been exactly disputed of and by this being one of his maine grounds against them and yet claiming no Tradition but onely places of Scripture most of them allegoricall and if it were no more I may better dissent from it then he from all the first Fathers for Dionysius Arcopagita was not then hatcht in the point of-the Chiliasts though some of them Pappias and Irenaeus claimed a direct Tradition and Christs owne words Secondly As useth this kind of libertie so he professeth it in his nineteenth Epistle where he saith that to Canonicall Scriptures he had learnt to give the reverence as not to doubt of what they said because they said it from all others he expected proofe from Scripture or Reason Thirdly The Church of Rome condemnes severall opinions of his and therefore she ought not to find fault with them who imitate her example Twelfthly He addes two reasons more The consent of the Fathers of all ages And the confession of Protestants To the First I answer That I know not of any such and am the more unapt to beleeve it because Mr. Mountague vouchsafes not to insist upon nor to quote any which I guesse he would have done but that he misdoubted their strength Secondly Suppose that all the Fathers which speake of this did say so yet if they say it but as private Doctors and claime no Tradition I know not why they should weigh more then so many of the now learned who having more helpes from Arts and no fewer from Nature are not worse searchers into what is Truth though lesse capable of being Witnesses to what was Tradition Thirdly They themselves often professe they expect not to be read as Judges but as to be judged by their and our Rule the Cononicall Scriptures Fourthly Let him please to read about the Immaculate Conception Rosa Salmeron and Wadding and he will find me as submissive to Antiquity even whilst I reject it as those of their own Party for they to prefer new opinions before old are faine to prefer new Doctors before old and to confesse the latter more perspicatious and to differ from those of former times with as little scruple as he would from Calvin whom Maldonat 6 Cap. St. Johan on purpose to oppose confesseth he chuseth a new Interpretation before that of all the Ancients which no witnesse but my eyes could have made me beleeve nay and produce other points wherein their Church hath decreed against the Fathers to perswade her to do so againe althoug Campian with an eloquent brag would perswade us that they are all as much for him as Gregory the thirteenth who was then Pope
which Saint Hierome gives as Saint Austine to the Pelagians that before Arrius arose the Ecclesiasticall Writers spoke minùs cautè with lesse circumspection though it brings some salve to the present objection yet it is a weapon against Tradition in generall for if through want of care the best and wisest men vs'd to contradict Tradition as you must grant they did then sure much more likely when they taught by word of mouth when lesse care is alwaies us'd then in Bookes and how then can any age be sure that by this reason of minùs cautè loquuti sunt their Ancestors have not mistaken their Fathers and mislead their Posterity Look but into Athanasius and see but what he answers to what is brought against him out of Dionysius Alexandrinus truly in my opinion when he strives to make it Catholique Doctrine he doth it with no lesse pulling and halling then Sancta Clara useth to agree the articles of the English Church with the Tenets of the Roman Consider what eighty Bishops and those Orthodoxe decreed against Paulus Samosatenus and if you make it consent with Athanasius his Creed I shall believe that you have discouer'd a way how to reconcile both Parts of a Contradiction This I say not as intending by it to prove the Arrian opinion to be true but that the contrary Party insisted not upon your grounds but drew their beliefe out of Scripture for if there had been such a common and constant Verball Tradition the chiefe Christians would not through want of Caution have contradicted it neither could Constantine if it had been then as known a Part of the Christian Religion as Christ's Resurrection have ever so slightly esteemed the Question when it first arose neither would Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria have remain'd any while in suspence as Zozomen saith he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this being then a Question newly started and spoken of before but by Accidents and so peradventure minùs cautè for the same Author saies that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were therefore faine to try it by Scripture esteeming Written Tradition as sufficient a Rule as Verball as you may see by Constantine's own words at the Councel of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bookes of the Evangelists and the Apostles and the Oracles of the Ancient Prophets teach us clearly what we are to think of the Divinity Let us therefore cut of these Divinity-inspir'd discourses seek the solutions of our Questions which being the Emperours Proposition and passing uncontradicted which the Bishops would not have suffr'd it to do if they had known yours to be so much the best and most certaine way and this so hazardous as you suppose we have reason to believe that they for want of your direction made the Scripture their Rule and sought out for Truth by the same way that we damnable Hereticks do and by that condemn'd the Arrians as not having such a Tradition as you speak of or if they had which is very unlikely counting it so insufficient as that they were not to conclude by that Neither did onely that ancient and not yours Councell but even your own Modern ones shew that they went upon other grounds since to have had every Bishop askt what he receiv'd from his Teachers as receiv'd from theirs as come downe from the Apostles would sure have been the shortest way to find Truth and if they had thought it the best too it would have sav'd the Friers at Trent many a long dispute out of Scripture Fathers and Reason and the Bishops many a weary session before any thing could be determined or the Parties brought to agree Besides there is another reason if I may be pardon'd a little insisting upon my digression which perswades me that your own Councels define not upon your grounds that is because suppose a thousand Catholique Bishops meet and define any thing yet wee know it is not among you believ'd de Fide without it be confirmed by the Pope which shewes plainly enough that you think not they went by such a Tradition since of that eighty so many persons from so many several Parts are witnesses beyond exception according to your own grounds and that their Infallibility is not thought to depend upon an Impossibility that in the matter of Fact what hath been taught under that Notion they should either deceive or be deceiv'd but upon an infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost which may be wanting to any company whereof the Pope is no part or of whose decrees he is no confirmer Now to return to my proofes that against the Arrians there was no such Tradition as you speak of at least that was the ground upon which they were condemned consider if you please that in that Epistle which Eusebius of Caesarea writ to some Arrians after the Councell of Nice he saith First that they assented to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantiall because also they knew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some eloquent and illustrious Bishops and Writers had us'd the Terme In which I note that neither claim'd he any such Verbal Tradition for this as you speak of and of that sort which he claim'd he names onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some as knowing too many had writ otherwise to give such a Tradition leave to be generall Secondly He saith they consented to Anathematize the Contradictors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hinder men from using unwritten words by which he saith and that truely that all confusion hath come upon the Church And if it be askt why the same reason made them not keep out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer That I believe or else he is not constant to his own reason that he meant onely those words to be unwritten which were in Scripture neither themselves nor equivalently whereas he took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in the Scripture in the latter sence And that by written he meant in the Scripture onely appeares by what followes that no divinely-inspired writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 using the Arrians Phrase it was neither fitting to say nor teach them Neither can you say that Eusebius being himself a secret Arrian prevaricated herein for Theodoret makes this Epistle an Argument against than which he would not have done if either it had seem'd to him to say any thing contrary to the Catholique doctrine or not to have oppos'd the contrary by a Catholique way at least without giving his leader some Caution concerning it All which reasons move me to think that the generality of Christians had not been alwaies taught the contrary to Arrius's doctrine but some one way others the other most neither as having been onely spoken of upon occasions and therefore me thinks you had better either say with the Protestants that the Truth was concluded as Constantine said it should be by Arguments from Scripture or as some of your own say of
Questions which must be ended before we can know at any time when she hath defin'd Now I confesse if you had said Tradition teacheth that the particular Church of Rome is so the Admiral ship that we may know any other if it be of God's Fleet because then it must follow her that is be subject to her decrees theirs which joyn with her this would have bin plainly to let me know your mind and we might quickly have examin'd whether there were any Tradition for the Church in this sence to be alwaies obeyed when she Teaches and without you say this you say nothing and will never be able to give any such Note of the Church as the ignorant may without blushing pretend to know it by Because therefore I guesse that when not I but your Adversaries reasons for I am but one of the worst transcribers of them have driven you from your own Fort you must retire to that of your friends or like them which are drowning you will rather catch at a Twigg then sink I will consider this Assertion which I suppose you must lay hold of so far forth as to shew it to be indeed but an Assertion That there hath no such Verbal Tradition nor indeed any come downe seems to me for these reasons Saint Cyprian by opposing the Church of Rome and that with many Bishops about the Rebaptization shewes sufficiently that he and they knew of no such Tradition and then in what Cave must it have lain hid if the chiefe Doctor of that age was ignorant of it and even his Adversaries claim'd it not And that he knew no such appears not onely by his Actions but also by his words for to them who claim'd Tradition for the particular point propos'd though none for the Authority of the Church proposing he answers if it be contain'd in the Gospels Epistles or Acts let it be observed at one blow cutting off not onely that for sure this authority of the Church of Rome is no way taught in the Scriptures but all other unwritten Traditions which Cardinal Perron thought most skilfull in that kind of Fence was not able to ward but Du Plesis objecting it receiv'd no other answer then that the opinion of Cyprian was condemn'd and that Tradition although unwritten maintain'd Which answer though it be as far from befitting the Cardinall as from answering the objection since it is plaine that this opinion was once held by such as were of chiefe estimation among the Orthodox and consequently the contrary was not then the generall and necessary doctrine of Christians and the prevailing of the one since proves not the other false but rather unfortunate or the spreaders faulty yet I confesse I excuse him for as I have learnt from Aristotle that it is ridiculous to expect a Demonstration where the matter will beare but a probability so would it be in me to expect even a probable solution of an Argument the evidence of which will suffer none at all Neither was he I mean Cyprian the first that without blot of Heresie oppos'd the Tradition of the Church of Rome but that courage which he left to others after him when they saw the Christian World joyne in counting him a Saint and a Martyr whom the Bishop of Rome had stiled a false Christ and a false Apostle the same had he received by seeing that the Asian Bishops had also rejected and oppos'd her Tradition and yet Policrates ever had in great honour and the rest never branded with the crime of Heresie nay even the more neighbouring Bishops and who joyn'd with the Pope in the time of celebrating Easter as Iraeneus yet thought the difference not worth excommunication and for want of skill in the Canon Law transgrest so farre as to reprehend for it whereas if to that Church all else had been to conform themselves then Iraeneus ought therefore to have thought the matter of weight enough because she thought it so who were to small purpose made a Judge if she were not as well enabled to distinguish between slight and materiall as between False and Truth though that it seemes she was not for the Church of Rome never refus'd their Communion before though she knew them to hold the same opinion and so as plainly appeares counted that materiall in one Age which she had not so esteemed in others and therefore in the degree at least of holding what she held contradicted herself and followed Traditions And as Cyprian imitated them so did the Affrican Bishops him for a Question hapning between them and the Bishops of Rome about Appeales though they absolutely oppos'd him and in vaine I confesse desired him that he would not bring into the Church Typhum hujus Saeculi the swelling pride of this World and though he laboured infinitely in the businesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might bring it to passe yet he and two of his successors were either so unready or so unskil'd in the present Roman Doctrine that Feed my sheeep and thou art Peter were either out of their knowledge or out of their memory and they alleadged not any power jure divino but onely pretended to a Cannon of the Councel of Nice which when the Affricans found not in their coppies for they would not believe the Church of Rome so farre as to trust to hers though now you generally think the Scripture it selfe to have its authority quoad nos onely for her definitions they sent to the East to enquire there and finding their coppies agreeing with theirs they then more resolutely withstood the Pretence which brought at that time nothing to the Popes but repulse and shame And indeed not to object that it is not numbered among any of the ancient Herisies that they differ'd from the particular Roman Church nor is this Rule of being sure at all times to joyne with her ever given by those Fathers who set us waies and Antidotes how to secure our selves against Heresie which could not have been left undone if they had known any such Tradition nor to speak of the Cannon of the Councell of Chalcedon which attributes the power of the Popes to the gift of their Fathers and that againe to Romes being the head City setting all this aside I will aske your selfe if it be not plain that those Fathers who upon the impudent pretence of some Hereticks send men to severall places to enquire after Tradition either send them to all the Apostolicall churches or to save their labour to that to which they were nearest as esteeming them all of equall authority though not jurisdiction for I may say of Rome and them as Tacitus doth of Caelius and the other Commanders Mutato nomine the name onely chang'd Pares jure Roma audendo potentior for what by watching all occasions to greaten herself whereof Cardinal D' Ossat is my witnesse Pag. 208. and 687. what by abusing the respect all men had ever given her in respect of the
so it is absurd to expect as high a degree of Assent to the first as to the second of my objections being intended against those who will be infalliblly believed to be infallible upon probable grounds for they themselves give them no higher a Title and indeed that it self in my opinion is more then they deserve Object What shall we expect then in Religion to see a main advantage on the one Party we cast our selves upon Resp Truely such Advantage on your part I cannot see Neither if I did could I in reason joyn with you A maine advantage it is to have more Truth then any other Society of Christians but supposing you had so which is but a supposition for I verily believe if the Queston were but who had most Title to so much yee would appear to a dispassionate man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither third nor fourth according to the answer of the Ancient Oracle yet you withall require not onely that I should believe you erre in nothing but that you never can and then I had rather remaine in their communion I say not who themselves erred not but whose conditions of Communion were lesse rigorous and exacted not of me to professe they could not erre when I believe they do And if you answer that it would necessarily follow that if they had fewest errors they must have none because some society of Christians must be allwaies free from all this I shall absolutely deny and the more earnestly because I know this is a trappe wherein many have been caught who taking this for granted have examined the Doctrines of the most known Churches of Protestants and finding as they thought and peradventure truely some errors in them some Doctrines no way to be proved but upon Popish grounds and by that justifying those and some imputations imposed upon their Adversaries wherein their Tenets or the consequences from them were mistaken they then by the Doggs Logick have run over without smelling to the Church of Rome as knowing no other Society but these and being praepossest that one of necessity must be free from all error Whereas for my part as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who bound not themselves to believe absolutely the whole Doctrines of any Sect but pickt out what they thought accorded with reason out of them all were a wise sort of Philosophers so they seem to me reasonable Divines who speak Gods will as they did Truth for it is not to chuse by reason and Scripture or Tradition received by Reason which makes a Hereticke but to chuse an opinion which will make most either for the chusers Lust or Power and Fame and then seeking waies how to entitle God to it For since it would be a Miracle if the Errors of the Roman Church being long gathering could have been all discovered in a Day or if it had been possible for the first Reformers who having their eyes but newly open it is not strange if like the man in the Gospel they saw at first men walking like Trees and had but an imperfect apprehension of Truth especially being in Tullies state Quem fugio habeo Quem sequar non habeo I see whom to fly but not whom to follow not to have left some opinions untaxt which yet were errors nor to have expurged others which yet were none I cannot see why we may not in some points joyn with the one and with others in other and besides find some Truths which ly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well in the mid-way betweene the Parties 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay in some points differ wholly from both Which Liberty if it were generally allowed and generally practised if particular interests were trod wholly under foot especially by the greatest and if such spirits as those of Cassander and Melancton were more common no considerable things would in a short time be left but all would flow againe in the same Chanell whereas this opinion that allwaies one part erres not is both prejudiciall to Truth and the best Unity which is that of Charity for it perswades them who have fewest errors to believe those to be none and to hate all opposers as Hereticks and of this your Church is most guilty which not onely affirmes that there is such a one but that she is it and prophesies as much of her selfe allwaies for the future as she promiseth for the present and upon this ground like him who having won nineteene games at Tables threw the Dice in the fire for not winning him the twentieth though we should yeeld to her in all points but one and that the least considerable she would yet throw us into the fire as Hereticks for dissenting from her in that Object You are bidden to put what yeare or age such an error entered and it is evidently true that then that yeare or age the Church conspired to tell a lie and deceive their Posterity Resp You would never be loved if you were a Poser and used to aske such hard questions for either you must mean by an opinion entering when first any man pofessed it or when first by all in communion with your Church it was assented unto If you mean the first it is impossiible to be answered for if one should ask who taught first that Christ was not begotten by God before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary through his power and the over-shadowing of the Holy Ghost one who knew little of Antiquity would answer Socinus a more learned Person would say Photinus another Paulus Samosatenus another might find before him Artemon and another yet before him Theodorus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with whom curious Logicians and great Readers of Euclid Aristotle Galen and Theophrastus were joyned and yet that he was the first we have no certainty for if a little of Eusebius had been lost Theodorus and Artemon had not been now heard of which may as well have happened to others before them either by want of being taken notice of by an Historian or by the losse of the History and not onely is this so in this but in all other points If you mean the second for so you must by your Inference though the words of the Question will bear both sences it is as impossible for you to receive an answer For how shall I know when all it is granted For suppose no Author to have been lost and me to have read and remembred them all yet as in England when the Calvinists opinion prevailed most as wise and learned men as those who writ though differing in opinion from the Authors yet opposed them not so publiquely but that many might believe the more generall Tenet to be received by all how should I know that the opinions of the Authors of severall Ages did agree with that of all equally wise and learned in the same times for if there be no greater certaintie of the opinions of all of one Kingdome in our owne Age think what Infallibilitie can
Church will be found to abound in errors and to belie equallie her title being troubled her selfe with what she undertakes to secure others from like the Apothecary in Lucian who undertaking to cure all men of the Cough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could himselfe scarce prescribe his Medicine for coughing the while Besides of what sort soever the error be yet since the Condition of her Communion is to professe a beleife that she hath none such a one as to them who indeed beleeve so would not be dangerous yet to me who cannot professe this but against my Conscience how slight a one soever may be an occasion of damnation Againe as to me your answer appeares false so to those of your own side it will appeare hereticall to me it would give no satisfaction though you had proved what you but affirme because I desire to know an eternall not a temporarie Guide whereas if in your Church there should happen any Schisme your answer then would give me no meanes to resolve my selfe which part were the guide that is the true Church without a new and peradventure by the way an endlesse search To them it will give scandall because first you presuppose that we must know the Church by the Doctrine and the Doctrine by the Church and secondlie you imply a possibilitie that the Church of Rome is now but by accident and may come not to be the true Church and so all their confidence built upon her as the Directresse of all Churches and the eternall Admirall of Gods Fleet will appeare to have a very fallible foundation Besides in the cause of your Limitation I find more reason to commend your Discretion then your Ingenuitie for for the first if you had said that the Universall Church of Christ must alwaies be connected to the particular one of Rome which were to allow her Infallibilitie you knew Antiquitie to have said much against you and besides that this being not yet de fide among your selves nor evident in it selfe could not serve for a foundation to the whole bodie of our faith if you had absolutelie denied it you knew that you should incurre the displeasure of the most prevailing part of your own men and that then the maine and to the Ignorant the onely visible signe would bee taken away For the second if you had affirmed that the Church could erre in nothing how slight soever you would both have contradicted many of your own side as Stapleton by name and have asserted more then there were any colour of proofe for and would have wanted this distinction to retire to if you were confuted in any particular if you had restrained her Infallibilitie to things necessarie or weightie or the like then the question would again have risen which are those for many errors which we lay to her charge concerne not things indeed necessarie though she adde to the error that other of thinking that whatsoever she holds becomes necessarie by her holding it and then for all you have said the doctrine of Purgatorie might be false and yet she the Church and that infallible as farre as by your Doctrine her Infallibilitie had need to be extended Resp Neither doe I remit the questioner to Scripture for his satisfaction although I hold Scripture a very sufficient meanes to satisfie the man who goeth to it with that preparation of understanding and will which is meet and required Howsoever this I may answer for them who prove it out of Scripture that because they dispute against them who admit of Scripture and deny the authority of the Church if they can convince it they doe well though they will not themselves admit generally of a proofe out of Scripture as not able to prove every thing in foro contentioso Repl. If you hold Scripture to be so sufficient a mean I wonder Sir why you thinke not fit to remit me to it unlesse you thinke that you have severall sufficient waies to prove so evident a Truth by or thinke me not to come with meet preparation Indeed if that be as among you it is counted to come resolved not to judge of what the Roman Church holds by what the Scriptures say but to beleeve that they say whatsoever she holds then I confesse I come not with the Conditions required but if it be to come desirous to finde the Truth and to follow and professe it when I have found it in spite of all temporall respects which might either fright or allure me from so doing then I suppose that Charitie which hopeth all things will encline you to beleeve that I come as I ought to come untill some evident reason perswade you to the contrarie That the Scripture cannot prove every thing in foro contentioso I beleeve but all necessarie Truths I beleeve it can for onely those which it can are such I denie not but that a contentious person may denie a thing to be proved when his own Conscience contradicts his words but so he may Arguments drawn from any other ground as well as Scripture so that if for that cause you refuse to admit of proofes from thence you might as well for the same refuse to admit of any by any other kinde of Arguments And certainlie if the Scriptures I meane the plaine places of it cannot be a sufficient ground for such and such a point surelie it cannot be a sufficient ground to build a ground upon as the Churches Infallibilitie and therefore though it it seemes you desire so much that this be beleeved that so it be you care not upon what proofe yet a considering Protestant who is not as hot to receive your Religion as you are that he should may presentlie say when he is press'd by you with Scripture to this since this is a way of proofe which your selves admit not of an Argument from hence may bring me from my own Religion but never to yours because it is a beame which that relies much upon that by any other way then the authoritie of the Church no man can be sufficientlie sure of the meaning of Scripture That they say the Church is made infallible that we may have some guide I thinke it very rationall for Nature hath given ever some strong and uncontroulable Principle in all Natures to guide the rest The Common-wealth hath a Governour not questionable our Understanding hath Principles which she cannot judge but by them judgeth of all other verities If there should not be some Principle in the Church it were the onely maimed thing God had created and maimed in its Principall part in the very head And if there be such a Principle the whole Church is Infallible by that as the whole man seeth by his eyes toucheth by his hands Repl. Christ is our unquestionable and infallible Governour and his Will the Principle by which we are guided and the Scripture the place where this Will is contained which if we endeavour to find there we shall be excused though we
and Hearts A great example of which happened not long since Calvin with all his works since the time they were written having scarce made so many Protestants in France as I have credibly heard it reported that the Massacre made in a Night which act though I impute not to all those of your Religion for many of them I know did and do mislike it yet it both had its fountaine from the Popes Legate and consequently in all likelyhood from the Pope who gave God publick thanks for it as one of his successors confess'd to Cardinall D' Ossat Page 432 and it may be justified as well as any judiciall proceeding upon that reason which you give why Heresie may be stopped with the sword least they who are wrought upon by it may work upon others To conclude I should be better contented with this course if the opinions were infallibly errors and infallibly damnable and this were alwaies an effectuall way and no other could be found more mercifull to stop their spreading but since you have no infallible way of knowing the Church to be infallible in her definitions and consequently that the contrary opinions are false since you know not infallibly which is she for you pretend but prudentiall Motives since your knowledge having defined is likewise fallible as depending upon many uncertaine circumstances since not onely the matter of Heresie is thus uncertaine but the form too for you confesse you doubt whether Ignorantia affectata be it or no and since though the form were certaine yet in whom it is by no meanes plaine but rather impossible to be known as who is obstinate and consequently to whom it is damnable since this course often gives growth and strength to that from which it would take even Being and Subsistance I cannot but think you have cause to change your proceedings least not onely you expell not but least you encrease Heresie and againe least you oppose it not but mistake the Truth for it and applaud your self for cutting off a Gangren'd member when you destroy a sound one and instead of ending a Heretick make a Martyr and againe least allowing this to be the Truth yet you put to death innocent persons instead of guilty especially since if the opinions were damnable in whomsoever they were yet some better way might be found as close imprisonment or the like to keep them from harming with them rather then as you do by putting them to death when else they might live to be converted to damne them certainly least they may possibly damne some others Againe for Protestants who joyne with me in beleeving that there is no way to know the true Church but by true Doctrine nor to know that but by the Scripture for Universall Tradition seemes to us to deliver nothing but what is so plainly contained there that it is agreed upon in them I beleeve it must be intollerable Pride and rashnesse and the same in Papists concerning those places out of which they would prove the Churches infallibility To conclude this seemes to me the sence of this place of Scripture therefore this infallibility it is and no man can denie it who either gainsaies not his Conscience or hath it not mislead by some sinfull passion or affection and therefore the deniers must be damned and therefore least they damne others we will send them through one fire to another And this though it be an equall fault in both Protestants and Papists to say and do yet it is more Illogicall in the former as contradicting at first sight all their Principles and destroying the whole Platforme upon which the Reformation was built Resp He urgeth afterwards against the Unity of the Church that it is none such as we brag of And I confesse we brag of it and think we have Reason And if it please him to look into the difference of our Country of England and some land of Barbarians as Brasile or such other where they live without Law or Government I think he will find our bragging is not without ground For wherein is the difference betwixt a Civill Government and a Barbarous Anarchie Is it either that in a Civill Estate there be no Quarrells or amongst Barbarians there is no Quiet The former would prejudice our Courts and Justice the latter is impossible even in Nature What is then the goodnesse of a government but in a well Governed Country there is a means to end Quarels and in Anarchie there can be no assured peace This therefore is it we brag of that amongst us if any controversie arise there is a way to end it which is not among them who parted from us And Secondly That there is no assured agreement amongst those who parted from us for although to day they agree there is no bond or tie why to morrow they may not disagree These two things we brag of and I think the Author will not denie it For he confesseth that we all agree in that the Church is an infallible Mistresse Then it is evident that if in any controversie she interposeth her judegment the controversie is ended He likewise confesseth that who part from us have no such definitive authority amongst them and that Scripture whereon they rely hath no such vertue to take up Controversies clearely Supposing that we agreed much lesse then you yet a little all in earnest that is enforced is more considerable then much constrained and so peradventure much of that much but in appearance Besides that you all agree in those points wherein if any disagree he becomes none of you is no more then is so common to all Religions that even the very Anabaptists may say as much for themselves For either all the Parts of them remaine of assent insomuch that they are all still of the same Religion and so agree as well as your Dominicans and Jesuites or else their differences are such as to make them of severall Religions and then why is want of Unity objected to them any more then it is to Christians in generall among whom are so many divisions and yet not the whole but the faulty party taxed And truely in my opinion some Questions among your selves are as great not onely as any among your adversaries but as any between you and them I but you answer we have a way of being agreed we reply is it a way sure to lead to Truth as well as to Unity or else so might we have by going to most at three throwes and resolving to stand to that Besides if you have and make no more use of it it seemes there is no such need that Questions be ended as for that purpose to introduce a necessitie of an Ender But say you neither are all suits in the Common-wealth ended We reply that yet truely those Judges who should make no more hast end them then your Judge doth these would deserve to loose his place but this they do as fast as the nature of the thing will
have entred or easilie might doe so this shewing how they may steale in teacheth how to keep them out as it is an aide to the saving of a Town to discover the breaches which cannot be guarded without they be first known Resp For the Fluxibility of humane Nature is so great that it is no wonder if errors should have crept in the wayes being so many but it is a great wonder of God that none should have crept in This neverthelesse I may say if the Author will confesse as I thinke he will not deny but that it is disputable whether any error in sixteen Ages hath crept in this very thing is above Nature For if there were not an excellency beyond the nature of corruptible things it would be undeniably evident that not one or two but thousands of errors had quite changed the shape of the Church in so many yeares tempests dis-unions want of Commerce in the body of the Church Repl. The greater wonder it were if your Church had no error the greater it is to me that upon one at most but probable Reason you should require all men to beleeve she hath none Neither doth it appeare to me disputable whether she have or no but evident that she hath not by Demonstrations yet by Probabilities of that multitude and weight upon which you say and say trulie that in all other cases we relie and venture that we most esteem whereas indeed you as you are of the imposing Partie ought to bring at least such proofes that you are fallen into none and as you are of the Infallibilitie-pretending-partie your proofes are likewise to rise from probable to Infallible Neither doe I conceive it to be probablie argued it is disputable whether this bodie of men have ever let in any error therefore it can never let in any since it is at least as disputable whether the Grecians have let in any yet you will not allow that upon this we should adjudge to her Infallibilitie Nay if it were demonstrative that your Church had yet never erred yet it would but unwillinglie follow that she never could since all things necessarie are so plaine without the confession of which you seeme to tax God and it is naturallie so plaine what is plaine that I cannot but thinke it a miracle that some one bodie of Christians among so many should be free from any such dogmaticallie-defended error especiallie if Truth were so indifferentlie sought after as it ought to be and Passion were not often called to counsell and Reason shut out of doores Resp But this one Maxime that she receiveth her Faith by Tradition and not from Doctors hath ever kept her entire And he that will shew the contrary must shew how it should come to passe that those who lived in such an Age would say unto our Children this we received from our fore-fathers as taught them by our fore-fathers to have been received from Christ and his Apostles from hand to hand which if it could not be the question is resolved that no error is in the Church of God which holdeth her faith upon that Tenure Repl. Not to repeat usque ad nauseam what I have heretofore answered as that others differing from you hold upon the same Tenure that your selves have not alwaies held nor hold not upon it c. I will onelie tell you what Cardinall Perron tels me of the Jewes out of Isidore and that is that they seeing in the book of Wisedome so cleare proofes of Christ plotted together to put it out of the Canon which serves not so much his turne if it were so as it makes against yours and shews how that might come to passe which you judge impossible the Posteritie of the Jewes having been deceived by this Complot although pretending at least and for ought appeares beleeving that the Tradition of their Church is still uncorrupted Resp And truely if the Author desires to examine divers Religions let him look their maine ground wherein they relie and see whether that be good or no And I think amongst Christians he shall find but two Tradition and Scripture Repl. First I allow not of your division for not to say now that you relie not onely upon Tradition these Protestants whose part in this I take depend not onelie upon Scripture but upon Universall Tradition too from which they receive that and would more if more seemed as clearly to them so to be delivered Secondly I think it reasonable not onely to examine what their Principles are but whether they do constantly follow them for a man may write awrie that hath a streight Ruler if he observe it not carefully Resp And the Catholiques onely to relie upon Tradition and all the rest upon Scripture and he shall see that relying upon Scripture cannot draw to an Unitie those who relie upon it and more then one cannot relie upon Tradition Repl. If all that relie upon Tradition be Catholicks you must admit the Eastern Churches into your Communion although you now account them both Scismaticks and Hereticks If all Catholicks do relie upon Tradition as their onelie grounds and Tradition be so sure and infallible and unmistakable a deliverer as you would perswade us how come so manie differences between you some ever counting those things matter of Faith which others do not which differences shew if they all relie on these Questions upon the ground you say they do that more then one may relie upon Tradition and neither can Tradition any more then Scripture draw to an Unitie those who relie upon it if either neither part do or either do not then Tradition is not the Common Tenure of Catholicks not onelie in different opinions but even in such as are most de fide and as both parts think nothing but a definition and some scarce that to make the Holders of the contrary to them Hereticks since if it were neither could one part of Catholicks relie upon any other then the Catholick ground neither is it to be doubted but that side which builds their opinion upon an Hereticall foundation against another beleeved upon a Catholick ground would long agone have been among you exploded and the Pope have been not onelie with so much paines perswaded but even of himselfe readie to have past his censure upon them if not for their superstructions yet for their foundation Resp If I will be a Christian I must be of one side Repl. If you mean I must be of one side that is take one of these grounds I answer That I take both one from the other Scripture from Tradition though not from the present Tradition of a Part but from the Universall one of the first Christians opposed by none but by them who were instantlie counted by the generallitie heterodox and as soon opposed as known If you mean that I must be of one side in points I whollie denie any such necessitie Resp By falling on the one side I see my fortune in thousands who
the the form of the Church then the end of the Church an exact conservation making an exact Church and a lesse perfect conserving a lesse perfect Church As for conveighance of Doctrine the whole Church conveighs none whereof many if his be it have had but little conveighed to them Particular Christians especially Pastors teach others which it is every mans duty to do when he meets with them who want instruction which he can give and they are likely to receive yet is not the instruction of others every mans maine end But Mr. Mountague I know perswades him that some body of men are appointed to conveigh this Doctrine which men are to receive onely because they deliver it and this I absolutely deny for we receive no Doctrine from the Church upon the Churches authority because we know her not to be the Church till we have examined her Doctrine and so rather receive her for it then it for her Neither for the conveighance of the Truth is it necessarie that any company of men in all times hold it all because some may conveigh some Truthes and others another out of which by comparing their Doctrine with the Scripture men may draw forth a whole and perfect body of Truth and though they deliver few other Truthes yet in delivering Scripture wherein all necessarie Truth is conteined they deliver all and by that Rule whosoever regulates his life and Doctrine I am confident that though he may mistake Error for Truth in the way he shall nerve mistake Hell for Heaven in the end Seventhly His next reason is their common Achilles the fourth of the Ephesians which he chuseth onely to employ like his Triarios his main Battle leaving his Velites his light-armed Souldiers some places too allegoricall even in his own opinion to stand examination The words are these He hath given some Prophets some Apostles Vers 11.12 13 some Evangelists some Pastors and some Doctors For the instauration of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the Edification of the body of Christ till we all meet in the Unity of Faith and the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man and unto the measure of the Age of the fullnesse of Christ That we may be no more Children tost and carried about with every wind of Doctrine c. Now out of this place I see not how a Succession may be evinced rather I think it may if that Apostle meant none For first He saith not I will give but he hath given and who could suppose that the Apostles could say that Christ had given then the present Pope and the Doctors who now adhere to him Secondly Allow that by what he hath given were meant he hath promised which would be a glosse not much unlike to that which one of the most wittie and most eloquent of our Modern Divines Doctor Donne notes of Statuimus i abrogamus yet since these severall Nounes are governed by the same Verb and no distinction put it would prove as well a necessitie of a continuall Succession of Apostles Prophets and Evangelists as of Pastors and Doctors which is more then either they can shew or pretend they can so that it seemes to me to follow that these were then given to do this till then and not a Succession of them promised till then to do this and so we receiving and retaining the Scriptures wherein what they taught is contained as we would any thing else that had as generall and ancient a Tradition if there were any such need no more for if he say that men are tost for all the Scripture I answer so are they for all their Doctors nay if these keep any from being tost it is the Scripture which does it upon which their authoritie is by them founded upon their own Interpretation and Reason who yet will not give us leave to build any thing upon ours out of plainer places and though they tell us that we cannot know the Scriptures but from the Church they are yet faine as appeares to prove the authoritie of the Church out of Scripture which makes me ask them in the words of their own Campian and with much more cause Nihilne pudet Labyrinthi Eighthly There followes another reason to this sence that reason not being able to shew man a way to eternall happinesse and without such a one man would faile of the end to which he was ordained it must be proposed by an infallible authority in so plaine a manner as even the simple might be capable of it which being performed by our Saviour it must be conveighed to succeeding Ages by those who heard it from him and whensoever this thread failed mankind was left without a Guide to inevitable ruine I answer That though all this granted it proves not against us for we have the Scripture come down to us relating Christs Doctrine and written by those that heard it which the simple are capable of understanding I mean as much as is plaine and more is not necessarie since other Questions may as well be suffered without harme as those between the Jesuites and the Dominicans about Praedetermination and between the Dominicans and allmost all the rest about the Immaculate Conception and those who are not neither are they capable out of Scripture to discerne the true Church much lesse by any of those Notes which require much understanding and learning as Conformity with the Ancients and such like Ninethly The same answer I give to this serves also to the following words of Saint Austine for whereas Mr. Mountague concludeth that he could not meane the Scriptures as a competent Rule to mankind which consisteth most of simple Persons because there hath been continuall alterations about the sence of important places I answer That I may as well conclude by the same Logick that neither is the Church a competent Guide because in all Ages there have also been disputes not onely about her authority but even which was she and to whatsoever reason he imputes this to the same may we the other as to Negligence Pride Praejudication and the like and if he please to search I verily beleeve he will find that the Scriptures are both easier to be known then the Church and that it is as easie to know what these teach as when that hath defined since they hold no decrees of hers binding de Fide without a confirmation of the Popes who cannot never be known infalliblly to be a Pope because a secret Simony makes him none no not to be a Christian because want of due intention in the Baptizer makes him none whereof the latter is alwaies possible and the first in some ages likely and in hard Questions a readinesse to yeeld when they shall be explained me thinks should serve aswell as a readinesse to assent to the decrees of the Church when those shall be pronounced Tenthly He saith that the Scripture must be kept safe in some hands whose authority must beget our
the Church in their positive tearmes Summus Pontifex cum totam Ecclesiam docet in his quae ad Fidem pertinent nullo casu errare potest We conceive he hath suffciently expressed the sence of the word Infallibility so that Infallibilis est nullo casu errare potest are to us the same thing It cannot therefore be the Word alone but the whole importance and sence of that word Infallibility which Mr. Cressy so earnestly desires all his Catholicks ever hereafter to forsake because the former Church did never acknowledge it and the present Church will never be able to maintaine it This is the great successe which the Reason Parts and Learning of the late Defendors of our Church have had in this maine Architectonicall Controversie And yet though the Church never maintained it though the Protestants have had such advantage against it though Mr. Cressy confessing both hath wished all Catholicks to forsake it yet will he not wholly forsake it himself but undertakes most irrationally to answer for it If the Church never asserted it if the Catholicks be not at all concerned in it to what end will Mr. Cressy the great mitigator of the rigor and defendor of the latitude of the Churches Decisions maintaine it If Mr. Chillingworth have had such good successe against it why will his old Friend Mr. Cressy endeavour to answer his arguments especially considering when he hath answered them all he can onely from thence conclude that Mr. Chillingworth was a very had Disputant who could bring no argument able to confute that which in it selfe is not to be maintained So unreasonable it is and inconsistent with his Concessions that he should give an answer at all but the manner of his answer which he gives is farr more irrationall For deserting the Infallibility he answers onely the authority of the Church and so makes this authority answer for that Infallibility from whence these three manifest absurdities must necessarily follow First When he hath answered all M. Chillingworth's arguments in the same manner as he pretends to answer them he must still acknowledge them unanswerable as they were intended by him that made them And no argument need to be thought good for any thing else if he which made it knew what he said as Mr. Chillingworth certainely did Secondly He onely pretends to answer those arguments as against the authority of the Church simply considered without relation to such an Infallibility which were never made against an authority so quallified And therefore whether the argument of his deare friend were to any purpose or no his answer manifestly must be to none Thirdly If hee intend to refute all opposition made to their Infallibility by an assertion of their bare authority then must he assert that authority to be as great and convincing which is fallible as that which is infallible that Guide to be as good which may lead me out of my way as that which cannot That Iudge to be as fit to determine any doubt who is capable of a mistake as he which is not And then I make no question but some of his own Church amongst the rest of their dislikes will put him in mind of that handsome sentence of Cardinall Belarmine Iniquissimum esset cogere Christianos ut non appellent ab eo Judicio quod erroneum esse potuit I once thought to have replied to those answers which he hath given to Mr. Chillingworth's arguments but his antecedent Concession hath made them so inconsiderable to me that upon a second thought I feare I should be as guilty in replying after my Objections as he hath been in answering after his Confessions Wherefore I shall conclude with an asseveration of min own which shall be therefore short because mine That the Reply of this most excellent Person Sola operarum summa praesertim in Graecis incuria excepta is the most accurate Refutation of all which can be said in this Controversie that ever yet appeared and if what hath already been delivered have had such successe upon so eminent an adversary then may we very rationally expect at least the same effect upon all who shall be so happy as to read these Discourses Which is the earnest desire of I. P. OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME A discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND TO him that doubteth whether the Church of Rome hath any errors they answer that she hath none for she never can have any this being so much harder to beleeve then the first had need be proved by some certainer Arguments if they expect that the beleefe of this one should draw on whatsoever they please to propose yet this if offered to be proved by no better wayes then we offer to prove by that she hath erred which are arguments from Scripture and ancient Writers all which they say are fallible for nothing is not so but the Church Which if it be the onely infallible determination and that can never be believed upon its owne authority we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible for these other waies of proofe may deceive both them and us and so neither side is bound to beleeve them If they say that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine Faith why are they offended with the Protestants for beleeving every part of their Religion upon that ground upon which they build all theirs at once And if following the same Rule with equall desire of finding the Truth by it having neither of those qualities which Isid Pelus saith are the cause of all Heresie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pride and Prejudication why should God be more offended with the one then with the other though they chance to erre They say the Church is therefore made infallible by God that all men may have some certain Guide yet though it be infallible unlesse it both plainly appeare to be so for it is not certaine to whom it doth not appeare certaine and unlesse it be manifest which is the Church God hath not attained his end and it were to set a ladder to Heaven and seem to have a great care of my going up whereas unlesse there be care taken that I may know this ladder is here to that purpose it were as good for me it never had been set If they say we may know for that generall Tradition instructs us in it I answer that ignorant people cannot know this and so it can be no Rule for them and if learned people mistake in this there can be no condemnation for them For suppose to know whether the Church of Rome may erre as a way which will conclude against her but not for her I seek whether she have erred and conceiving she hath contradicted her self conclude necessarily she hath erred I suppose it not damnable though false because I try the Church by one of the touch-stones which herself appoints me Conformity with the Ancients For to say I am to beleeve
the present Church that it differs not from the former though it seem to me to do so is to send me to a witnesse and bid me not beleeve it now to say the Church is provided for a guide of Faith but must be known by such markes as the ignorant cannot seek it by and the learned may chance not find it by can no way satisfie me If they say God will reveale the Truth to whomsoever seeks it these waies sincerely this saying both sides will without meanes of being confuted make use of therefore it would be as good that neither did When they have proved the Church to be Infallible yet to my understanding they have proceeded nothing farther unlesse we can be sure which is it For it signifies onely that God will have a Church alwaies which shall not erre but not that such or such a succession shall be in the right so that if they say the Greek Church is not the Church because by its own confession it is not Infallible I answer That it may be now the Church and may hereafter erre and so not be now infallible and yet the Church never erre because before their fall from Truth others may arise to maintaine it who then will be the Church and so the Church may still be infallible though not in respect of any set persons whom we may know at all times for our Guide Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church and not the Greek Church because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquitie they run into a Circle proving their Tenets to be true First because the Church holds them And then theirs to be the Church because the Church holds the Truth Which last though it appears to me the onely way yet it takes away its being a Guide which we may follow without examination without which all they say besides is nothing Nay suppose that they had evinced that some succession were Infallible and so had proved to a learned man that the Roman Chruch must be this because none else pretends to it yet this can be no sufficient ground to the ignorant who cannot have any infallible foundation for their beleefe that the Church of Greece pretends not to the same and even to the Learned it is but an accidentall Argument because if any other Company had likewise claimed to be Infallible it had overthrown all The chiefest reason why they disallow of Scripture for Judge is because when differences arise about the interpretation there is no way to end them And that it will not stand with the goodnesse of God to damne men for not following Ins Will if he had assigncd no infallible way to find it I confesse this to be wonderfull true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let them excuse themselves that think otherwise yet this will be no Argument against him that beleeves that to them who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures God will either give his Grace for assistance to find the Truth or his pardon if they misse it And then this supposed necessitie of an infallible Guide with the supposed damnation for want of it fall together to the ground If they command us to beleeve infallibly the contrary to this they are to prove it false by some infallible way for the conclusion must be of the same nature and not conclude more then the premisses set down Now such a way Scripture and Reason and infused Faith cannot be for they use to object the fallibility of these to those that build their Religion upon them nor the authority of the Church for this is part of the Question and must it self be first proved and that by none of the former waies for the former reasons The Popes Infallibility can be no infallible ground of Faith being it self no necessary part of Faith and we can be no surer of any thing proved then we are of that which proves it and if he be fallible no part is the more infallible for his siding with them So if the Church be divided I have no way to know the true Church but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquitie and so judging accordingly but this is not to submit my self to her opinions as my Guide which they tell us is necessarie which course if they approve not of as fit for a learned man they are in a worse case for the ignorant who can take no course at all nor is he the better at all for his Guide the Church whilft two parts dispute which is it and that by arguments he understands not If I grant the Pope or a Councell by him called to be infallible yet I conceive their decrees can he no sufficient grounds by their own axioms of divine Faith For first of all no Councell is valid not approved by the Pope for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum and a Pope chosen by Simony is ipso facto no Pope I can have then no certainer grounds for the infallibility of those decrees and consequently for my beleefe of them then I have that the choice of him is neither directly nor indirectly Simoniacall Secondly suppose him Pope and to have confirmed their decrees yet that these are the decrees of a Councell or that he hath confirmed them I can have'but an uncontradicted confession of many men for if another Councell should declare these to have been the Acts of another former Councell I should need againe some certain way of knowing how this declaration is a Councell which is no ground say they of Faith I am sure not so good and generall a one as we have that the Scripture is Scripture which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them Thirdly For the sence of their decrees I can have no better expounder then reason which if though I mistake I shall not be damned for following why shall I for mistaking the sence of the Scripture or why am I a lesse fit Interpreter of the one then of the other and when both seeme equally cleare and yet contradictory shall not I assoon beleeve Scripture which is without doubt of as great authority But I doubt whether Councells are fit deciders of Questions for such they cannot be if they beget more and men are in greater doubts afterwards none of the former being diminished then they were at ffrst Now I conceive there arise so many out of this way that the learned cannot end all nor the ignorant know all As besides the fore-named considerations who is to call them the Pope or Kings who are to have voices in them Bishops onely or Priests also whether the Pope or Councell be superiour and the last need the approbation of the first debated amongst themselves Whether any Countries not being called or not being there as the Abissines so great a part of Christianitie and not resolvedly condemned by them for Hereticks were absent at the Councell of Trent make it
not generall Whether if it be one not every where received as when the Bishops sent from some places have exceeded their Commission as in the Councell of Florence it be yet of necessitie to be subscribed unto Whether there were any surreption or force used and whether those disanull the Acts Whether the most voices are to be held the Act of the Councell or those of all required which never yet agreed Or whether two parts will serve as in the Tridentine Synod A considerable doubt because Nicephorus Callistus relalating the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes him give three reasons One That the Pope of Rome was not present The Second That most did not agree to it The third That others thither gathered were displcased at their resolutions Which proves that in their opinions if either most not present agree not to it or all present be not pleased with it a Councell hath no power to bind All these doubts I say perswade me that whatsoever brings with it so many new Questions can be no fit end of the old Then if before a generall Councell have defined a Question it be lawfull to hold either way and damnable to do so after I desire to know why it is so Scripture and Tradition seem to me not to say so but if they did so I suppose you will grant they do this Doctrine That the Soules of the blessed shall see God before the day of Judgement and not be kept in secret Receptacles for without this the Doctrine of Prayers to Saints cannot stand and yet for denying this Bellarmine excuseth Pope John the 22th because the Church he meanes I doubt not a generall Councell had not then condemned it I desire to know why he should not be condemned as well without one as many Hereticks that are held so by their Church yet condemned by none which if he make to be the Rule of Heresie it had been happy to have lived before the Councell of Nice when no opinion had been dam nable but some against the Apostles Councell at Hierusalem because there had yet been no other generall Councell at least why should not I be excused by the same reason though I beleeve not a Councell to be infallible since I never heard that any Councell hath decreed that they are so neither if it hath can we be bound by that decree unlesse first made certaine some other way that it selfe is so If you say we must beleeve it because of Tradition I answer Sometimes you will have the not beleeving any thing not declared by a Councell to have power enough to damne that is when against any of us at other times the Church hath not decreed unlesse a Councell have and their error is pardonable and they good Catholicks Next as I have asked before how shall an ignorant man know it For he in likelihood can speak but with a few from whom he cannot know that all of the Church of Romes part do now and in past ages have beleeved it to be Tradition so certaine as to make it a ground of Faith unlesse he have some revelation that those deceived him not neither indeed can those that should inform him of the opinions of former times be certainely informed themselves For truely if the relation of Pappias could cozen so far all the prime Doctors of the Christian Church into a beleefe of the celebration of a thousand yeeres after the resurredion so as that no one of those two first ages oppose it which appeares plainly enough because those that after rise up against this never quoated any thing for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived at least two hundred and fifty yeares after Christ nay if those first men did not onely beleeve it as probable but Justine Martir saith he holds it and so do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sets it down directly for a Tradition and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this which is plainner then any other Tradition is proved or said to be out of antiquity by them if I say these could be so deceived why might not other of the ancients as well be deceived in other points and then what certaintie shall the learned have when after much labour they think they can make it appeare that the ancients thought any thing Tradition that indeed it was so and that either the folly or the knavery of some Pappias deceived them not I confesse it makes me think of some that Tully speakes of who arcem amittunt dum propugnacula defendunt loose the Fort whilst they defend the out-works For whilst they answer this way the Arguments of Tradition for the opinions of the Chiliasts they make unusefull to themselves the force of Tradition to prove any else by For which cause it was rather wisely then honestly done of them who before Fevardentius set him forth left out that part of Irenaeus which we alleadge though we need it not much for many of the Fathers take notice of this beleef of his yet he justifies himself for doing it by saying that if they leave out all errors in the books they publish that is I suppose all opinions contrary to the Church of Rome bona pars scriptorum Patrum Orthodoxorum evanesceret a great part of the writings of the Orthodox Fathers must vanish away But the Tradition that can be found out of Ancients since their witnessing may deceive us hath much lesse strength when they argue onely thus sure so many would not say this is true if there were no Tradition for them I would have you remember they can deliver their opinions possibly but either before the controversie arise in the Church upon some chance or after If before it is confessed that they writ not often cautiously enough and so they answer all they seem to say for Arrius and Pelagius his Faith before themselves and so consequently their controversie though it may be not their opinion arose If after Then they answer often if any thing be by them at that time spoken against them that the heat of disputation brought it from them and their resolution to oppose hereticks enough I desire it may be lawfull for us to answer so too either one of these former waies or that it was as often they say too some Hyperbole when they presse us with the opinions of Fathers At least I am sure if they may deceive us with saying a thing is Tradition when it is not we may be sooner deceived if we will conclude it for a Tradition when they speak it onely as a Truth and for ought appeares their particular opinion Besides If Salvian comparing the Arrians with evill livers and that after they were condemned by a Councell extenuates by reason of their beleeving themselves in the right with much instance the fault of the Arrians and saith how they shall be punished in the day of Judgement none
her entire And he that will shew the contrary must shew how it could come to passe that those who lived in such an age could say unto their children this we received from our fore-fathers as taught them by their fore-fathers to have been received from Christ and his Apostles from hand to hand which if it could not be the question is resolved that no error is in the Church of God which holdeth her faith upon that tenure And truly if the Author desire to examine many Religions let him look their main ground wherein they relye and see whether that be good or no. And I thinke amongst Christians he shall find but two Tradition and Scripture And the Catholique onely to relye upon Tradition and all the rest upon Scripture And also shall he see that relying upon Scripture cannot draw to an unity those who relye upon it and that more then one cannot relye upon Tradition which when I have considered I have no further to seeke for if I will be a Christian I must belong to one side By falling on the one side I see my fortune in thousands who have gone before me to wit that I shall be to seek all my life time as I see they are and how greatly they magnifie very weak peices On the other side I see every man who followeth it as far as he follow it is at quiet and therefore cannot chuse but think there to be the stone to rest my head upon against which Jacob his Ladder is reared unto Heaven The Author hath through his whole discourse inserted divers things which seem particularly to the justification of himselfe in the way of his search The which as I think on one side I should be too blame to exaimine for who am I to judge the Servant of another man so because I cannot think but that they were inserted for love of truth and to heare what might be said against them craving pardon if on presumption of that it is his will I anyway offend I shall touch the matter wholly abstracting from the personall disposition of any man And to begin a far of it is confessed amongst Catholiques that all sinne must be wilfull and so as far as any mans doubt in Religion is not by will but by force and necessity so far it is not culpable but may be laudable before God and man As was without doubt the anxious search of Saint Augustine for the truth which he relateth in his confessions for who is assured of being out of the truth must have time to seek it and so long this doubt is rationall and laudable That which must justifie this search is in common that which justifieth all actions that a man be sure in the aime he aimeth at and in the meanes he taketh not to be governed by any passion interest or wilfulnesse but that he sincerely aimeth and carefully pursueth in the search of the truth it selfe for the love of it and of those goods which depend of the knowledge of it This is a thing in which a rationall man can have no other judge then himselfe for no man knoweth what is within a man but the Spirit or conscience of man But he himselfe must be a rigorous Judge unto himselfe for it is very hard to know the truth when I say rigorous I mean exact and fearfull mis-deeming As holy Job was who said He was fearfull of all his actions Holy David but amongst all Saint Augustine doth more sweetly complaine of the misery of man not knowing his own dispositions and yet he was then forty yeares of age when passions and heates of youth which make this discussion harder are generally settled Besides this he must have this care that he seek what the nature of the subject can yeeld and not as those Physitians who when they have promised no lesse then immortality can at last onely reach to some conservation of health or youth in some small degree So I could wish the Author to well assure himselfe first that there is possible an Infallibility before he be too earnest to be contented with nothing lesse For what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good would he therefore think fitting to live without any Religion because he could not get such a one as himselfe desired though with more then a mans wish Were it not rationall to see whether amongst Religions some one hath not such notable advantages over the rest as in reason it might seeme humane nature might be contented withall Let him cast his accompts with the dearest things he hath his own or freinds lives his estate his hope of posterity and see upon what termes of advantage he is ready to venture all these and then return to Religion and see whether if he doe not venture his soule upon the like it be truly reason or some other not confessed motive which withdraweth him For my own part as I doubt not of an Infallibity so I doubt not but setting that aside there be those excellencies found on the Catholique party which may force a man to preferre it and venture all he hath upon it before all other Religions and Sects in the world Why then may not one who after long searching findeth no Infallibility rest himselfe on the like supposing mans nature affordeth no better Another thing may make a mans search faulty and is carefully to be looked unto I meane that it is easie for a man to mistake himselfe by too much confidence in himselfe or others He that will make a judgement in an Art he is not Master in if he be deceived is to impute it unto himselfe The Phrase commandeth us to beleeve every man in his Art he who knoweth and understandeth himselfe beleeveth not Therefore when we see Masters in an Art we are not skilled in oppose us we may beleeve we are in the wrong which will bred this resolution in the Author of the discourse that if himselfe be not skilled all those wayes in which he pursueth his search he must find himselfe obliged to seek Masters who be both well skilled and the matter being subject to faction also very honest and upright men or else he doth not quit himselfe before God and man I cannot part without one note more which is that it is not all one to incurre damnation for infidelity and to be in state of Salvation For the man to whom infidelity is not imputed may be in state of damnation for other faults as those were who having known God by his works did not glorifie him as they ought nay they may be damned through want of Faith and yet not be condemned for incredulity As for example sake if when they have sinned they know not what meanes to take to have them forgiven though they be without fault in not beleeving neverthelesse dying without remission of sinne they are not in state to come to life everlasting As the man who should venture into a Wood without a
guide although he did his best to have a guide nothing lesse might fall out of his way as well as he who neglected the taking of one so if God sent his Sonne to shew us the way of Salvation and that be but one as well is he like not to be saved who never heard of such a way as he that heard of it and neglected it for neither of the two goeth that way and who goes not on the way is not like to come to the end I know God is good and mercifull but I know his workes as far as we know are dispensed by the order of second causes and where we see no second causes we cannot presume of the effects God is good and mercifull I know and feedeth the Birds of the aire and much more men yet we see in dearths and hard winters both men and Birds to perish doe they what they could to get victuals And how am I assured he will send Angels to illuminate such men as doe their endeavours that their soules may not perish But far more doe I doubt whether ever man who had not the way of Christ or even of those who walked in it did ever doe his best except some few and very few perhaps not two of Christ his greatest favourites and was not so culpable that his perdition would not have been imputed unto himselfe God of his mercy put us in the score of those of whom he saith He will take pitty upon whom he pleaseth and compassion of them he pleaseth FINIS THE LORD OF FAVLKLANDS REPLY SIR I Receive your intention to instruct me for a great Obligation but I should have esteemed it a greater if you would have pleased to let me know to whom I owe the Favour and should pay my thanks and if you had not translated the command of secresie from proper to metaphoricall Almes I am also to thank you for in this Age we are beholding to them who doe what is fit for not mixing Gall with your Inke since I have ever thought that there should bee as little bitterness in a Treatise of Controversie as in a Love-letter and that the contrary way was both void of Christian charitie and humane wisedome as serving onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fright away the game Synesius and make their Adversarie unwilling to receive Instruction from him from whom they have received Injuries and making themselves unabler to discover Truth which Saint Austine sayes is hard for him to find who is calme but impossible for him that is angry raising besides a great suspition of ignorance in him that useth it since it is a very true Rule which we have received from Hierocles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Confidence of knowledge conduceth much to meeknesse Now in this I intend to take you for my pattern and the same Author for my Counsellour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being able to overthrow what is false for so must I thinke I can and such I must take your reasons to be as long as they perswade me not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resisting Errors without Anger and pursuing Truth with mildnesse Now this I must professe for my selfe that since I considered any thing in Religion and knew that there were severall of them in the world I never avoided to hear at least any man that was willing to perswade me by reason that any of them was the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay rather I have laid wait to meet with such of all sorts as were most likely to say most on their side as S. Chrysostome sayes of Abraham that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lay nets for Guests and though almost all that undertake the search of so important a Truth doe it better provided with sharpness of wit and soliditie of judgement yet I verily beleeve that few doe with that indifference and equalitie Which is fit for a Judge and with which I both began and continue it Yet least there might some un-mark't prejudice lye lurking in me and least I might harbour some secret inclination to those Tenets which I had first been taught I have ever lean'd and set my Byas to the other side and have both more discoursed of matters of Religion with those of the Church of Rome then with their Adversaries and read more of their writings though none either so often or so carefully as this which I am now answering both because it was intended for my Instruction and confutation as also because the beauty of the stile and language in which you have apparrelled your conceptions although Non haec Ovid. Metamorph Auxilio tibi sunt Decor est quaesitus ab istis yet showes the Author a considerable Person and I may say of the splendour and outside of what you have said for my opinion that it wants soliditie and that the Logick of it is inferiour to the Rhetorick is seen by my writing against it what Tacitus sayes of Vitellius his Annie Phalerae torquesque splendebant non Vitellio principe dignus exercitus for as he would have had that glorious Army been imployed in the defence of a better and braver Prince Xenophon Hist 3. so I wish your eloquence had guilded the better cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And having learn't moreover from the Pagan Divinitie of Hierocles which in this is conformable to that of most Christians that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all our search is but the stretching forth of our hands and that our finding proceeds from Gods delivering the Truth unto us and that prayer is the best meanes to joyn the latter to the former I have not only with my utmost endeavours done my part but also besought God with my most earnest fervency to doe his and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyning Prayer to search like form to Matter I doubt not but God who hath given me a will to seek his Will also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Orat. de Laud. Const and if I have not the truth already I shall be taught the truth by him and by you as his Instrument or shall be excused if I find it not assuring you that I was never more ready to part with my clothes when they were torn then with my opinions when they were confuted and appeared to me to be so To begin then with your Treatise you can say nothing for Tradition which I will not willingly allow Scripture it self being a Traditum and by that way comming to our knowledge for I am confident that those who would know it by the Spirit run themselves into the same Circle between Scripture and Spirit out of which some of your side have but unsuccessefully laboured to get out between Scripture and Church but that this way which you propound should be convenient to know what was Tradition at first I can by no means agree Which to consider the better I will comprehend all the strength of what you have said in a
little room and shut up your Oration into the compasse of some 3. Sillogismes thus you argue What company soever of Christians alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers as received from theirs as so come down from the Apostles that company alone must hold the truth But that company of Christians which are in communion with the Church of Rome only pretend this Therefore they alone hold the truth and the Church The Major you prove thus If such a company of Christians could teach falshoods then since it is granted that what was at first delivered was true some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity But neither of these are beleevable Therefore neither is it beleevable that such a company of Christians should teach falshoods The Minor you prove thus I mean that they alone pretend it for that they I mean all they pretend it you take for granted If it be incompatible with the Church of Romes doing it that any else should doe it then she does it alone But it is incompatible which is denied and not yet proved Therefore she doth it alone The severall parts of this Argument I mean first to Answer and secondly Whatsoever lyes scatter'd in your discourse any thing to this purpose or any other unanswer'd in the first part and thirdly I will reply to those Answers which you have been pleased to make to part of that Nothing which I writ wishing that this last work might have bin longer I mean that by answering it all and in order you had given me occasion to have dwelt more upon my Reply Now if I doe not shew that all of the Church of Rome do not nor cannot pretend this that for two to pretend it is not incompatible as having been so heretofore that those who alone pretend this may pretend it falsely that some men and in time all may mistake their Ancestors and have a mind in some cases to deceive their posterity and that it is not necessary for a whole age at once to joyn in doing it though it be done if I say I shew not this then let me not bee beleeved and if you can shew me that I have not shewed it I will promise to beleeve you First That the Church of Rome doth not nor cannot pretend that all their doctrine was received by them from their fathers as come down from the Apostles it appeares because when questions have risen about such things whereof there was before no speech yet if a Councell have determined them they are received with the same assent as if they had come from the Apostles and they professe now the same readinesse to receive alwayes any such definition though about a question now unknown and it is likely they have done what they professe they are ready to doe at least they shew that yours is not the ground upon which they build And I pray aske your selfe whether those that teach the common people who are the greatest part of your Church use to be askt about it by them or use to tell them that this they received from their Fathers as descended from the Apostles by a continuall verball Tradition For suppose they told them that this Tradition tels us yet they are not able to distinguish between such as is but Ecclesiasticall and Apostolicall or whether this be known to them onely by deductions or from ancient bookes and no such uncontinued line of teaching and not rather perswade them in generall to beleeve it what by Arguments drawne from Scripture what from reason what from Fathers Councels or Decretals I am not certaine what is their course but I am sure the most ordinary amongst the Ancients whom they pretend to follow was that when they had told the people that such a proposition was true they added neither is it I that say so but the Apostle the Prophet or the Evangelist and mentioned the place where they thought such a doctrine was included seldome speak of any verball Tradition lesse of such a one upon which you wholly rely except urg'd to it when that was impudently claim'd by some Heretique and when they did as the Asian Bishops about Easter Justin Martir about the age of Christ Saint Austine about communicating Infants Papius and Iraeneus about the doctrine of the Chiliasts then as Lucian tels us that when that Jugler Alexander sent to a City a Verse to be set upon their doores to keepe away the Plague those houses which used the remedy were more visited then those that did not so those doctrines which the Fathers did grace by writing verball Tradition in their foreheads were not lesse perhaps more apt to be after disbeleeved then the other which were not in that kind taught Now if the Ignorant be not expresly instructed that upon this ground they are to think that true which they are bid to beleeve especially where their religion is easily enough received onely for being that of their Country you must allow that the greatest part of your Church cannot nor does not pretend to have received all they beleeve under that Notion and to know they did you must have spoke with them all or have heard them all instructed for what is in some places so taught may be delivered upon other grounds in the very next Parishes From the Ignorant let'us come to the learned and see whether they doe not both beleeve more and require more to be beleeved then hath had any such pedigree as you imagine First then the great eloquent and judicious Cardinall Perron whom I preferre so much before all those of his side that have been Authors that if a Pigmy may be allowed to measure Giants I should think that the vast learning and industry of Bellarmine and Baronius might with most advantage to their party and no disgrace to them have been employ'd in seeking quotations for his large and monstrous understanding to have employ'd them he I say tels us and not from himselfe but from Saint Austine that the Trinity Pennance Free-will and the Church were never exactly disputed of before the Arrians the Novatians the Pelagians and the Donatists Now since without doubt the former ages disputed as well as they could and so could not instruct their Proselites better then they confuted their Adversaries I think it evident that more hath since been concluded then came from Tradition and that the way you speak of appeared not sufficient either to Cardinall Perron or Saint Austin But because Bellarmine being written in a more generall language is more generally though I thinke unjustly esteemed then Perron I will aske you a question of him when he excuseth Pope John the 22th for denying that Saints enjoy the beatificall vision before the day of judgement in which he was lead by a Troop of Fathers because the Church had not then defined the contrary did Bellarmine beleeve that then Christians had received from
their Fathers as from the Apostles a direct contrary Tradition to his doctrine If he did how could he think the Pope either possibly to be ignorant of it or excuseable it he stood against it If not then he thought our Age beholding to our Fathers for finding out some truths which had no such line to come down by nay which the Apostles either taught not or but obscurely and so as needs Arguments to deduce it out of their writings at least not so generally but that a Pope and many more chiefe Doctors of the Church knew not they had done so although you often put us in minde that Tertullian tels us how in that Church which he governed the Apostles poured out all their doctrines with their blood and in his time Fathers taught not their children so And this objection lyes against you as often as any of your side confesse any of the Ancients accompted Orthodox to have delivered any doctrine contrary to that of the now Church of Rome which many of them often confesse and your selfe doe not deny for that they could not have done if an uninterrupted verball Tradition had been then the onely rule of true doctrine and they had known it to be so for then they had a way of information which you must confess easie since they might soon have known whether generally Christians had been taught the contrary under such a Notion and in such a degree as you speak of or the Church of Rome had not since either deviated from the tradition of one part or introduced on the other But because you knew that the claime of Tradition could not serve your Churches turne if any other different from yours made the same you therefore affirme that none doth and prove it because two cannot doe it and in this you must give me leave to say that you imitate the Philosopher who made Arguments against Motion though one walked before him for though we see that the Greek Church does it as much as the Romane though apt to be deceived in the doing it by the same wayes yet you hope to perswade us beyond our eyes by a reason which indeed ends in an assertion for I pray why may not two companies of Christians both pretend to such a Tradition though opposing each other as well as the Asian Churches and the Roman did long together about the celebration of Easter But not onely that it may be so but that it is so you may find by Hieremy Nilus and Barlaam who professe to stand to the Scriptures the ancient Tradition of their Fathers and the seven first generall Councels and they can be disprov'd no way but by the same you may be so too over and above the confessions of your own men But suppose you did pretend and alone pretend to such a Tradition yet you might falsely doe it for I desire you to remember that the Apostles delivered as well Writings as verball Doctrine and whatsoever the first ages thought to be contained there that they might as well deliver to their posterity as taught them by the Apostles as what they received by word of mouth since we use to say I learnt this of such a man when we mean from his book and though you strive to joyne verball Tradition in commission with Scripture yet sure none of you can desire to thrust Scripture out quite from being at least a part of the Rule Now that they might erre in interpreting their writings and an error in the cheifest then might easily cause a generall one since I think you will not deny especially since to say that they left by Tradition every place of Scripture interpreted would be an evidently false assertion for how could the Fathers then have written upon it such differently-expounding Comments Secondly How shall it appeare that there were not once two contrary Traditions claimed by two Parts as the Asian Church and the Roman whereof both it seemes claim'd a direct verball Tradition because one pretended to have received theirs from Saint John and the other from Saint Peter whereof there is no word in their workes and that the erring Part did not prevaile We know out of the fifth of Eusebius History that the fore-runners laid claime to Tradition and nam'd the very Pope that had chang'd the doctrine at Rome which claime how impudently soever yet shewes that men might joyne to deceive their Posterity as pretending to a Tradition when there was no such for if you say those were but few I answer both that you are not certaine of their number and since so many may joyn I pray what number is it cannot Thirdly Since you must and doe confesse that some Doctrines which were not once generally witnessed to have been delivered by the Apostles are now Doctrines of Faith as the Epistle to the Hebrewes was rejected by the Roman Church in Saint Hierom's time though to her yee use to say that Iraeneus would have every Church agree and though Saint Hierom whom you would prove to have thought Damasus infallible when it is known that he thought Libertius a Heretick received it for all that because you say that these doctrines had so much Tradition as was exceptione major beyond exception though the Church of Rome thought not so then doth not this rest upon the Logick of those Ages to conclude what Testimony is so which might easily deceive them especially since you confesse also that particular Traditions may be false as you instance in the Chiliasts and yet the same reason which perswaded some to receive them may perswade more and more in severall times and so no age need to joyne as you suppose and so a false Tradition may grow a generall one as it seemes that of the Chiliasts if it be one did so generall that Justin Martyr sayes in his time all Orthodox Christians held it Besides in those things which were beleeved very convenient and which yet it was fear'd that unlesse men thought them necessary they would be backward to practise in respect of the contrariety of them to their dispositions as confession how easie was it for them to be after taught under paine of more danger then at first they were delivered with as Physitians often tell their Patients unlesse they take such a Potion from which they are very averse they must unavoidably die though the not taking of it even in their own opinions would but make them lesse likely to recover Some of great authority moved by a good meaning might thus deceive others these thus deceived might deceive others till being generally spread other good men being loath to oppose them for the same reason for which others desir'd to spread them as we saw Erasmus who beleeved your confession not to have been instituted by the Apostles yet would not reprehend them that said so thinking it an error that would increase Piety they be at last taken to have been commanded by the Apostles without contradiction Indeed all the waies
chiefe Apostles which founded her of the Empire which was long seated in her and of her ancient Bishops whereof about thirtie together were martyr'd there what by interpreting what was given to her Authority as given to her Power and taking civilities and complements of which no Court is now so full as the ancient Bishops were made to Popes for alleagiance sworn to them what by forging false decretall Epistles which the Tearmed Authors of them would not forgive them for if they knew it if it were onely for the barbarous language what by these and such other waies she is come at length to that passe that what Avitus a Roman Generall said to the Ansibarians who gave him reasons why he ought not in justice to disturbe their possessions Id Diis placitum Tacitus ut Arbitrium penes Romanos maneret quid darent quidve adimerent neque alios Judices quam seipsos paterentur It is the will of Heaven that it be left to the Romans what they will please to give or take away and suffer not any Judges but themselves appeares now not so much a History of the Pride of the Roman Empire as a Prophecy of the generall doctrine or the Roman Church Having ever marked Error and Confidence to keep so much company that I seldome find the first but I mistrust the second makes me loath to affirme any thing over-dogmatically out of these objections or say that they cannot be answered Onely because I must not offend against Truth for feare of offending against Modesty I will take leave to say that if I could have answered them my selfe I would not have put you to the trouble of doing it which you might also have sav'd if by letting me know your name you would have enabled me to have found you out and so in a short discourse have tried whether I could have obtain'd that satisfaction from your words which I must now expect from your Pen. But supposing I had none of these objections yet two things besides would have kept me from assenting to what you say The first is that your men when they aske us how we know Scripture to be Scripture and this to be the sence of it tell us withall that unlesse we know it by some more infallible way then our owne Reason they mean their Church it will not serve for a beliefe of those things which are to be believ'd by a divine Faith Now this Argument of yours upon which you build all allowing that it appear'd good reason yet at most it is but reason and liable to the same exceptions unlesse the same thing be a wall when you leane upon it and a bulrush when we doe The second is that all you say for as yet you speak not of the Authority of the Particular Church of Rome though you must at length come to it though by that too little is to be gotten if it were granted would but prove those who adhere now to the Church of Rome to be now in the right but I asked for a guide which might without new search serve me the next yeer as well as this For for all that you have prov'd she may leave the way you say she now pretends to walk in and attempt to reform too which I wish were as probable as it is possible or there may arise a schisme between two parts of those Churches which now adhere to the Roman and both may claime Tradition for what hath been may be againe and how shall I know then which side to take since both will seem equally good by that Touchstone which you appoint me to try with And if I be then sent to try by Ancient Writers it is certaine that besides the fallibility of that way for the learned this cannot be done at all by the ignorant and it is probable that both Parties will fall into that absurdity into which the Church of Rome daily runs which is that although the evidence which she claimes by cannot well be exactlie read over in thirty yeares time yet she requires us under paine of Damnation to give our Verdicts for her by twenty yeeres old The Second Part. Object THe high and Sage Master of our Faith hath in vaine spent so much sweat and paines if after he passed from hence he hath left no meanes to assure mankind what it was he taught and practised Resp I suppose this speech is directed at me who as you conceive take away all meanes because I have no Judge but I would faine know of you whether Plato and Aristotle have not left us meanes to know what they taught although they have not left us any living infallible Judge to deliver us their doctrine verbally or to expound their works Or if you intended your Accent upon the word Asiure and if you mean by that some infallible knowledge I desire you out of your own words to consider whether humane nature be capable of it For my part supposing as I doe that his Faith is in a sufficient degree which brings forth obedience I require not any motives more assuring except from them who claime that they cannot erre then such as any man unpraepossest with passion or prejudice will beleeve sufficiently to obey and such in my opinion are mine For though I know you count any way without a guide but groping in the dark yet if God had nor given us so much light as we desired we must not therefore set up false lights and because we would be sure to have a guide make one our selves But he seemes to me to have dealt with us in Religon not very un-analogically to what he hath in the world giving us two lights Scripture and Universall Tradition whereof one gives light to the other and both to us Universall Tradition is our Guide to Scripture as whatsoever else that guided us to we would receive if there were any such thing and Scripture is our way to God By Universall Tradition we know much better that these Books were written by Christs Disciples who are sufficient witnesses of what he taught then the Aristotelians know that these were Aristotles works or the Academicks knew Plato's since Christians have both kept them with more care and in the acceptance of them used more caution as thinking them so much more important In the Scripture I conceive that according to that rule which I am sure I have either read in Chrysostome or very often quoted out of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that is necessary is clear or if any man that strives to square both his actions and opinions by that Rule chance to fall into any error for which his understanding is onely in fault and not his will it shall not hinder his rising to heaven Such an infallible way excludes if not all use at least all necessity of an infallible guide and is as good as a Judge to keep Unity in Charitie which is onely needfull though not in opinions and indeed
all the Ancients that I could ever meet with were with the Iesuites with an Vnanimous consent and by them if they must be tried by men as fallible as themselves it would have better agreed with their own Principles to have had both Parts judged After the Pope let us hear Bishop and allmost Cardinall Fisher who being one of your own Authors and Martyrs cannot be thought to praevaricate against that Church for whose defence he imployed not onely his Inke but his Blood His words are these There are many things of which was no enquirie in the Primitive Church which yet upon doubts arising are now become perspicuous by the diligence of after-times And that you may see that he speakes of points of Faith He addes No Orthodox man now doubts Pag. 496. whether there be a Purgatory of which yet among the Ancients there is no mention or exceeding rarely It is not believed by the Greeks to this day Neither did the Latines conceive this Truth at once but by little and little And for an Epiphonema he closeth it thus Considering that Purgatory was a good while unknown after Pag. 497. partly by Revelations partly by Scripture came little by little to be believed by some and so at last the beliefe of it was generally received by the Catholique Churches Who can wonder concerning Indulgences that in the Primitive Church there was no use of them Indulgences therefore began after men had trembled a while at the Torments of Purgatory See I pray how will you two agree You say the Church of Rome receives but what she claimes to be come down to her from the Apostles without interruption He saith some of her Doctrines were long unknown and came in by Revelations and Scripture you say new Doctrines cannot come into a Church that holds this Principle He saith Doctrines have come in by little and little So either she held not allwaies this Principle or for all that they might come in To be short all which he hath said seemes to me as if he had purposely intended to frame a Ram to batter down that fortification which you have built about the Roman Church Now though he be of so great an Authority that he needs no backing yet I will desire you to look into Alphonsus de Castro where he speakes of Indulgences and see if he mend the matter He confesseth that the use of them seemes to be late received into the Church yet would not have them contemned because many things are known to after-commers of which those ancient Writers were wholly ignorant Amongst whom there is rarely mention of Transuibstantiation more rarely of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son of Purgatory almost none For though he speaks after as if he meant onely that the names of these were unmentioned and not the things yet it is plaine that if he brought them into any purpose it was to prove that some Doctrines are after of necessity to be believed which once were not and Doctrines consist in the Things not in the Name I could next tell you of Erasmus his saying Epist Pag. 1164. Res deduct a est ad Sophisticas contentiones Articulorum Miriades proruperunt Religion is come down to Sophistry and a Miriad of Articles are broken out But knowing that his words will not find so much respect because he himself finds lesse favour as those of others more allowed among you let us mark these words of Sancta Clara Pag. 296. 1 Edict The Church when it is saidto define any thing she rests not upon any new Revelations but upon theancient lying hid in writings and words of the Apostles which he sayes not as his private opinion but the constant beliefe of Doctors By which it appeares plainly that there are at least interpretations of what the Apostles taught drawn forth by Reason not received by Tradition which makes now apart of the present Roman Religion a sufficient Gappe for Errors to enter at when either mistakings or ends may become new opinions and stile them but interpretations of the old Salmeron a Voluminous Jesuite one neither by his order nor his inclination an enemy at all to the Roman Church being press'd by the opinions of the Ancients affirmes Doctores quo juniores co perspicaciores esse Tom. 13. Pag. 467. That the more modern Doctors are the more prespicatious that perincrementa Temporum nota facta sunt Divina mysteria quae tamen ante a multos latuerunt In processe of time Divine Mysteries have been made known which before lay hid from many That it is infirm arguing from Authority and answers to the multitude of them who in times past had opposed him with these words of Exodus That the opinion of many is not to be followed leading us out of the way with some other very Anabaptisticall answers and very contrary to your Tenets for sure it were a strange Tradition which had so many Orthodox Opposers and nothing inferiour to that saying of Zuinglius so much exaggerated Quid mihi cum Patribus potius quam cum Matribus The same Author in same place saies that Saint Hierome durst not affirm the Assumption but Saint Austine durst and by that meanes the Church perswaded by his reason believes it Such a notable Tradition have all her opinions for even this affirmation which he confesseth brought in this beliefs is it self not now believed to be Saint Austines for I take it he must mean his tract of the Assumption counted not his by your own Divinity-Criticks the Lovaine Doctors which have set it forth at Cullen And because I am willing to spend no more time in the proofe of so apparent a Truth I will not urge Posa who to perswade the defining of an opinion which hath a great current of the Ancients against it so farr it is from having any Tradition for it reckons many other opinions condemned by your Church In Elucidar Deiparae Pag. 1113. and defended by the Ancients unlelsse you will believe his impudent Assertion that they are all corrupted and will passe to the Conclusion of this which shall have for a Corollary the Confession of a Spanish Arch-Bishop who is to be thought to speak with more authority then his own because being imployed to bring that to passe which was desired by so great a Part of your Church he can scarce be supposed not to have had the advice and consent of many of them in what he sayes He then tells us First Wadd Pag. 125. every Age either brings forth or opens her Truth Things are done in their times and severall Doctrines are unlockt inseverall Ages Secondly Pag. 270. To shew that though his opinion had no such Tradition as you say your Church claimes for all her Doctrines yet it may and ought to be defined he desires to know who ever taught the Assumption of the Virgin before Saint Austines and Hieromes time and by whom was that opinion deduct
from the Aposties Nay he absolutely affirmes that before Nazianzene no man ever taught any thing of her delivery without paine yet many thought the contrary Thirdly and lastly Pag. 202. For your absolute confutation he confesseth that we believe and hold in this Age many things for Mysteries of Faith which in former Ages did waver under small or no Probability and many Things are now defined for Articles of Faith which have endured a hard repulse among the most and the weightiest of the Ancient Doctors and no light contradiction among the Ancient Fathers and having reckoned up five Particulars The Validity of Hereticks Baptisme The Beatificall Vision before the day of Judgment The Spirituallity of Angels The Soules being immediately created and not ex traduce And The Virgines being free from all actuall Sinne He shuts it up thus Pag. 203. Many of these kinds of Opinions there are which sometimes declined to one Part sometimes to the other and contrary Favourers according to severall times untill a diligent and long disquisition being praemitted the Truth was manifested either by Pope or Provinciall or generall Councels nay and saies that the disquisition is made by conferring of Places of Scripture and Reason which is the way which you mislike These things considered Pag. 204. whosoever shall after say that your Church claimes all her Doctrines to have come by a Verball and constant Tradition to her from the Apostles I will not say that he is very impudent but I cannot think that a small matter will put him out of countenance for your part I esteeme you so much that I am confident you have not so little Nose as not to find the contrary nor so little Forehead as not to confesse it having received the Affidavit of such a cloud of Witnesses Object Whosoever pretend Christ his Truth against her saith that true it is she had once had the true way but by length of times she is fallen into grosse Errors which they will reform not by any Truth which they have received from hand to hand from those who by both Parts are acknowledged to have received their lesson from Christ and his Apostles but by Arguments either out of Ancient Writers or the secrets of Reason Resp This is no farther true then as it concernes the Protestants for the Greek Church will not suffer your proportion to be generall but forbid the Banes They pretend not to have made any Reformation but to have kept ever since the Apostles what from them was received Barlaam saier they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keep safe and whole the Tradition of the Catholique Church nay he proves his to be the found Part because by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing was ever more esteemed then her Tradition And he objects it to your Church that she doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disanull the Tradition of the Catholique Church and setting them at naught bring in strange and undenizon'd opinions And that Greeke who is joyned to Nilus and Barlaam in Salmatius his Edition disputing against a Cardinall chargeth you that you do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sow Tares among the Tradition of the Apostles and Fathers if when they make this claime they either say so and think not so or think so and erre then this proves that though the Roman Church did make that claime which you say she doth yet she too might either claime it against her Conscience or against Truth For this claime of the last cannot be denyed but by him who will imitate that Hamshire Clown of whom you give me warning and believe no more then he sees himself especially since your own Authors when they dispute for Traditions prove their authority from this profession of the Greeks but I cannot blame you to forget them if we would suffer you since they cannot be remembred but by your Religions disadvantage For I verily believe that if they had but one Addition which they want I mean Riches not onely most of them who leave the Protestants would sooner go to them then to you unlesse they would take their Religion as we take Boates for being the Next but money among you who though they dislike your pretended Infallibility that the Popes usurpations upon the rights of other Bishops his not ancient claime of power to deliver Soules out of Purgatory c And yet are frighted from joyning with the Protestants by want of Succession Vocation and such like Bull-beggers would goe over to them as I have heard Spalato meant to doe if they were not kept by an unwillingnesse to change the spirituall tyrannie of the Pope for the temporall of the Turke But although there were no such Churches or they made no such claime yet having shew'd out of your own Authors that some opinions have not been constantly delivered by Tradition but have entered into the Church upon the grounds which might at least possiblie deceive them of Scripture Reason and Revelation and others knockt apace to be let in I hope we may be excused for making a reveiw of all and examining what doctrines have been brought in if not by Scripture which we think reasonable at least by comparing what this age teacheth and requires with what the first Ages did to which we are encourag'd by your selves who make agreement with Antiquitie the chief mark of the Church unlesse you meane your selves to be onelie Judges even of those things by which you bid us to judge you For our examinations by reason I cannot tell why you mislike it since those who trust their own reason least trust it yet to chuse for them one whom they may trust against which all Arguments drawn from her fallibilitie without question lie Your Religion is built upon your Church her authoritie upon reasons which we think slight and fallacious and your selves think but prudentiall and probable ought we not then nay must we not examine them by Reason or receive them upon your word And allowing them probable reason yet I have still cause to examine further whether your superstructions be not more unreasonable then your foundations are reasonable for then I cannot receive a more unprobable doctrine then that is probable which it is prov'd by Yet in respect of things appearing divers at divers times I doe not like my own way so well as to esteem it absolutelie infallible but though I keep it because I account it the best yet I will promise to leave it when you can shew me a better which will be hard to doe because you cannot prove it to be better but by reason against which proofe and consequentlie against whatsoever it proves your own Objections remaine For to be perswaded by reason that to such an authoritie I ought to submit it is still to follow reason and not to quit her And by what else is it that you examine what the Apostles taught when you examine that by ancient Tradition and ancient Tradition by a present Testimonie Yet when
I speake thus of finding the Truth by Reason I intend not to exclude the Grace of God which I doubt not for as much as is necessarie to Salvation is readie to concurre to our Instruction as the Sunne is to our sight if we by a wilfull winking chuse not to make not it but our selves guilty of our blindnesse Indeed if we love darknesse better then light and instead of esteeming it shut it out it were but just in God if we so continue long hardened not to suffer it to see after when we would since so obstinatelie we would not when we might like to that which happened to those Englishmen of whom Froissard speakes who having long bound up an eye and made a foolish vow never to see with that till they could see their Mistresses when they returned and unbound them they saw nothing but that they could not see Yet when I speake of Gods grace I mean not that it infuseth a knowledge without reason but workes by it as by its Minister and dispels those Mists of Passions which doe wrap up Truth from our Understandings For if you speake of its instructing any other way though I confesse it is possible as God may give us a sixth sence yet it is not ordinarie and ought not to be brought to dispute because so we leave visible Arguments to flie to invisible and your Adversarie when he hath found your play will be soon at the same locke and I beleeve in this sence infus'd Faith is but the same thing otherwise apparell'd which you have so often laught at in the Puritans under the title of private Spirit Object This being supposed either this Principle hath remain'd unto her ever since her beginning or she took it up in some one Age of the sixteen if she took it up she then thought she had nothing in her but what she had receiv'd a from her fore-fathers and if she thought so she knew it Resp This Principle is not yet taken up by her and suppose it were yet since some other opinions are confess'd to have been receiv'd by her not from a constant Tradition but Scripture and Revelations and not at once but by little and little this very Principle of receiving nothing but from Tradition might it selfe have been receiv'd not from Tradition nor need it have been in any one Age of the sixteen but some might have taught it in one Age more in another and all at last and this so farre from being an impossibilitie that it were no wonder Object Let us adde that the multitude of this Church is so dispersed through so many Countries and Languages that it is impossible they should agree together upon a false Determination to affirme with one consent a Falsity for Truth no Interest being able to be common to them all to produce such an effect Resp Although so many Countries could not so well agree upon it at once yet some might so perswade others that in time and by degrees the disease may be grown epidemicall And trulie considering in everie Countrie how few there are who thinke of Religion at all or of them againe who walke in it by the directions of their owne eyes even of them who take upon them to shew that way to others but for the most part which they did much more in more ignorant times when Scriptura sacra cum vetust is authoribus frigebat are lead by some few whom they reverence for their Piety and learning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose words are accounted lawes Theodoret. and they againe by a Thomas or a Scot or at best by Austine or Hierome and thinke it Tradition enough to have it from them for else why thinke they to beare us downe with the Authoritie of one or two Fathers if they thinke that not ground enough to goe upon themselves it seemes little stranger to me what whole Countries should let in not ancient opinions then that a few should since a few in all places have ever govern'd all the rest of this I will bring two very known examples out of the Ecclesiasticall Historie The first is of Valens the Emperour who being himselfe an Arrian and making peace with a Nation which was not so and supposing that they would never have firme concord with him to whom in Faith he was so opposite was advised to perswade their Bishop to change his beleife for which end having employ'd both words and money and effected it the Bishop Theodoret lib 4. directlie contrarie to Saint Peter being himselfe weakened weakened his brethren who yeelded to communicate with the Arrians which before they abhorr'd from and to esteeme the Father greater then the Sonne The second is of that Macedonian Bishop who being persecuted by the Catholique Bishop of the same place who was then gone to Constantinople to fetch Souldiers by whose assistance he might afflict the Hereticks the more resolved to turne Catholicke and perswaded all his followers to joyne with him in that Act and this in so short a time that when the other returned he found him chosen Bishop unanimouslie by both Parties and himselfe for his crulelty not undeservedlie excluded There is besides another thing which helpes to lett in great errors which is that men naturally neglect small things and small things in time naturally beget great for which cause Aristotle shewing to us severall causes of the Changes of Government one of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adding that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often a great chang comes stealingly in when what is little is not considered Yet besides the generall carelessnesse The Authority of the Teachers the Flexibility of the Taught and the smallnesse of the Things themselves at the beginning even Interest it selfe which consists of two Parts Feares and Hopes is able to produce great effects Of this me thinkes your selves may be witnesses who use to call ours a Parliamentary Religion as thinking that the Will of the Prince and both Houses onely made it to be received Whereas in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths Raigne of many thousand Livings which were in England the Incumbents of not a hundred chose rather to lose their Benefices for your opinions then to keepe them by subscribing to ours all who for the greatest Part of necessity must be supposed for private interest to have dissembled their Religion either then or immediately before Secondly In the Third Booke of Evagrius we find that above five hundred Bishops subscribed against the Councell of Calcedon which we have reason to think most did unwillingly especially if the Infallibility of a generall Councell were so famous a Doctrine for Catholiques as now it is because we know it was upon Basiliscus his commands and that a considerable Part of them the Bishops of Asia profess'd after they were forct to it though before they had been very angry in another Epistle with those who said that they had done by force rather then Free-will And over and above all
adoe accept for unlesse you meane the Church in this sence it concernes not our differences till you can prove that this word makes some such promise For this seemes to me onelie to shew the veracitie of Gods Word without speaking at all of any Churches continuall obedience to it or true interpretation of it or the impossibilitie of her receiving the Traditions of men for the will of God Besides in this Paragraph I observe three things The first That you now draw your Arguments from the stedfast Truth of Holie Writ whereas you neither quote out of it any thing to prove your maine Assertion and in that way which you laid before to finde out Truth by you tooke no notice at all of Scripture but would have all differences decided by onely comparing what men had by verball Tradition like that Dominican of whom Erasmus tels us in his Epistles that when in the Schooles any man refuted his conclusion by shewing it contrarie to the words of Scripture he would crie out Ista est Argumentatio Lutherana protestor me non responsurum This is a Lutheran way of Arguing I protest I will not answer to it Secondlie You now bring the proofe of your certaintie from Gods spirit never failing his Church though you neither define what is there meant by Church nor doe you bring any proofe or ever can that Gods Spirit will stay with any unlesse they please it or that this will not consist with the least error in divine matters whereas before you made it a Physicall or rather superphysicall certaintie that Traditions must be delivered from Age to Age uncorrupted and this not because of any other assistance but ex necessitate Rei Thirdlie You seeme to thinke that aptnesse to startle in the faithfull will serve to secure them from all error whereas I must professe my selfe of opinion that in some times and some cases that may serve to induce it for it being trulie said that there is as much follie beyond wisedome as on this side of it and Nazianzene telling us trulie that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the marke is equallie missed by over shooting as by shooting short I doubt whether over much caution may not have made some doctrines and their Abetters condemned especiallie when they appeared somewhat new some Truths rejcted for feare least they did by consequence contradict some point of Faith when indeed they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist Ethick as Dogs often barke at a friend for an enemie upon the first noise he makes before having considered which he is This made the Ancients so earnest against the now-certaintie of the Antipodes this in after times for the same opinion cost a Bishop his Bishopricke and truth in all probabilitie would have then beene defined a heresie if a generall Councell had been called about it Since then this aptnesse to startle hath inclined Orthodox Christians to condemn not onely those who had affirmed in termes the contrarie to Tradition but even those from whose opinions they thought it would result and consequentlie to exact an Assent not onely to direct Tradition but also to whatsoever else seemed to them reasonable deductions from it This seemes to me a way by which Errors may have entered by shoales the first Ages I mean then Cum Augustinus habebatur inexpugnabilis Dialecticus quòd legisset Categorias Aristotelis not having been so carefull and subtile in their Logick as these more learned times both Arminians and Catvinists Dominicans and Jesuites Papists and Protestants seeming to me to argue much more consequently to their owne Principles more close to their present businesse and every way more rationally then the ancient Doctors used to do I mean those which I have seen And I am confident that if two or three Fathers should rise againe unknown and should return to their old Argument against the Arrians from Cor meum eructavit verbum bonum both Parties would be so farr from receiving them for Judges that neither would accept of them for Advocates nor trust their Cause to their arguing who opposed their common enemy no better Now that this way of making Deductions out of Tradition and those both very hasty and false ones is very ancient appeares even by an example in the end of the Gospell of John for there out of Christs words falsly interpreted a conclusion was drawn and spread among the Bretheren that Saint John should not dye and what they did out of these words of Christ other in other times may have done out of other words of his and their Collection passe for his Doctrine which shewes the great advantage which we have by Gods Word being written since if it had not we could not alwaies have gone to a new examination of the very words which Christ or his Apostles taught and consequently a consequence of them spread in the place of them would have been more incurable then now it is I will also desire you to look in the five hundered eighty fourth Page of the Florentine Councell set out by Binius and there you will find that the Latines confesse that they added the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to the Creed because the contrary opinion seemed to them by consequence contrary to a confessed Tradition of Christs eternall Divinity to which yet it will appear out of what Cardinall Perron hath excellently showne Con. Reg. Iâ—c Pag. 708. though upon another occasion that it doth not contradict but that this consequence was ill drawne which may have been in other points too and have brought in no small multitude of Errors fince neither was their Logick certaine to conclude better nor were they lesse apt to add to their Creeds accordingly at any other times then they were at that Object I doubt not but whosoever shall have received satisfaction in the discourse past will also have received in the point we seek after that is in being assured both that Christ hath left a Directory in the World and where to find him there being no doubt but it is his holy Church upon Earth Nor can there be any doubt which is his Church since there is but one that doth and can lay claime to have received from hand to hand his holy Doctrine Resp That which makes you expect that your Reader should have received satisfaction by what you have said is that since Christ hath a great care of his Elect he must consequently most strongly of any thing have rooted his Church Now I having shewed that by your own confession men may be of his Elect that are out of your Church I seemed to my selfe to have likewise proved that there is no necessity of any Churches being their Director I know you generally think this the more convenient way to have left such a guide that because otherwise Dominus non fuisset Discretus or in Epictius his Phrase Arrian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you conclude that he hath but we though indeed in
Illustrious and some againe taken with a pious and an humble feare chuse rather against their mind to approve what hath come from others then to bring forth any new thing out of their own understanding least they may seem to bring some thing unwonted into the Church This they must needs see may bring an undelivered opinion to be generall and then the generallitie may bring it to be thought to come from Tradition according to Tertullians rule Quod apud multas ecclesias unum invenitur non est erratum sed Traditum and that of Saint Austine that of whatsoever no beginning is known and yet is generall is to be beleeved to have its originall from the Apostles By this way supposing that all your Church did witnesse all their doctrines to have had such a lineall succession which they know to be false they see that opinions falslie and illogicallie deduct from true Traditions may be equallie beleeved to be such themselves Vincentius Lirinensis allowing the following Church to give light to the former which they might mistake in doing at least the certaintie of her Illustrations cannot have their force from Tradition By this way they see that in time such doctrines may come to have such a generall attestation which had their first spring from Scripture mis-interpreted either by publicke mistakes or by Councels mislead either by feare error or partialitie and what proceeded either from consent or definition may seem to have been deduct from Tradition In this they will be confirmed by seeing plainlie that more is now required to be beleeved by the Church of Rome then in all times hath been that now among you contrarie parties urge for or expect a generall Councell to end questions concerning which neither side claimes any continued verball Tradition and that the greatest part are ready to receive such a definition in as high a degree as any Tradition whatsoever They will be also confirmed by your denying Infallibilitie to a Councell how generall soever unapproved by the Pope by seeing that if as you say no man can be ignorant what he was taught when he was a childe as the ground and substance of his hopes for all eternitie and if in this all your Religion were comprised or else to what purpose say you this then no man bred in the Orthodox Church could erre or ever have erred in matter of Faith without knowing that he had departed from the very Basis of Christianitie and for Instructions in these points not onely all Authors as Commenters upon Scripture and the like were wholly uselesse but it were also a vaine thing to goe for instruction even to Christs Vicar and S. Hierome might have resolved his own question about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every whit as well as Damasus or Saint Peter himselfe And for the same reason it were wholly impossible that at the same time the Popes and most notable and most pious and most learned Papists living should have justified and applauded Erasmus for the same workes the one by his printed Diplomas and the rest by their Letters for which at the same instant the greatest part of the Monkes counted and proclaimed him a more pestilent Heretick then Luther if they had all weighed heresie in the same ballance and more impossible if in yours which the learned will yet lesse approve of when they see how soon the worse opinion and lesser authoritie may prevaile as how that of the Monkes hath done against that of the Popes and Bishops and that so much that Erasmus is now generallie disavowed as no Catholicke and given to us whom wee accept as a great present that Bellarmine will allow him to be but halfe a Christian and Cardinall Perron which I am sorry for gives a censure upon him which would better have become the pen of a Latomus a Bedda a Stunica or an Egmundane then of so learned and judicious a Prelate Now for the Ignorant I am sure you will never be able to prove infalliblie to them that your Church hath any prerogatives above others the ordinarie way cannot be taken with them because they not understanding the languages in which the Fathers and Councels are written cannot be press'd by what they cannot construe and your way as little because they are not more though totallie ignorant of the Authors of past Ages then they are of the state opinions and claimes of the present time so that I know not how you can attempt them if they have but a moderate understanding to their no knowledge Object The body of our Position shoots forth the branches of divers Questions or rather the Solutions of them And first how it happened that divers Heretickes pretended to Tradition as the Chiliasts Gnosticks Carpocratians and divers others yet they with their Traditions have been rejected and the Church onely left in claime of Tradition For if we looke into what Catholicke Tradition is and what the Hereticks pretended the question will remaine voided For the Catholicke Church cals Tradition that Doctrine which was publiquely delivered and the Hereticks called Tradition a kinde of secret Doctrine either gathered out of private conversation with the Apostles or rather pretended that the Apostles besides what they publiquely taught the world had another mysticall way proper to Schollers more endeared which came not to publique view whereas the force and energie of a Tradition residing in the multitude of hearers and being planted in the perpetuall life and actions of Christians it must have such a publicity that it cannot be unknown amongst them Resp Of the Carpocratians and Gnosticks I have spoke before but sure for the Chiliasts this is onely said and not proved Howsoever this undeniablie appeares that either Pappias and Irenaeus thought not this Tradition to have come such a way as you speake of or else they thought it no hereticall way but such a one as was at least reasonablie to be assented to and both what was the way by which Traditions ought to come and by which this came they were more likely to know then those of following ages which proves that this Objection as much as concernes them especiallie remaines still so strong that in spire of Fevardentius it will be better to answer it Scalpello quam Calamo with a Pen-knife then with a Pen and no Confuter will serve for it but an Expurgatory Index no non si tuus afforet Hector if Cardinall Perron were alive I must by the way take notice of what yon say here that Tradition must have such a Publicity as cannot be unknown among Christians and desire you to agree this with what you say in the next Paragraph that the Apostles may not have preached in some Countries some Doctrines which we now are bound to receive as Traditions for sure those Doctrines were then unknown among many Christians and if they had been necessâ—ry sure the Apostles would no where have forgot with so good a Prompter as the Holy Ghost to have
since if not a generall one but one which seemed such were required how easie was it for false opinions to get in under that colour testified but by a few reputed honest men and so received by and transmitted from others of great and generall authoritie Secondlie how could you have found a better way to answer your owne Objection against the Chiliasts Tradition for want of being sufficientlie publique since if that had not seemed to them to have had this condition I mean if they had thought they should for this cause have excepted against it it had been impossible these Saints should have received it and concerning the publicitie of it and the number and authoritie of the deliverers they must of necessitie have been the best Judges who then lived and who were the more considerable Doctors of the most considerable Ages so that you must either confesse that a Tradition bindes not unlesse indeed generall or confesse that this doth supposing this not to have been generall which you cannot prove Object A likely example of this may he drawn from the Canonicall Bookes Resp I deny it to be now necessarie to Salvation to admit of any Bookes for Canonicall which it was lawfull for Christians in past ages to doubt of and which had no generall Tradition and againe this answer helpes against your selfe for it is plaine by Saint Hieromes Testimonie that the Roman Church received not the Epistle to the Hebrewes which the Easterne Churches received whose Testimonie according to your grounds she then should have beleeved to be beyond exception and it is plaine by Perrons Testimonie that the Easterne Churches received not the Macchabees when he saies the Church of Rome did Now it is plaine that the Receivers pretended to Tradition because nothing else could make a booke thought Canonicall whereas other opinions might be brought in by a false Interpretation of Scriptures and after being spread might be thought to come from Tradition So that according to your grounds and these testimonies not onely the Westerne Church ought to have beleeved the Easterne about the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Easterne the Westerne about the Macchabees but also they ought to have required this assent from each other which they not doing as they would have done if they had thought their testimonie so valid as you doe it followes that you doe differ from the Churches of the fifth and sixth age about what is exceptione majus you thinking that to be so which they thought not and againe from all the extant Doctors of the two first ages you thinking that not so which they thought was as also those two times agreed about it as little with each other as you with them both Object The third question may be how Christian Religion consisting of so many points is possible to be kept uncorrupted by Tradition which depending upon Memory and our memory being so fraile it seemeth cannot without manifest miracle conserve so great a diversity of points unchanged for so many ages But if we consider that Faith is a Science a thing whose parts are so connexed that if one be false all must needs be false we shall easily see that contrarily the multitude of divers points is a conservation the one to the right the other wherein we doubt Resp As in Judges when a battell was to be fought between the children of Israel and the Midianites the Midianites destroyed each other and left nothing to doe for Israel but onely to pursue them so truly your Objections worke so strongly upon your own Party that I have nothing left me to presse and much to applaud For for this very reason I beleeve that all necessarie points were given in writing and onely the witnessing that these were the Apostles writings was left to Tradition which was both much lesse subject to error as being but one point and that a matter of fact and could no other way be done because no writing could have witnessed for it selfe so sufficientlie that we should have had reason to have belleved it upon no other certificates and to this your answer seemes to me no way satisfactorie since first I deny Faith to be a Science it being nothing but an assent to Gods Revelations neither are those so connexed as you liberallie affirme and sparinglie prove Nay suppose they were yet though errors would be the lesse likely to enter yet when any one by any meanes were got in ' then this connexion would be a ready way to helpe it to let in all its fellowes Besides those opinions which may be superinduct as Traditions which such a connexion could not hinder if they were not contrarie to the true ones and of this sort is chiefly our question That therefore you are no better able to wind your selfe out of this inextricable Labyrinth is no wonder to me and no disgrace to you since a man may as well be good Logician though he cannot solve an unsolvable question as he may be exceedinglie skilled in Physick and yet not able to cure an incurable disease Besides that these Objections arose so at the first sight out of what was to be considered that it was as impossible for to avoid them as to answer them Object Let us consider in constant Nations their language their habits c. how long they continue among them Truly there is no Nation that I know whose language hath not PLACE = marg Resp and doth not daily palpablie suffer change Consider that of these English hourely denizoning words of all kinde of languages these of the Spaniards Italians and French almost made up out of Latine and that of the ancient Greekes unknown to those of this Age unlesse they learn it at Schoole Habits indeed some Nations alter lesse but some daily and none change not sometimes But this is little to the purpose since those Nations which have remained very constant in things which no considerable cause appeared to them why they should alter may yet have received new opinions especially if not contradicting the old taught them by such in whom they wholly relied as most go more hood-winkt in these matters then in those which are indifferent out of a Vitious humility or proved by Arguments which perswaded For when the reasons are probable as they may be for a falshood the Persons pressing them in themselves of authority as they may be and yet erre and the people to whom they are prest full of esteeme of their Teachers then meet the three waies of working perswasion which Aristotle mentions whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Especially when besides all these the rewards of beliefe proposed are more then extraordinary as also the danger of disbeliefe Wherefore I count it by no meanes reasonable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like sheep without more examination to walk in the steps of those who have gone before us Object See that forlorn Nation of the Jews how constantly it maintaineth the Scripture and how obstinately their Errors
chance to misse and therefore want not your guide who either is not or as hard to find as the way and againe when he hath defined the certaine meaning of that definition as hard to find as herself Neither is a company of men thus beleeving maimed in the head though having no other more uncontroulable Principle If your guide were evident of her self as those Principles are by which we judge all things else then your Similitude would hold a little whereas being neither knowable in her self nor proveable by ought else what you have said onely shewes what an ill match is made when Witt is set against Truth Resp It is sufficient for a Child to believe his Parents for a Clown to believe his Preacher about the Churches Infallibility For Faith is given to mankind to be a meanes of believing and living like a Christian and so he hath this second it is not much matter in what tearmes he be with the first Repl. To what you say I answer that I confesse that it is not possible that without particular Revelations or Inspirations the ignorant even of the Orthodox party should receive their Religion upon very strong grounds which makes me wonder that even from them you should exact an assent of a higher nature and a much greater certaintie then can be ministred to them by any arguments which they are capable of yet if they believe what they receive with an intention of obedience to God and supposall that their opinions are his Revelations and use those meanes which they in their Conscience think best to examine whether they be or no though it be when they find themselves unable to search by trusting others whom they count fittest to be trusted I beleeve they are in a very saveable estate though they be farr from having of me truth of their Tenets any Infallible certaintie and the same I think of those which are in error for since you cannot deny but that a Child or a Clown with the same aptnesse to follow Gods will may be taught by his Parents or his Preacher that what God forbids he commands that Christ's Vicar is Antichrist or the Church Babylon and scarce teacheth any truth though it could not teach the least error why should such a one be damned for the misfortune of having had Hereticall Parents or a deceiving Preacher For no more it seemes is required of such then to give his beliefe to those And indeed the same reason extended will excuse him who though learned impartially aimeth at Gods will and misseth it for though you seeme to insinuate by the cause you give of what you say that so men believe and do what they heare God command he careth not upon what grounds yet I who know that God hath no other gaine by our so doings then that in it we sacrifice to him our soules and affections cannot believe but that they shall be accepted who give him that which he most cares for and obey him formally though they disobey him materially God more considering and valuing the Heart then the Head the end then the actions and the fountaine then the streames And truely else he who through stupidity or impotence abstained from any vice or through negligence or prejudice miss'd some error would be as well accepted of by God as he that by a care of his waies and of obedience to him who should rule them did avoide the first and by a studious search the second I cannot part from this Theame without one consideration more and that is that if so Fallible a Director as you speak of may be cause enough of assent to one Truth why may they not be so to another and why shall not the beleefe of our ignorants upon their testimonie that the Scripture is the Word of God be as well founded as that of yours to the Infallibility of the Church upon the same And yet it is daily objected to us that this beleefe of ours is not surely enough founded since not received from their Church although the unlearned among us receive it from their Parents and Preachers and the learned from Tradition as from the first of those your unlearned do and from the second of which your learned pretend they do receive the authority and infallibility of the Church it self Although we be so much more reasonable then you that we require them not to be so sure upon it as they are of what they know by sence but onely to give them so much credit that they may give up their hearts to obedience Resp Neither do I remit him to a generall and constant Tradition as if himself should climbe up every age by learned Writers and find it in every one I take it to be impossible testimonies one may find in many ages but such as will demonstrate and convince a full Tradition I much doubt Neither do I find by experience that who will draw a man by a rope or chaine giveth him the whole rope or chaine into his hands but onely one end of it unto which if he cleave hard he shall be drawn which way the rope is carried Tradition is a long chaine every generation or delivery from Father to Son being a link in it c. Repl. Of this opinion I was wholly before First upon my own small observation which also perswaded me that no controverted opinions had so much colour for such a Tradition out of antiquity as some which now are by both parts condemned And after by consideration of what hath been so temperately learned and judiciously writen by our Protestant Perron D' Aille But though I think that nothing is wholly provable by sufficient testimonies of the first ages to have had Primary and generall Tradition except the undoubted books of Scripture or what is so plainly there that it is not controverted between you and us yet I think the Negative is easie to be proved because any one known person dessenting and yet then accounted a learned and pious Catholique shews the Tradition not to have been generall and that the Church of this Age differs from that of those times if it Anathematize now for what then was either approved of or at least thought not so horrid but it might be borne with And again though we agree upon what will not serve to convince a full Tradition yet we disagree about what will serve for allowing there were any controverted opinions delivered with equall Tradition to the Scripture which I deny to have beene but would receive if it so appeared yet sure you beginne at the wrong end in the examination of what those are which ought to be done by considering the testimonies of the first ages and not of the last for in your own similitude of a rope though to helpe me to climbe by if you put but one end into my hands yet you must shew me that the other end is somewhere fastened or else for ought I know instead of getting up by it
I may onelie get a fall and this fastening appeares not to me till I be shewed some more certaine connexion between the Opinions of this Age and those of the Apostolicke times then yet you have done or till you have answered those Arguments by which as I perswade my selfe I have made it appeare that it cannot be done Resp As for the two places concerning the Popes and Councels Infallibillity it is not to my purpose to meddle of them because of one side the way I have begun beareth no need of those discourses and on the other I should engage my selfe in Quarrels betweene Catholique and Catholique obscure the matter I have taken in hand and profit nothing in my hearers more then to be judged peradventure to have more learning then wisedome to governe it withall Repl. With your favour Sir these places concerne not onely questions between your selves but between you and us for I thought you had all agreed though I knew you had not alwaies done so and though it seemes by your declining to speak about it that you doe not yet that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope are infallible and the Doctrines defined by them are to be beleeved de fide which if you be not then the Glew which it is so bragged you have to keepe you still at Unitie is dissolved and if you be then you should both have answered upon what grounds you are so and have destroyed my Objections against the possibilitie of certaintie knowing when it is that these which used to be called the Church have defined finding therefore Altum Silentium where there was so much cause of speaking makes me beleeve that the cause why you have not answered is onely because you could not and then you have a readie Apologie that Nemo tenetur adimpossibilia which I beleeve the rather because I know that to so cleare a judgement as yours that place of Scripture When two or three are gathered together c. which is so often press'd for the Infallibilitie of Councels must appeare to make as much for the Synod of Dort as for the Councell of Trent and to so great a learning as yours it cannot be unknown how few if any of the Ancients have asserted their Infallibilitie and how many both of the Ancients and your Modernes have denied it I am confirmed in this beleife too because you I know would never have accepted that as a sufficient excuse from me if I had avoided to answer an Argument so because Protestants are not agreed upon the point if you had thought it such as that they ought to have been agreed upon it and truelie this is as great and considerable a question as any among us Resp As for the two places of Fevardentius which alloweth many Fathers to have fallen into errors I thinke it will not trouble him who is accquainted with the course of this present Church wherein divers who be thought great Divines fall into errors for which their Bookes are sometimes hindered from the print sometimes recalled or some leaves commanded to be pasted up the reason is the multiplicity of Catholike Doctrine which doth not oblige a man to the knowledge of every part but to the prompt subjection of the instruction of the Church wherefore many men may hold false doctrine inculpably not knowing it to be such even now after the learned labours of so many that have strived to open and facilitate by Method what is true and what is false much more in the Fathers times when there was great want of so many Compilers as these latter ages have produced Repl. First What Fevardentius confesseth proves plainlie that for which I intended it which was the ridiculousnesse of proving their Doctrine to be true by being conformable to that of the Fathers and yet making themselves Judges of those Judges they appeale too and confessing that many of them erred in many points which if they did they might as well doe the same in those about which we differ although they agreed with you and dissented from us Secondlie What both he confesseth and you confesse with him disproves that way of knowing divine Truths which you propose for neither the Doctors of the ancient Church who were sure more likelie to know what was then taken for Tradition then any late Compilers nor of the Modern who had a mind to deliver truth and trac'd and followed your way of finding it could erre in points of faith if Qui docet ut didicit he that teacheth as he hath been taught must still be in the right for publique Tradition no learned man at least can be ignorant not any man say you of what he was taught when a Childe as the substance of his hopes for all eternitie and so cannot in reason have his books either forbidden or pasted up for delivering any thing contrary to it Secondly Who are these Censors who forbid and paste up books certainly not the Universall Church nor yet the Representative the latter is not alwaies in being nor when it is at leasure to consider and judge all authors and of the first these Authors are a part if then they be fallible as they must be if they be not the Church why may not they erre and the Martyr-books speake truth which yet will easily by this meanes be kept from Posteritie if those in the Dictatory Office dissent from it as they will be sure to do if the opinion contradict never so little the power or greatnesse of the Pope upon whose favour these Oecumenicall Correctors must depend or they not long remaine in their places and yet you expect that your adversary should produce succession of their opinions in all ages though nothing be let passe but what a few please and though when in time all of you are agreed as you will soon be or appear to be if one side appear to be gag'd then this consent though thus brought about becomes the consent of the Church and a very notable Motive And since you say that what all are bound to is onely a prompt subjection to the Church why leave you it so in doubt what is the Church as if men were tyed to be subject but must not know to what you say indeed that the adherers to the Church of Rome are now the Church but what they may be you will not plainely declare So that if a Schisme among them should happen we are all as farrto seek as if you had been wholly silent for since the infallibility lies not in the particular Church of Rome and consequently the adhering to her is not ever a sufficient note of the Church as you will not say nor is it among your selves de fide since the Universall Church whatsoever she be can never define any thing and of the authority of the definitions of the Representative and of what constitutes both her and her decrees you refuse to speak what remaines there to which this prompt subjection is to be the
mean imposed as a punishment and not in way to prevent mischiefe and oppresse it in the head Repl. I suppose it small satisfaction to a poor man carried to the stake for his Conscience to know by which member of a distinction he is put to death and that this as little excuseth you as it satisfies them I hope to shew before we have ended the consideration of this present Paragraph Resp If the Circumcelians were the first that is ancient enough for the justification of the fact although for Banishment which also he seemeth to reprehend we know the first that could suffer it did suffer it Arrius I mean by the hand of Constantine whom he praiseth for a speech he uttered before he knew the consequence of the danger and seemeth to reprehend for his after and better witts Repl. I wish to you what Erasmus wisht to Augustinus Steuckius which is that you were but equall in probando diligens as you are in asseverando fortis For how unlikely is it that we should give you credit without proofe onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the antiquity of a thing which began so long after Christs Apostles were all dead is enough to prove it lawfull Howsoever it would at most but prove it lawfull to put such Hereticks to death as force men to do so in their owne defence for such were they Besides I object not onely against this custome the not being ancient for I conconfesse there might have been before a power to do so too though not used to the uttermost though in likelihood what perswaded you to use it would have perswaded them to the same if they had thought they had it but as being also condemned by Hillary and Athanasius and other Orthodox For though some punishment of a lesse degree were inflicted upon others too by their own side as you trulie instance when their power prevailed yet Constantine saies not onely in an Edict for libertie of opinions which he who was then Pope never appeared to stomack as his successor undoubtedly would now doe the like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let no man trouble another but let every one do as his own soule will but also gives this concluding reason against you for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is one thing willingly to take upon them this combate for immortality and another to force them to it with punishment and so in whatsoever he did contrary to this in any case wherein this reason held his words condemne his action And whereas you say that when Constantine made so slight of the question between Arrius and Alexander it was because he knew not the consequence of the danger I shall desire to know of you whether you must not confesse that there is now no King of your Religion so ill instructed in it though none of them be never so learned or curious as Constantine was who if any man in his dominion should arise denying Transubstantiation would not presently know the danger of the consequence and resolve him for an Heretick and to the stake instantly and not speak against his opinion onelie as impertinent and de lana caprina and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if this had been as resolved a thing then among Christians to have come from Tradition as Transubstantiation is now amongst Papists he would necessarilie as soon have discovered it too Howsoever I believe his after-witts to have been his worser witts in punishing though not in condemning of Arrius and to me it yet seemes for to be sure not to speak Heretically I will not speak obstinately that to have laboured in stopping of disputes on both parts and tying them to Scripture Phrases and to speak of God onelie in the Word of God had been at least in respect of Unity not a worse way then to have given an example to what after followed I mean the frequent explication with Anathema to boote of inexplicable misteries Neither would then so many questions have so long troubled the Church which for their slightnesse were unworthy ever to exercise the Schooles But for that or any other meer error as it may be for ought any one knowes unlawfull in any to punish at all I by no meanes like not to put to death for the same seemes to me it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sin above measure sinfull though even the act of it proceeded from an opinion of doing God some service and that opinion from a meer error too then I conceive but a materiall no formall sin for the same cause and so neither this materiall Murtherer nor that materiall Heretick be guilty before God who onely can distinguish and to whom it is fit to be left Howsoever the long doubt of some and opposall of other Orthodox to this course and that arising not from their Policie or Compassion but their Conscience not as thinking it unprofitable or unfit but unlawfull shews that there was then no Tradition that the Apostles taught it to be lawfull so to use Hereticks upon which onelie all the Infallibilitie which you claime for any beliefe or custome of your Church is founded Resp Saint Austine justifieth such proceedings against Hereticks Repl. Truely for putting them to death unlesse when they first assaulted which makes a wide difference for then it was not done as to Hereticks but as to Assassines from whom Nature teaches us to defend our selves and consequentlie to re-offend them whensoever Religion barres it not experience shewing us the danger of meerly defending to be neer to that too of not doing it at all I know not that ever he did nor do I beleeve it That some degree of punishment should be inflicted upon them I confesse he at last consented but chiefly to force them to come and see what the Church did whose actions the Hereticks impudently belied as if they set pictures upon the altar and did what you both doe and defend and they did not i. e. denied it Howsoever we have Saint Austine against Saint Austine and not onely his authority but his reasons more valid by much then that when he saith that such oppressions would make them think themselves vi victos non veritate convictos overcome by force not convicted by Truth and consequently dislikes it ne fictos Catholicos habeamus quos apertos Hereticos novimus least they become from open Hereticks but fained Catholicks Reasons which though these be not all we have in my opinion it was as impossible for him reasonably to answer when he was living as it would be now for him to do it when he was dead Besides as he useth these strong arguments against it so he is himself a strong example against it for the Church had lost this her so notable Champion if they then had been as severe to the Manichees as you are to us Resp Saint Gregory vseth the like against Pagans if I remember and the Church laterly hath rather encreased then decreased in the practice of it
Fathers who thinke enough plaine in Scripture not onely to keepe but also to convert men from Arrianisme as it appeares by their employing so solelie those Armes against them that they needed the admonition of a Heretique to counsell them to the use of another Fourthlie I dislike your saying that after being made an Arrian he is not unlikelie to turne Jew especiallie that he is likelie to be perswaded by any exaggeration of the Absurdities in the Trinitie since both Grotius and other Authors seeme to say that the Jewes have their Trinitie too in the same Notion and howsoever the Arrian is so fullie perswaded alreadie that those are absurdities that perswasion being almost the forme of that opinion which constitutes him an Arrian yet the exaggeration of them can never worke upon him And for the Constellation you speak of it were so irrationall and so unprovable a Crotchet that no Oratorie could ever make it seeme to a reasonable man to have any inclination to sence and a foole may be made beleeve any thing how contrarie soever to his grounds unlesse he be of those who are given over to vaine imaginations because they love darknesse better then the light and the fault of no particular mens understanding or will is to lead any man to condemne his grounds for they are to be accused not of whatsoever he concludes who holds or rather in this case hath held them but onelie of what he concludes reasonablie according to them Besides for this cause it appeares strange to me that trusting to Scripture alone and without meaning the Church for my certaine guide should bring a man into danger or parting with his Christianitie since nothing can hold a man longer then he beleeves it and as long as our ground the Scripture is by him beleeved no man can possiblie turne either Atheist or Jew and he who leaves to beleeve your ground the Church cannot by that be any more with-held from either Besides that I thinke it is impossible I am sure it is irrationall that any of you should beleeve in Christ upon the authoritie of Christs Church since beleeving the latter which claimes no authoritie but from Christ praesupposeth the beleife of him and so Christianitie is not the apter to be overthrown through the absence of that upon which it is not built I feare rather least your doctrine known to be grounded it selfe upon Tradition by such a way according to which a Jew would have much advantage of a Christian may incline a man to Judaisme and your sides generall slighting all waies of knowing Gods will but onely by the Church and then neither proving her power stronglier nor teaching how to know her plainer may make men sinke into Atheisme by being perswaded by you in letting goe other strong holds upon Truth and receiving such weake ones from you Not to speake of your loading Christianitie with such impossibilities as the Pillars of it which are not absolute Demonstrations of which it may be scarce any thing is in nature capable but lines and numbers are able to beare and using all your Wits and Industries to perswade men that it is equallie unsafe to refuse any part of your Religion as to receive none and so instead of making these your beleefs admitted for the sake of Christianitie causing Christianitie to be rejected because of them Resp But peradventure some may attribute Power to the Church without infallibilitie whom I would have consider but what himself saith For his Church by the Power it hath must either say I command you to believe or I command you to professe this whether you believe me or no. The second I think no enemy of equivocation will admit and the former it is as much as if it should say I know not whether I say true or no yet you must think I say true Repl. We having received a command that all things be done decently and in order and this being to be appointed by them whom either the Law of the Land if that consist of faithfull or the consent or custome of Christians hath appointed for Ecclesiasticall Rulers in this matter in every place the Church thus restrained to the Governours of the Church may have in some cases though not to your purpose power without the least Infallibilitie And for instruction which you aime at no Church can give it yours especially being too large a body ever to meet or joyn in doing it and if you restraine the Church to the Cleargie whereof yet many teach not and they too are too many for any man to be sure what they all agree in teaching and when they differ how shall I know which to follow otherwise then by your Rule which I have answered their duty indeed but not theirs onely though Principally is to instruct us in the way to Heaven which they doing in the Persons of Embassadors between God and us and having no absolute Letters of Credence to bid us to beleeve that God saies whatsoever they say he saies as much as can be wrested out of Scriptures for any present Church being said of the Scribes and Pharisees who yet proved themselves not infallible our best way is in my mind to examine their Commission and if they can shew that they treat according to that to submit to them as in the same case we must to any of the Layetie or rather to God of whose commands they are but Organs and if not to beware of their Leaven Yet it may be that some man may hold that such an opinion is to be beleeved onelie because such a Church proposeth it and yet not believe her Infallible since he may think her authoritie by reason of her Learning Multitude Sanctitie Unitie and Libertie to be more probable then any contradicting argument and that men are to assent to what is most probable and truelie if he could prove to me his Major I am alreadie so much of the opinion of his Minor that I should joyne with him in his Conclusion Resp So that if I understand any thing where there is no Infallibility there is no Power where no Power no Unity where no Unity no Entity where no Entity no Church Repl. How you tie Power to Infallibilitie I guesse but cannot how you tie Unitie to Power For how many things are all men even at Unitie about though one have no Power over another in them onelie cemented together by their clear evidence And how many more do whole Bodies and Sects of men agree about without any such power though they differ in other points as so do you too Do not Protestants agree with you about manie and the chiefest credenda and about almost all the meerely facienda Though not perswaded to this agreement by the Power of any Judge which they do acknowledge Nay if men could be at Unitie about no thing which were not proposed by some Guide or defined by some Judge endued with such a power how came all you to agree that
answers that ever I could meet to this Objection I repeat no more these places being so positive to our point This confession of Invisibilitie in our Church for so many ages did much perplex me it seemed to me even to offend Naturall reason such a derogation from Gods power or providence as the sufferance of so great an Ecclipse of the light of this true Church and such a Church as this is described to be seeming to me repugnant to the maine reason why God hath a Church on Earth which is to be conserver of the Doctrine Christs precepts and to conveigh it from age to age untill the end of the world Therefore I applyed my study to peruse such arguments as the Catholicks brought for the proofe of a continuall visibility of the true Church down from the Apostles time in all Ages and apparance of Doctors teaching and administring the Sacrament in proofe of this I found they brought many provisoes of the Scripture but this text most literall of the fourth of the Ephesians Christ hath placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints till we meet in the Unity of the Faith and next the discourse upon which they inferre this necessary visible succession of the Church seemed to me to be a most rationall and convincing one which is to this effect Naturall Reason not being able to proportion to a man a cause that might certainly bring him to a state of supernaturall happinesse and that such a cause being necessary to mankinde which o herwise would totally faile of the end it was created for there remained no other way but that it must be proposed unto us by one whose authority we could not doubt of and that in so plaine a manner as the simplest may be capable of it as well as the learned This work was performed by our Saviour from whose mouth all our Faith is originally derived but this succeeding age not being able to receive it immediate from thence it was necessary it should be conveyed unto them that lived in it by those that did receive it from Christs own Mouth and so from Age to Age untill the end of the world and in what Age soever this thred of doctrine should be broken it must needs be acknowledged for the reason above mentioned that the light which should convey makind through the darknesse of this world was extinguished and mankind is left without a Guide to infallible ruine which cannot stand with Gods providence and goodnesse which Saint Austine affirmes for his opinion directly in his book de Util. Cred. Cap. 16. saying If divine providence doe preside over humane affaires it is not to be doubted but that there is some authoritie constituted by the same God upon which going as upon certaine steps we are carried to God nor can it be said he meant the Scriptures onely by these steps since experience shewes us the continuall alteration about the right sence of severall of the most important places of it that what is contained there cannot be a competent rule to mankind which consisteth more of simple then learned men and besides the Scriptures must have been supposed to have been kept in some hands whose authority must beget our acceptance of it which being no other thing then the Church in all Ages we have no more reason to beleeve that it hath preserved the Scriptures free from all corruption then that it hath maintained it selfe in a continuall visibility which Saint Augustine concludeth to be a marke of the true Church in these words in his book Cont. Cecill 104. The true Church hath this certaine signe that it cannot be hid therefore it must be known to all Nations but that part of the Protestants is unknown to many therefore canno be the true no inference can be stronger then from hence that the concealement of a Church disproves the truth of it Lastly not to insist upon the allegation of the sence of all the Fathers of the Church in every severall Age which seemed to me most cleare that which in this cause weighed much with me was the confession and testimony of the approved Doctors themselves of the Protestant Church as Hooker in his Book of Eccles Pol. pag. 126. God alwaies had and must have some visible Church upon Earth and Doctor Field the first of Eccles cap. 10. It cannot be but those that are the true Church must be known by the profession of truth and further the same Doctor sayes How should the Church be in the world and nobody professe openly the saving truth of God and Doctor White in his defence of the Way chap. 4. pag. 790. The providence of God hath left Monuments and Stories for the confirmation of our faith and I confesse truly that our Religion is false if a continuall descent of it cannot be demonstrated by these monuments down from Christs time this appeareth unto me a direct submission of themselves to produce these apparent testimonies of the publique profession of their faith as the Catholiques demand but this I could never read nor know of any that performed for Doctor White himselfe for want of proofe of this is faine to say in another place in his Way to the Church pag. 510. The Doctors of our faith hath had a continuall succession though not visible to the world so that he flies from his undertaking of a conspicuous demonstration of the monuments of his faith to an invisible subterfuge or a beleife without apparance for he saith in the same book in another place pag. 84. All the eternall government of the Church may faile so as a locall and personall succession of Pastors may be interrupted and pag. 403. We doe not contest for an externall succession it sufficeth that they succeed in the doctrine of the Apostles and Faithfull which in all ages did imbrace the same Faith so as here he removeth absolutely all externall proofe of succession which before he consented to be guided by I cannot say I have verbally cited these Authors because I have translated these places though the Originall be in English yet I am sure their sence is no way injured and I have chosen to alledge Doctor Whites authority because he is an Orthodox Professor of the Protestant Church the reflection of the state of this question where I found the Protestants defend themselves onely by flying out of sight by confessing a long invisibility in their Church in apparance of Pastors and Doctors the same interpretation left me much loosened from the fastnesse of my professed Religion but had not yet transported me to the Catholique Church for I had an opinion that our Divines might yet fill up this vacancy with some more substantiall then I could meet with so I came back into England with a purpose of seeking nothing so intentively as this satisfaction and to this purpose I did covertly under another mans name send this my scruple to one whose learning and sufficiency I had
other points that before the Councell it lay in Archivis Ecclesiae in the Deskes of the Church then claime such a Tradition for it as appeares it can never be defended that it had Let us consider but two opinions more That Infants are not to receive the Eucharist is now both the doctrine and practise of the Roman Church but six hundred yeeres the Church us'd it Saint Austine accounted it necessary at least in some sence of the word if not absolutely which last is most likely because from the necessity of that which could not be receiv'd but by them who had received Baptisme he and Innocentius a Pope prove the necessity of Baptisme and an Apostolicall Tradition If therefore both these Ages had gone by your Rule how comes this difference between their opinions the Sacrament being the same it was and the Children the same they were This I may consider and see if the same way that this Doctrine hath been altered whether any other might not have received change Next that Saints are invocable you must say is Tradition taught from Father to Sonne as deriv'd from the Apostles if you will be constant to your own principle now though I might disprove this first by the many Fathers that beleeved the Just not to be admitted to the Beatificall vision before the day of judgement for upon this your side now grounds that but to be kept in secret receptacles and by the long time which pass'd before this doctrine was condemn'd Secondly by the beginning of it which was particular Doctors Hipotheticall prayers with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such conditionall clauses And thirdly by Nicephorus Calistus his Relation who in this is a believable witnesse because he allowes of your opinion that prayers to the Virgin Mary were first brought into the publick Liturgie by one Petrus Gnapheus a Heretick about five hundred yeares after Christ Lib. 15. C. 28 yet I will rather chuse to confute this by the confession of Sancta Clara out of Horantius who to this objection that sub Evangelio which must mean when the Gospel was preacht no such precept is extant Pag. 271. not onely denies it not but gives this reason for it least the Pagans should think themselves brought againe to the worshipping of Men instead of Gods If upon this or any other reason this were not then taught then have not all your Doctrines such a Pedigree as you suppose but allow it were yet howsoever it followes that some at least of the learned of your Church have not been taught that they have or consequently that it is necessary they should have Though it seemes to me little less then Montanisme to believe that any since as it were a Paraclet should perfect the doctrine which then was delivered by the Apostles Neither can you answer that they speake onely of such a Precept and of being extant whereas they might teach it lawfull without giving any Precept and they might have given such a Precept although not extant for I should readily reply that the reason they give why there is none such extant shewes that they mean there was none at all neither Precept nor allowance since the Pagans would have been scandaliz'd at its being accounted lawfull to worship men instead of Gods although it were not commanded and not a whit the lesse whether that in after times were extant or not which they could not foresee The onelie answer which I am able to invent in your behalfe is this that though some of your particular doctrines have not such a Tradition yet there being a Tradition that the Churches definitions are infallible whatsoever she at any time define is then to be believed upon the strength of such a Tradition and before did latere in causis as Flowers do in Winter Yet to this I may reply by desiring you to enter with me into some few considerations First If this were so and that so much of Christian Religion depends upon the definitions of the Church and our Reception of them upon knowing alwaies which is she and that such is her authority can you perswade your selfe that Christ sending his Apostles and Disciples to Preach the Gospel and after four of them writing his Gospel which shewes if the Books be true to the title that they writ all they preacht at least that was necessarie for else they were not Gospels but Parts of it that they should not rather leave out any thing else how important soever then not have imploied themselves about teaching us that the Churches Definitions are a Rule of our Faith and instructing us in Markes so proper to her that we might never need to doubt whether it be she that defines or no and whether their not having done this evince not in Reason that this your Doctrine is false Secondly I pray consider whether if there were any such continu'd Tradition about the Definitions of the Church whether that must not also have taught or else have been to small purpose when it is that the Church hath defin'd but yet that is a case not fully judged among you For some hold that the Church hath defin'd when a Councel hath although unapproved by the Pope which is denied by others Thirdly Consider whether supposing as was before suppos'd it must not also have taught certaine Notes to know the Church by but yet about those you are not agreed Tom. 13. Pag. 193. Salmeron putting Miracles among the false Signes of the Church and Bellarmine and many more among the True ones Fourthly Consider whether the Church have an eternall spring of Doctrines within her or but a finite number and onely those which the Apostles preacht and I believe you will pitch upon the latter Not then to ask how they come to know them nor if you answer by Tradition to ask you againe how come men then not to know before a Definition what it is they Preacht for if the Bishops of which a Councell is compounded know it not now how will they know it when they meet I will desire to know why the Church will not at once teach us all the knowes and not keep us in doubts which she may resolve and did the Apostles teach their Doctrines to be lockt up or taught to us And then having considered this you will find I believe that the Church do with Doctrines as Fathers with Estates never give their Children all that they may still have something to keep them in awe with because if she should she could never have after pretended a Power to end any new emergent controversie keeping in secret what she knowes any that ariseth she may still pretend is endable by her Fiftly Consider that it will appear but a shift if you say that there is a Tradition that all the Churches Definitions be true and so excuse the particular Doctrines for otherwise having none and yet avoid giving us any Rules to know the Church by at all times and answering those