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
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
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
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
as his great fall witnest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In that fatall Haile that made more Orphans then his Children Yet to do an ill or an uncivill thing he was an arrant Coward Though he was of Davids Stature of his Courage too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in this most like him afraid of nothing but to offend But what needs any body plead for his Civility more then this present Discourse where he excels his Antagonist in that as well as in reason and shewes that a Gentleman writ with a Scholars Pen. Before I shut up all my Lord one Vertue there is yet to be mentioned which of all that ever had relation to his Lordship I may not I must not ever forget and that was his Friendship That is a Vertue which by the unintermitted affliction of my life I have had more then ordinary occasion to make use of And that I must needs say was it which made all his other Graces and Excellencies relish to me He being the dearest and the truest Friend that through the whole course of my unhappy life I ever had the happinesse to meet with If it be a kind of pleasure to reade discourses of Friends and Friendship What is it to enjoy such a Friend in whom really was what Excellencie either History can record or almost Poëtry faine Nothing so hard in Lucians Toxaris that he durst not do and nothing so handsome in all Seneca's Lawes of Benefits that he knew not how to do and to out-do for his Friend Let your Vertuous and dear Grandmother my Lord and all your Kindred yet alive speak to this And your blessed Mother were she now alive would say she had the best of Friends before the best of Husbands This was it that made Tew so valued a Mansion to us For as when we went from Oxford thither we found our selves never out of the Universitie So we thought our selves never absent from our own beloved home But I dare say no more of this it being now a mellancholy thing I am sure to me to call back into my memory happinesse never to be recalled and to afflict my self anew with the consideration of what felicity I have out-lived Your Lordship is now the onely surviving pledge of that admired Father of whom-when we his poor servants have said all we can the Character will be farr too short It is in you and onely you my Lord to set him out truely and to resemble him to the life and that will be by taking that Evangelicall Counsell Tu autem fac similiter Do like him live like him and pardon me if I add one thing more like him Love My Lord Your Lordships most humble and affectionately devoted Servant TRIPLET The Preface to the READER THe eminent abilities in the most noble Author of the ensuing learned Discourse and learneder Reply can scarcely be imagined unknown to any whom this language can reach But if any such there be I shall desire them to learne the perfections of that most excellent Person rather from the Dedication then this Preface the designe of which is onely to give the Reader some satisfation concerning the nature of this Controversie in it selfe and of these Dissertations in particular The Romish Doctrine of their owne Infallibility as it is the most gcnerall Controversie betweene them and all other Churches excluded by them from their Communion So it is of such a comprehensive nature that being once proved and clearely demonstrated it would without question draw all other Churches so excluded to a most humble submission and acknowledgement nay to an earnest desire of a suddaine Reconciliation upon any Termes whatsoever For howsoever they please to speak and write of our Hereticall and obstinate persistance in manifest Errors yet I hope they cannot seriously thinks we would be so irrationall as to contradict him whom we our selves think beyond a possibillity of erring and to dispute perpetually with them whom onely to heare were to be satisfied But when they have propounded their Decisions to be beleeved and imbraced by us as Infallibly true and that because they propound them who in their own opinion are Infallible if notwithstanding some of those Decisions seeme to us to be evidently false because cleanly contradictory to that which they themselves propound as infallibly true that is the Word of God surely we cannot be blamed if we have desired their Infallibility to be most clearly demonstrated at least to a higher degree of evidence then we have of the contradiction of their Decisions to the infallible Rule Wherefore The great Defenders of the Doctrine of the Church of England have with more then ordinary diligence endeavoured to view the grounds of this Controversie and have written by the advantage either of their learning accurately or of their parts most strongly or of the cause it selfe most convincingly against that darling Infallibility How clearely this Controversie hath been managed with what evidence of truth discussed what successe so much of reason hath had cannot more plainly appeare then in this that the very name of Infallibility before so much exalted begins now to be very burthensome even to the maintainers of it Insomuch as one of their latest and ablest Proselytes Hugh Paulin de Cressy lately Dean of Laghlin c. in Ireland and Prebendary of Windfor in England in his Exomologesis or faithfull Narration of the occasion and motives of his Conversion hath dealt very clearly with the World and told us that this Infallibilitie is an unfortunate Word That Mr. Chillingworth hath cumbated against it with too too great successe so great that he could wish the Word were forgotten or at least layd by That not onely Mr. Chillingworth whom he still worthily admires but we the rest of the poore Protestants have in very deed very much to say for our selves when we are pressed unnecessarily with it And therefore Mr. Cressy's advise to all the Romanists is this that we may never be invited to combat the authority of the Church under that notion Oh the strength of Reason rightly managed O the power of Truth clearly declared that it should force an emment member of the Church of Rome whose great Principle is non-retractation to retract so necessary so fundamentall a Doctrine to desert all their Schooles and contradict all their Controvertists But indeed not without very good cause For he professes withall that no such word as Infallibility is to be found in any Councel Neither did ever the Church enlarge her Authority to so vaste a widenesse But doth rather deliver the victory into our hands when we urge her Decisions In all which Confessions although he may seeme onely to speak of the Word yet that cannot be it which he is so wearie of because we except not against the word at all but confesse it rightly to signifie that which we impugne neither do we ever bring any nominall Argument against it But as when Cardinall Bellarmine sets downe the Doctrine of
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
challenged cannot plead she received it from her Ancestors because it is manifestly false to both parties Then must needs one onely Church remain with that claime And although we did not know what the Greek Church doth by her History yet the force of consequence would tell us they cannot doe this which the Westerne Church doth because the doing of one is incompatible with the doing of the same by the other As for the two places concerning the Popes and Councels infallibility it is not to my purpose to medle of them because on the one side the way I have begun there is no need of those discourses and on the other I should engage my selfe in quarrels betwixt 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 Wherefore I shall omit those Paragraphes if I onely note concerning the tradition imposed upon Papius that the very narration of it sheweth that it is no tradition in the sence we speak of tradition but in the sence some Heretiques have pretended tradition as it were a doctrine secretly delivered and gathered out of private conference with the Apostles and not their publique preaching delivered to the Churches which is the way we exalt tradition in The witnesses also of ancient Fathers are no parts of tradition but signes and markes where it hath passed whereas the body of tradition is in the life and beleife of the whole Church For the Church as I have said is an essence composed as it were of interne and externe parts the interne being faith the externe the outward action which must needs be conformable to the internall faith nor can there be a materiall change in the action but it must argue the internall change of faith nor internall change in faith but it must draw with it an Iliad of altered actions As for the place of Fevardentius which alloweth many Fathers to have fallen into errors I thinke it will not trouble him who is acquainted with the course of the present Church wherein divers who be thought great Divines fall into errors for which their bookes sometimes are hindred from the print sometimes recalled or some leaves commanded to be pasted up The reason is the multiplicity of Catholique doctrine which doth not oblige a man to the knowledge of every part but to the prompt subjection to 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 As for the two points he saith avert him from Catholique doctrine I am mistaken if he be not mistaken in both The first is that Catholique doctrine damnes all who are not in the union of their Church He thinketh the sentence hard yet I thinke he will not deny me this that if any Church does not say so it cannot be the true Church For call the Church what you will the Congregation of the Elect the Congregation of the Faithfull the Congregation of Saints or Just call it I say or define it what you will doth it not clearly follow that whosoever is out of that Church cannot be saved for he shall not be Elect Just Faithfull c. without which there is no Salvation How then can any Church maintaine these two propositions I am the true Church and yet one may be saved without being in me But peradventure he is scandalized that the Catholique Church requireth actuall communion externall with her which he thinketh in some case may be wanting without detriment of Salvation But how would he have the Church speake which speaketh in common but abstracting from such particular cases as may change wholly the nature of the question For example sake hath not the Church reason to say he that denyeth the blessed Trinity is an Heretique It hapneth one who hath conversed among the Tritheites hearing them use the word Trinity for three Gods meaning to speak against them denyeth there is any Trinity shall this man be comprehended in the foresaid condemnation Or was the sentence ill pronounced Neither as I think For bo h was it well done by the Church to condemne denyers of the Trinity because per se loquendo as the Phylosophers speak that is according to the ordinary course and nature of things who denyeth a thing in words denyeth it in heart yet the man fore-spoken did not so and was not condemned in that sentence In like manner when the Church condemneth all such as are not in actuall union and communion with her she doth well because according to the ordinary course this doth not fall out without either presumption and damnable pride or else culpable either ignorance or feare and love of private interest before God and his Church But it followeth not thence that by accident no man may sometime be excused The words of our Saviour concerning Baptisme and Eucharist their necessity are very precise yet the Church doubteth not to excuse those who have it in voto But to proceed unto the point The corrent of Catholique Doctors holdeth that no man shall be damned for infidelity but he who wilfully doth mis-beleeve and that to doe so it is required that faith be sufficiently proposed unto him And what is to be sufficiently proposed is not determined amongst them There wanteth not Divines that teach that even ignorantia affectata doth excuse from Herisie On the other side it is most certaine that no man is damned for not professing what he is not damned for not beleeving Wherefore profession being that which engrafteth a man exteriorly in the Church of God according unto the ordinary opinions of Catholiques it followeth that no man is condemned for not being of the Church who is not for infidelity for which it is a very uncertaine case who be damned and who not So that the Catholique position is not so crude as peradventure the Author understood it to be though the words be rough and ought to be so as being of what is according to the course of nature not what chance and accidents may invent The other point was of puting Heretiques to death which I think he understandeth to be done Vindicatively not Medicinally I meane imposed as a punishment and not in way to prevent mischeife or oppresse it in the head If the Circumcellians 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 meane 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 wits Saint Augustine justifieth such proceeding against Here tiques Saint Gregory advised the like against Pagans if I remember and the Church laterly hath rather increased then decreased in the practise of it Mores's speech I beleeve is mistaken the force of it being that the banishment of Bishops shewed his faith because the banished were Catholiques which shewed Lucius to be none But what can be said if the Church useth that for the prevention of a greater and more dangerous evill which all politique Estates use for the remedies of lesse and lesse dangerous evils and are commended for it For if Faith be the way of Salvation and hereby the bane of Faith if Salvation be the greatest good then the danger of a Countries being over runne with Heresie is the greatest of dangers greater then the multiplying of Theeves greater then the unsurety of the wayes greater then a Plague or Invasion Why then doth not reason force us to use the meanes to prevent it which the same reason and experience teacheth us to be most efficacious in this and all other contagious and gangrening maladies of the Common-wealth I hope reason it selfe and the zeale of the Author to his own and Countries Salvation will supply my shortnesse in this point For supposing a Church be assured she is in the right and that the doctrine preached by another leadeth to damnation I know not why Caipha's words should not be propheticall in this case and that truly it doth not expedire that unus moriatur pro populo non tota gens pereat He urgeth afterwards against the unity of the Church that it is none such as we brag off And I confesse we brag of it and thinke we have reason too 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 thinke he will find that 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 quarrels 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 Government but that in a well govern'd Country there is a meanes to end quarrels and in an Anarchy there can be no assured peace This therefore is that we brag of that amongst us if any controversie rise there is a way to end it which is not amongst them who part from us And secondly that there is no assured agreement amongst those who are parted from us for although to day they agree there is no bond nor tye why to morrow they may not disagree These two things we brag of and I think the Author will not deny it For he confesseth we all agree in that the Church is an infallible Mistresse Then it is evident that if in any controversie she interposeth her judgement the controversie is ended He likewise confesseth that who part from us have no such definitive authority amongst them and that Scripture whereon they relie hath not this vertue to take up controversies clearly Againe I doe confesse most English men confesse a Trinity the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour but if to morrow any one or more of them light upon some book of an Arrian Trinitarian or other Sect so wittily written that he putteth probable solutions for the places of Scriptures sheweth slight wayes how our well-meaning fore-fathers may have slipped into such an error what is there to retaine these men from disagreeing with the rest of their brethern and betake themselves to the Arrians And when the heat is passed light upon some Rabbi who shall cunningly exaggerate the absurdities as he shall terme them of the Trinity Incarnation Passion say our Saviour did strange things in vertue of some constellation and delivering these things so oratorically that for a new heat these things shall seem more conformable then his Arrianisme what then shall hinder this to become a Jew and at last to prove himselfe so great a Clerk as to write De Tribus Impostoribus Take away the power of the Church which every man doth who taketh away the Infallibility what can retaine any man why he should not yeeld to that discourse which seemeth fairest seeing nothing is certaine But peradventure some may attribute power unto the Church without Infallibility whom I would have consider but what himselfe saith For his Church by the power it hath must either say I command you to beleeve me or I command you to professe this whether you beleeve me or no. The second I think no enemy of equivocation will admit as the former is as much as if it should say I know not whether I say true or no yet you must think I say true 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 no Church Now for the controversies mentioned besides that there is a meanes to terminate them they be such as bring no breach of the ancient life and action of Christians which all those Opinions doe which for the most part are reputed to make Heretiques That some controversies amongst us are not resolved is a thing necessary amongst humane affaires where things must have a time to be borne to encrease to fall and the greater things are the greater is their period Wherefore I doe not see why this may hurt the Church more then the Suits which hang in our Courts prejudice the Government of the Land Neither can any other Church assume Infallibility to it selfe because it cannot lay hold of this principle that it receiveth its doctrine by hands and so must first professe the Church of Christ to be fallible or else it cannot part from it The last point of the Authors discourse is to shew how errors might have crept in Wherein I shall have no opposition with him for I doe not thinke the question is how they should creep in but how they should be kept out 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 think 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 hundreds of errors had quite changed the shape of the Church in so many yeares tempests divisions want of commerce in the body of the Church But this one maxime that she receiveth her Faith by Tradition and not from Doctors hath ever kept
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
by which I shewd in that paper which you vouchsafed to answer which I desire not to repeat to avoid both your being wearied and my own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that errors might come to be generall all those are waies by which the same errors might come to be thought to have proceeded from Tradition Saint Austin and Tertullian agreeing in the sence of the sentence which we read in the latter PLACE = marg n = * De Corouâ Si legem nusquam reperio sequitur ut Traditio consuetudini morem hunc dederit habiturum quandoque apostoli authoritatem ex interpretatione rationis and it is the more strange that Tertullian should allow any custome the authority of comming from the Apostles since in the same place he gives any man leave to beginne a custome so it be good which depends upon his reason as the reception of it does upon theirs that follow him and so make it a custome in these words Annon putas licere omni fideli concipere constituere duntaxat quod Deo congruat quod disciplinae conducat quod saluti proficiat dicente Domino cur non vobis ipsis quod justum est judicatis By which it seemes he was willing more should be beleev'd then was first taught and when that way had brought in any thing for there is the same reason of opinion as of actions and made it common then the former Rule serves to rivet it in under the false Notion of comming from the Apostles or having at least equall authority neither can you except against this as said by him when he was a Montanist since your side useth to brag of this and the like places as making for them To explaine my meaning the fuller give me leave to consider one question which shall be the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin In the first ages it is a thing granted that many Fathers beleeved her not onely not free from Originall sinne but not even from Actuall Wadd Pag. 271 after this second question came to be more considered and this first to be defin'd but yet those of the Amrmative opinion cannot but grant to those of the Negative that many Fathers sided with them or else they were impudent Quoters who claim three hundred nay Wadding p. 124. even in Saint Thomas his time they confesse that the Negative opinion was the more common doctrine and yet see I pray how things are altered We have now a History of some Treaties of two Kings of Spaine with two Popes by two Embassadours to perswade them to define the Affirmative The History is written by one Wadding an Irish-man his Secretary there I find that the Bishop of Carthage having Order from the Embassadour his Master to desire to presse nay almost to tear a Definition from his Holinesse about it tells him and not falsely that those who hold the Negative are Inter Catholicos soli pauci unius instituti viri Page 97. unus alter ab ill is edocti but a few of one onely Order and one or two of their Disciples His Master bids him urge for the contrary The opinion and subscription of so many Prelates Orders Page 90. and Universities the universall acclamation of the People the weighty necessity of cutting off scandals Page 400. nay saith he many Universities suffer none to take Degrees without making a Vow for the Defence of the Immaculate conception and for the Oppugners Page 57. Constat eos sentire aliter quà m universa docet Ecclesia they differ from the Doctrine of the Universall Church If then an opinion for which nothing is to be said out of Antiquitie and much against it which was even lately the lesse common opinion could grow to be held by so great a multitude in so high a degree in so short a time that the much greater part of the Church should now presse to have it defin'd and that so earnestly that to remove the opposing Fathers out of the way they make a confession very advantagious to us Hereticks that many things have been defin'd by their Church against many Fathers Page 127. you may easily see that Opinions may grow very generall nay grow to claim Tradition in one Age that were unknown in another for that they claim and prove only because of the the general reception in all Apostolicall Churches not of any such uninterrupted testimony of Fathers to their Children that so it hath been taught in all Ages You may see then that all your Church goes not upon your grounds since if they did so many of it that stand for the Affirmative must pretend to them and if they doe then sure the Pope must have confessed them to be witnesses beyond exception and would accordingly have defin'd if they doe not then this certain way of yours cannot keep false opinions out of a Church which makes not that their Rule You may also see that opinions first unknown after but particular may come not onely to be generall and to have Tradition claim'd for them but even to be defin'd since if a Generall Councell should now meet about this point it is plain without Gods immediate working to the contrary of nay I am confident that as it is observed of the Romans that they were twice as long in first conquering Italy as after all the world and as my Lord Bacon tels us of one who was wont to say That he had first with much paines gotten a little estate and after with little a great one so it is a much more short and easie work to bring this to a Definition then it was before to bring it thus far on the way towards one Which if it were brought it being already almost defined and ready to topple into a Doctrine necessary to salvation the contrary being forbidden to be either printed or publikely taught then if you forsake not your Religion you must forsake the Principle and joyn with Turnball who tells us That the Churches supreme definition of matters of Faith is the infallible word of God and together with the ancient Revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles makes up one Object which is to be held by the Catholike Faith By which it is plain he thinks more may be reveal'd and then must be held then was to the Apostles and by consequence could be delivered by them which is contrary to what you now say And indeed the current of Writers of your own side either knew not this opinion and Argument of yours or consideringly balk it else they might save themselves and their Readers the labour of writing and reading such infinite Quotations for though they speak often of Tradition yet they thinke themselves bound to prove it better then by the pretence of your present Church they pretend to receive it from the Ancient Writers not say they that Verball Tradition hath in all Ages been taught to all men to teach it their children
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
since you must grant that if any man mis-interpret the Councell of Trent it shall not damne him so he doubt not of its truth desire to discover what it meant and be in a Propension of beleeving that when he knowes it me thinkes as Cineas told Pirrhus you had as good doe that at first which you must doe at last that is say the same with us at first concerning Scripture which after much trouble you are forced to say concerning Councels and in hard matters let the same implicite Faith in God serve which serves in them who can claime no authority but from and under him And which is more then I affirme that no man but by his own being wicked can come into any error by false interpretation of Scripture see I pray what Saint Austine saies in his forty ninth Sermon de Verbis Domini that God hath so hedg'd in all his own sayings that whosoever would interpret any place of Scripture false he that hath a circumcised heart by reading what is before and after may find that sence which the other would pervert Yet if you can shew me reason to beleeve that there is any standing guide upon earth and without reason it were unreasonable to hope to perswade me to beleeve it I will never be proud so much to my own cost as rather to venture loosing my way by chusing it my selfe then be beholding to him for directing me in it Object Those to whom during his life he had most fully declared his mind went and told it to others and all was done But this way hath the prejudice of humane Fallibility for seldome it hapneth that a multitude can carry away all in the same manner and one thousand six hundred yeares are passed since yet if we looke into the immediate joynts of the descent we cannot finde where it can misse for the doctrine being supernaturall and not delivered by any mans skill or wit the maine principle of it can be no other then to know what was delivered them by their Teachers when therefore an Apostle had preached over and over again the same Doctrine not long nor hard to be carryed away in all the Townes of a Countrey and let him be gone and all dead who heard him speake and some questions arise concerning his doctrine let us see whether error can creep in if Christians keep to their hold that is what they were taught by Christs Apostles Let therefore the wisest and best of those Townes meet and discusse the controversie out of this principle will not there be a quick end of their dispute For every man can say Thus my Father heard the Apostle speak and what is here certaine of the Children of those who heard them may with as much evidence be deriv'd againe in the Grand-children and so in every age Resp Those writings whose businesse is to prove should be like the houses in the Low Countries for as there they take such care of their foundations that what is under ground costs them more then all above it so in these the greatest labour ought to be in setling surely the Principles because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one absurditie granted how fertile error is after what a heard or swarme of strange conclusions follow not onely your selfe have observ'd but Aristotle also hath told all that have read him and experience daily tels mankind since therefore a small mistake encreaseth as much and as speedily as a graine of mustard-seed I must the earnestlier contradict this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this first error of yours as being the Parent of so many more already and being likely in time if by being confuted it be not us'd as Sature us'd his Father to have yet a more large and numerous Issue Then you leave out one thing out of your History of the Gospell which alone consider'd would have much weaken'd what you say For you speak of the Apostles but forget utterly their Writings a mis-interpretation of which might soon spread an error And certainlie out of them if Christians had been to receive no Instrucions but onely to remember what was taught them by word of mouth both they would have sav'd themselves the labour of wâ—iting them and Traditors who deliver'd them to be burnt would have been thought to have committed no greater fault then if they had done the same to any ordinary writing But if the first Christians and generally their successours since have ever carefully and assiduously studied what by comparing places what by all other waies to understand them and thought themselves bound to beleeve and obey whatsoever they found or thought they found there contain'd and esteem'd that they were taught by themselves what they learnt from their writings as they must have thought it the same thing unlesse the Apostles authority had vanisht by having their instructions put into paper which were as if the Kings verball Commands bound us bat not his Proclamations Then here appeares a gate at which errors might enter which you at least I am sure this part of your Treatise did not consider But even their verball might either bee mis-interpreted or knowinglie mis-alledged even by those who are counted Archi-Catholicks Socrat. lib. 5. for I pray must not one of those two have been done or by the Church of Rome or by those of Asia which example I would not so often speake of but that I hope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as good an excuse as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For since it is impossible that Saint John and Sain Peter both inspir'd by the Holy Ghost which is the Spirit of Truth should teach contradictorie doctrines whereof one must necessarily be false what else can follow but that one part if not both intended to deceive or were themselves deceiv'd in it and what makes it impossible that such a mistake by men of authoritie may not generallie spread and after a plaine example your reason will be no more able to overthrow experience then the earthen Pitcher in the Fable was to break the Brasen one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One of the Arguments you make for the infallibility of the way which you propound is That the Doctrine which the Apostles taught was neither long nor hard to he carried away Out off which me thinkes I can evidently deduce that the Church of Rome is not that since both it appears how long that s and since you tell us your selfe That the cause of many errors among you is the multiplicity of Catholique Doctrines which doth not oblige a man o the knowledge of every Part but to a prompt subjection to the Church Truely if there be no contradiction between these two Propositions I will confesse that I have hitherto mistaken what the word signifies unlesse you mean that the Apostle by teaching subjection to the Church indusively taught all that she teaches and so what they delivered was short but what implicitely much If this were so certainely the Apostles when they included
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
Lib. Con. Reg. Iac. Pag. 892. Cardinall Perron Of the worship of Images I shall speake hereafter Praying to Saints may have come in upon consequences drawne out of mistaken places of Scriptures or others which inducing the opinion that they enjoy'd the beatificall vision before the day of judgement some might conclude that then they saw all in it and at first pray to them but conditionallie till their number increased and with it the degree in which they held the opinion till now to deny it is accounted Heresie though I know no Father which justifies our invocating of them although they speake of their interceding for us before Nazianzene whose example alone being of so great authoritie might spread it much though I pray remember who as saies Nicephorus Calistus it was that brought it first into the publick Liturgie Object It is not possible that any materiall point of Christian Faith can be changed as it were by obreption whilst men are on sleep but it must needs raise a great scandall and tumult For suppose the Apostles had taught the world it were Idolatry to pray to Saints or use reverence to their Pictures how can we imagine this honour brought in but by a vehement conflict and tumult in a people which did so greatly abhorre Idolatry as the Apostles and Disciples did Resp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I spoke cheiflie not of changing a point of Faith but of creating one not of contradicting a doctrine delivered from the Apostles but of introducing one of which they were wholly silent either as theirs at first as yee must say Pappias did or onely as True till being rooted and spread it be beleeved Apostolicall upon Tertullian's Argument that else how could so many Churches errare in unam fidem erre into the same beleife which because lesse time had then been allowed error to disperse it selfe in was then though no concluding proofe yet a better then it was the next Age and so still grew the worse for the wearing till now it is worth just nothing But as Himerius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say t is most easie to answer that which is not imputed for I am so farre from saying that the Apostles taught these two things to be Idolatrie since on my Conscience they spake not of them directlie at all that I my selfe will not say they are For Prayer to Saints set aside your Idolatrie-like Expressions seeming to beg that of them which you professe you meane onely to have them beg for you I suppose the Question to be but this whether they heare us or no which Martyrs might possiblie doe and yet no other how holy and canoniz'd soever because many Fathers held that none else see God yet If they doe I beleeve you may as well or better because you are more sure of their being in favour with God desire them to intercede for you as you may desire the Prayers of any living Friend but if they doe not then I will not say in Chrysostomes phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Thunder-bolts doth it not deserve but how unreasonable is it to cast men out of the Church and send them out of the world for not assenting to an opinion which you cannot prove For reverence to the Pictures of Saints if you meane onely some outward civill respect to testifie the great honour and love which you beare the Prototypes It is I beleeve no more Idolatrie then keeping off our hats in the Presence-Chamber to the Cloth of Estate Yet this I am so farre from esteeming necessarie that I thinke they had better never come in then have occasion'd so much un-christian turmoile about so indifferent a thing The first and purest Ages did well enough without these Pictures we heare onely of a Parabolicall one of Christ in a Chalice after they came to be made Tertul. after to be set in Churches after to be prayed before nay at last they are come to so great an excesse that not onely against Scripture but all Antiquitie they are now come to picture God the Father himselfe Upon a Popes Letter to an Emperour wherein he defends the picturing of Saints and Christ and speakes improbablie of the Antiquitie of their Pictures and addes the reason why they pictured not God the Father Baronius saies in the Margent Yet it hath after happened that they pictured him as he hath appeared a way which the Church of that time could easily have found out had they thought it lawfull as it is plaine Saint Austine did not De fide Symb. unlesse Nefas est be an Approbation This alone may serve to shew that beleifes may come in even contrarie to that of former time and yet we not know when they entered unlesse you will oppose a superficiall reason that a thing cannot be to a plaine example that it is and force me to answer with Barlaam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you tell me it is impossible for him to die whose Corse I look upon Object We remember in a manner as yet how change came into Germanie France Scotland and our own Country let these be a signe to us what we may think can be the creeping in of false doctrine Resp This is but a continuance of the same Paralogisme For at this time in these places a setled Religion being contradicted the case is very different from an Opinions prevailing in the mindes of men when they were yet white Paper and not filled with any doctrine to the contrarie either because though once the contrarie had been taught yet it had slept a good while or because nothing had before been spoken concerning it We know that nothing makes Noise but Opposition and Resistance and if that be not much it will not last long and the memorie of it as little Besides most of these points making for the power and wealth of the Clergie you must not expect that there should have been as great an out-crie and hubbub when they were introduced at first as when expelled after long prevailing it being a worke both more short easie and secret to plant an Acorne then to cut down or remove an Oake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although those men which governe the rest were not in this case so much interessed Object There is no point of doctrine contrary to the Catholicke Church rooted in any Christian Nation that the Ecclesiasticall History doth not mention the times and combats by which it entered and tore the Church in peices Resp The combats wherein it tore the Church peradventure it doth but of the times wherein many entered they are altogether silent All take notice of Arrius his words when by reason of Alexander's hot opposition there grew divisions but of what the Orthodox-counted Authors which we have before the Councell of Nice said though aske Perron and he will tell you how like Arrianisme they look no Ecclesiasticall Historie makes any mention because they made no bounce like the other and so
we have concerning an absolute generall consent a thousand years agoe And of this France may as well be an example as England wherein many called Cassandrians dissent from the publiquely received Doctrines though with so little stirr that our Posterity will not know that there now are such So that all which any man can answer to this Question is that such a one was the first that he knowes of who taught such a Doctrine and such a time the first wherein he knowes not that any contradicted it or that your Church defines it for a necessary opinion and exacted assent to it as a condition of their Communion which answer will be nearer to Truth or Falshood according to the measure of the answerers learning And indeed if you please to remember that when learning rose againe and the Reformation began most Manuscripts of considerable Books had long layn unreguarded by the generallity in Popish Libraries and out of them onely had some few been Printed you must confesse that it was in the power of your Church what answer we should be able to make to that Question which you propose which then it is no-wonder if it were not answered for your willingnesse to keep men in darknesse concerning this even in times of most light is to be seen by your expurgatory Indexes For there though you professe to meddle with none but Moderne Authors whereas it is plaine you go as high as Bertram yet both that will serve to deceive our posterity concerning the generall opinions of these times and if your Church in former Ages used any course somewhat Analogicall to this upon those Authors who then were moderne too as likely enough they did or you have cause to hope they did for your more justification then how can I know when any opinion entered that is either first was at all or first by all taught since in all times how little mention soever be made of it there may have been some Doctors of that opinion though either no Authors or allthough Authors yet by this Stratageme may be kept from us Neither indeed can you answer this Question your self for you know not in what Year or Age did either the giving the Eucharist to Infants begin or end at least Saint Austine knew not the first who believed it an Apostolical Tradition Neither was this a bare Custome but implyed an opinion of good which Children received which the change shewes plainely to have altered and certainely either the first opinion was a Superstition or the latter a Sacriledge But howsoever your Consequence followes not for though your Church conspired and deceived their Posterity yet it might not conspire to deceive their Posterity but to instruct it being themselves deceived And therefore when you reckon up the Motives which men have to speak false I wonder to see Hopes and Feares put in and error left out Object It is Gods course deeplier to root and strengthen those things which he would have most flourish Now Christians know that he made mankind for his Elect the world for mankind and therefore he hath rooted those things which more immediately belong to his Elect as his Church Faith and Holy Spirit in it then the principles either of mans nature or of the world which was made for it himselfe assuring us of it when he told us That one tittle should not perish of the holy Writ though Heaven and Earth should be dissolved and so seeing the latter principle relyeth upon the not failing of God to his Church which should ever watch upon their actions that nothing should creepe into Christian life which presently the zeale of the faithfull should not startle at I thinke it needlesse to seeke further to qualifie the strength of that part which receiveth it from the quality of so good a workman as the Holy Ghost Resp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I must therefore observe that this word Church hath so many significations even among your selves that it seldome comes into the mouth of a Romane Arguer but there comes withall foure Termes into his Sillogisme I could wish therefore that you would still set downe your Definition of it and put that instead of the word Church into what you say least what your late Graecian Defender Cariophilus saies of Hereticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they delight in doubtfull expressions may seem more properly to belong to you Certainlie in some sence the Elect are Gods Church and in that sence the Church belongs not to his Elect but is it neither indeed know I define it as you please how it doth since you confesse that men may oppose any companie of men whomsoever you will call the Church without being obstinate or consequentlie by heresie excluded from Heaven and so may for all that be elected Neither indeed know I how God hath made mankinde for his Elect It is true that having elected those who shall persevere in Faith and Obedience and given man Free-will which joyned with Grace universallie offered might bring him to the condition and in that to election and by that to Heaven God may be said to have made mankinde for his elect that is to be his elect if they shut not themselves out of the way to be so And all men especiallie Christians I beleeve have and alwaies shall have meanes enough to performe these conditions in such a measure all things considered I meane either naturall defects as in Ideots never having heard of Christ as in many Pagans not having Christs will sufficientlie proposed as in many Christians and whosoever is not by some fault in his will hindered from assenting to him it is not proposed sufficientlie as shall by God be from them required But this hinders not but that all Christians may see what they should if they stand not in their own light or wilfullie winke and if they neglect Christs Instructions or Commands and make themselves deafe against his voice charme he never so wiselie they then may fall from necessarie Truths much more from others unto error as well as from good life into wickednesse from which without question Gods Spirit is as readie to keep men that will be kept as from the other and which is no lesse if not more part of the conditions required for in that epitomie which Christ hath given us of the day of judgement men are onely mentioned to be punished for want of Charitie and not mis-interpretations of doctrine though I grieve to see so many of all parts whereof I am too much one live as if God were so obliged to them for their Faith that he were bound to winke upon their workes and not to be an Idolater or not a Heretick were enough not to be damned And certainlie to say That one tittle of Gods Word shall not passe away is not to say that God will keepe here alwaies a knowne companie of men to teach us all Divine Truths which from them because of their authoritie we may without more
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
hath Father and Mother Brothers Sisters Kinsfolkes and Allies Neighbours and Country-men anciently called Cives and Concives and of these are made his Country So in the Church finds he in way to spirituall Instruction and Education all these digrees nearer and further off till he come unto that furthermost of Christ his Vicar and as he in his Country finds Bearing Breeding Settling in Estates and Fortunes and lastly Protection and Security So likewise in the way of Christianity doth he find this much more fully in the Church So that if it be true that a man oweth more to his Master then to his Father Bene esse is better then esse certainly a man also as farr as Church and Country can be separated must owe more to the Church then to his very Country Wherefore the Power which the Church hath to Command and instruct is greater then the Power of the Temporall Community of which he is part Resp I wish you would have set down these words of Christ so often repeated to his Apostles in which Power to the Church I mean such a one as yours pretends is undoubtedly given For my Part Truely I remember none For I suppose not that the Power given to the Apostles can reasonably be claimed by any Society of men now no not though you should extend the Definition as largely as Erasmus who saies Ecclesiam voco totius Populi Christiani concensum I call the Church the Consent of the whole Christian People unlesse that be meant too in all Ages and so the Apostles would come in They were so signed and sealed to as I may say from Heaven by having most conversed with Christ and been most beloved by him and chosen especially to teach the World his Will that it is impossible any men could be indeed Christians and not receive their Doctrine as that of Christ without any other Proofe but there is no other Church that hath such a Priviledge The Power of proposing she hath and so have you and without Question if you can convince any Christian that what you said Christ said first he is bound both to believe and obey it and againe let all Churches joyne in proposall yet till he be so convinced unlesse his own fault hinder it it binds him not neither is it sufficiently proposed allowing it true which it is not alwaies necessary that it should be although so attested For as a Naturall Foole is not bound to obey any Doctrine or Precept taught or imposed by God himself because his understanding cannot discover it to be so so in my opinion whose understanding soever is not convinc'd of the same how plain soever to others the thing be he is for as much as concernes this point in the state of a Naturall Foole and no more to be condemned Neither see I what you prove out of the Proportion between the Church and every mans Country for if any Church be intended by God to be so our Director that her propositions are to be received because they are hers then indeed we owe her much more obedience then to our Country which if it should require of us to believe an opinion true because that hath defined it I believe no man would obey and he who should press us to it would be accounted so mad that we should send him not to a Doctor of Divinity but to a Doctor of Physick to be confuted And that any Church is so intended appeares not at all by this proposition since the same is even amongst the Church of the Turkes which is Ecclesia malignantium for there they find their Metaphoricall Fathers Mothers Brothers Sisters Kinsfolks Allies Neighbours which all Hereticks do too among themselves all these degrees neerer and further of till at last they come to that furthermost of being united under the Universall Government of Mahomets Vicar the Mufty But to them you would say that this proves not Truth but at most Concord and that is Factio inter Malos which is Amicitia inter Bonos Salust therefore the same we answer you since Pyrats and Theeves have as strict bonds among themselves as the honestest persons and often gerater conspiracies and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to destroy these then they make to defend themselves And whereas you say that we owe more gratitude and obedience to the Church then to our Country I have told you that this may be true without owing obedience to all she teaches But yet even this in some sence is True To the generall Tradition of Christians of the first Ages who lived with the Apostles and could not in any likelyhood but know their writings I owe the knowledge of the Scripture and to that the knowledge of Gods will and to that Heaven if I conforme carefully to it both my Life and my Beliefe and to the Church in this sence I owe both as much gratitude as you please and believe whatsoever this as generally witnesseth to have received from the Apostles But this concerning any present Church doth as little concerne your present purpose For let us mean by the Church that company of men which hath kept Tradition wholly uncorrupted and suppose there is such a one yet to know that she hath done so I must examine her Doctrine and compare it either with Scripture or the first Antiquity and so rather receive her for it then it for her Besides that the whole Church teaches nothing and if she did yet by the same waies from any single learned Orthodox man I may receive the same instruction to whose commands neverthelesse except when he delivers Gods I owe no obedience Thus too when the Orthodox company commands as they are Orthodox that is something of the will of God then they are to be obeyed and so am I and so againe when the chosen governours for that purpose command indifferent Things but if they exceed their Commission in commanding no man is longer bound to obey no more then if a Mayor of a Town should command the People to make his Hay they were bound to obedience since commanding more then his Magistracy authorizeth him he in that case is no Magisttate Object This Church can satisfie both learned and unlearned For in matters of Faith above the reach of learning whose spring is from what Christ and his Apostles taught what learned man can refuse in his inmost soule to bow to that which is testified by so great a multitude to have come from Christ and what unlearned man can require more for his faith then to be taught by a Mistresse of so many prerogaives and advantages above all others Resp The learned cannot reasonablie be satisfied with this especiallie so farre forth as to beleeve it infalliblie true First because they see great multitudes have and doe testifie contrarie things Secondlie because they must have observed with Salmeron Tom. 13. Pag 468. that a multitude of some opinion may proceed from some one Doctor especiallie if he be
onely everlasting Note of the true Church but onely the Truth whensoever she appeares Thus as the Priests of Apollo therefore peradventure called Loxias used to spread lies and secure his reputation the first by the antiquity and the second by the darknesse of his Oracles so doth your Religion gaine upon many men and secure her seflf rom many objections by the manyfold acceptions and consequently difficulty of this tearme Church For whatsoever is said in Scripture concerning her being free from all spot or prevailing against the gates of Hell or their danger who resist her the first meant as I believe and the place denies not by any circumstance of the Church Triumphant the second of the Church of the Elect and the third of the Professors of Christianity in generall or at most of those who are in all necessary points Orthodox among them That they without sufficient proofe resolve to be spoken of the Church in their sence they have fancied That is some ever known body of Christians which must be still guide to the rest and then claime to be that because no other all else being more ingenious claimes it besides themselves whereas if considering that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Oraculous truth of my great Lord Bacon's observation that unlesse men in the beginning of their disputes agree about the meaning of their tearmes they must end about words where they ought to have begun they had marked what other sence these words were capable of for if it will here beare another then this cannot hence be concluded but by leave they would then soon have seen the weaknesse of their building by the slightnesse of their foundation Againe they prevaile much by working upon mens assents by the meanes of their modesties and presse it to be an intollerable pride to oppose their opinions to the consent of the Catholick Church whereas if it be weighed how small a part of it they mean by that word and yet of them how many follow blindly the decrees of one and how soon those prevaile against that few not backed by any power who do not it will then appeare that not onely other Churches but even a John or a Thomas have as much reason to be lead by their own understandings as by the opinions and decrees of and Vrban or a Gregory upon which that consent is so often founded And as they make their advantage of this word in their offensive warres so do they in their defensive for when they are press'd unto the absurdity of their Tenets then though indeed they be generall yet they pretend that they are the opinions but of private though many men and not of the Church and againe when any Fathers who yet sometimes they say are wholly theirs are shewed to contradict some of their Doctrines so plainely that none of those subterfuges which in one of their expurgatory Indexes they confesse they often use will serve to palliate it then they strive to scape by answering that the Church had not then defined it whereas if it be examined how farre they consent about what is the Church and what are her Definitions whereof they are not yet agreed for some say she hath defined what others say she hath not this onely will be certainlie found that it never can be certainlie found what are her opinions of any point or when she hath declared her selfe As besides manie other Arguments some press'd by my selfe and others by other Pens more fit to treat of so weightie a matter appeares by your refusing to leave your Latibula and declare plainlie your opinion concerning it which if you saw defensible and you were all agreed about it you would quicklie have done and not incurred the reprehension of that Axiome which teacheth that Dolosus versatur in generalibus which makes me thinke that if this were generallie enough mark'd you would no longer be able to dazle any mans eyes with the splendid title of Sonnes to the Catholique Church as Alexander hoped to doe those of the Barbarians with stiling himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sonne of Jupiter although indeed he was so much the more moderate then the second as never to denie that any other could be Sonne to the same Father whereas you will not allow that any may have interest in your Mother besides your selves To conclude this Paragraph give me leave to aske one question and that is how your saying that Truth is more easie to finde now then in the Fathers times will agree either with the way which you say is the onely Catholique one to finde Truth by for sure such a Tradition was alwaies equallie easie to finde and if the first ages had erred in it we must of necessitie following your advice have followed their error too or with the saying of so many of your side that if I should reckon them up I should make a Catalogue of Authors equall to those of Photius or Gesner or Possevine who all joyne that Truth was most likelie to be most certainlie known that time which was in Campians words Christo propior ab hac lite remotior neerer to Christ and consequentlie to Tradition and to which for that cause all thinke fit to appeale against us or with that custome of your Church which suffers none to take Orders before they have vowed to interpret Scriptures according to the Fathers which if men now adaies be more likelie to find the Truth then at that time they were as they must be if truth in this age be more easie to be found whether through greater abundance of Compilers or what else soever then this Vow is as much as if they had vowed to leave the best way of Interpretation and teaching to follow the worst Resp As for the two points he saith avert him from Catholique doctrine I am mistaken if he be not mistaken in both The first is that the Catholiques doe damne all who are not in the Union of their Church He thinkes the sentence hard yet I thinke he will not deny me this that if any Church does not say so it cannot be the true Church For call the Church what you will the Congregation of the Elect the Congregation of the Faithfull the Congregation of Saints or Just call it I say or define it what you will doth it not clearly follow that whosoever is out of the Church cannot be saved for he shall not be the Elect Just Faithfull c. without which there is no salvation How then can any Church maintain these two Propositious I am the true Church and yet one may be saved without being in me Repl. This is by your favour a meere Paralogisme for though those who define the Church by qualities which both Parts agree to be the conditionall Keyes to the Kingdome of Heaven must needs affirme that none out of the Church can be saved yet what is this to them who meane by the Church the Companie of the Orthodox in all points
and by them your selves out of which allowing that there be such a one which I doubt of and that to be yours I shall beleeve that some may be saved till I see some more cause to thinke all error in Religion alwaies damnable which it is plaine by what after you say that you thinke not your selfe and the Church taken in this sence which is your sence may maintaine both Propositions or to shew you how much what you say would make against your selfe thus I argue The true Church must hold that none can be saved out of her but your Church denies not but that some out of her may be saved therefore yours is not the Church My Major is included in your own saying that those two Propositions are not maintainable together My Minor though false yet is also your confession where you say that the Churches Proposition is not so cruell as it seemes though the words be rough and therefore so ought you to make my conclusion too Besides those who exclude all from Salvation who are out of the Church in the other sence meaning by it the Elect as they are not like them in the wrong so they are not occasion of much harme like them who stiling the Church a companie of men of such a beleife and under such a government affirme an impossibilitie of being saved out of it for they giving no visible signe of who is in the Church for who can know the Elect but the Electer cause no want of Charitie nor frequencie of Warre and persecutions by it as the others doe who having made first a visible partition least those who are out of it may draw others out too they send them out of the world by way of prevention Resp But per adventure he is scandalized that the Catholick Church requireth actuall Communion externall with her which he thinketh may in some case be wanting without detriment of Salvation But how would he have the Church speake which speaketh in common but abstracting from such particular cases as may change wholly the Nature of the Question Repl. I am scandalized not because you require to Salvation joining with you in Communion but because also you require joyning with you in opinions and if it were onely this yet am not I any whit satisfied with what you say for it for with the true Church that is the Commpany of true believers in points any way materiall or rather the truest I conceive it not damnation sometimes not to communicate For if they have any never so slight errors and which appeares so to me which yet they will force me to subscribe to if I Communicate with them my assent would be damnable or if they require the same subscription to some truths which yet after my reall indeavours in inquiry appear errors to me I doubt not but my refusall is no way damnable Neither can I absolve your Church concerning this her saying for your reason because she speakes in generall wholly abstracting from particulars which change the nature of the Question for why doth she so why doth she not expresse her exceptions or at least tell us that the rule is not so generall but that it will beare some and not make men who know not that she intends to restraine at all what she so absolutely pronounceth and who will find no cause to take your bare word for her intentions many times at least to hate them as Gods enemies whom he loves as his friends and beleeve them to fry in Hell who shine in Heaven Howsoever if she use to expresse herself in rougher words then her meaning is how apt may she be to be mistaken in severall of her resolutions and consequently how easie is it for some age to have misunderstood the past and deceive the following Neither do I like your example because that is not to differ from the Church but to mistake her meaning though even he who should denie that there were three Gods if he thought that by the Trinitie your Church so meant must consequently think her not infallible and so by your grounds be consequently a Heretick Resp The current of Catholick Doctors that no man shall be damned for infidelity but he who doth wilfully misbeleeve and that to do so it is required that Faith be sufficiently proposed unto him and what is to be sufficiently proposed is not determined amongst them There wanteth not Divines who teach that even ignorantia affectata doth excuse from Heresie On the other side it is most certaine that no man is damned for not professing what he is not damned for not believing Wherefore profession being that which engrafteth a man exteriorly in the Church according unto the ordinary opinions of the Catholicks it followeth that no man is condemned for not being of the Church who is not for infidelity for which it is a very uncertaine Case who be damned and who be not Repl. As the King of Spaine after long calling the Hollanders Rebels at last for his own sake descended to treat with them as free States so those of your Religion when they hope to gaine a Proselite thunder out to him crudelity and without any of these Mollifications which you now use that extra Ecclesiam Romanam nulla est salus there is no salvation out of the Roman Church And Master Knot peremptorily avers that no Catholick of an entire fame ever taught that a Protestant so dying could be saved yet when they are press'd with the consequences they can as it seems vouchsafe to give us better words and find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enough to soften this opinion though such as bring them more disadvantage in other considerations then help in this For first as before it seemed that you are not fully agreed either about the authority of the councels or what constitutes the Church by your avoiding to speak concerning it so now it seemes that neither are you resolved of what constitutes an Heretick and then what remaines there for you to know if what you account infallible and what damnable be yet both uncertaine to you Secondly Since you confesse none to be a Heretique but he to whom the truth is sufficiently proposed and when that is you are not resolved what a more then Sythian Barbarousnesse is it to make a coale of a Christian onely upon suspicion of Heresie especially since the Pagans themselves had Christian Charity enough to perswade them that it was much better that a guilty person should escape then an innocent be punished much more should you rather suffer the tares to grow then venture to pluck up the corne with it and beleeve the best when the truth lies hid in a place so hard to search into as is the heart of man into which as none entered the Sanctum Sanctorum but the High Priest God onelie can have admittance Resp The other point was of putting Hereticks to death which I think he understandeth to be done vindicatively not medicinally I
Repl. I believe your memory deceives you in this which you have cause to hope it doth for else the Church of Rome differs from that of Saint Gregories times it being now with her a judged case that Infidels may not be compelled to the Faith as I am told is shewed by Valentia Saint Thomas Hartado and others the Church having no power over those who are out of it and therefore they please to say that like them who among the Romans were onely Cives ad oncra liable to the taxes of Citizens without Interest in their Priviledges Baptisme hath made us of the Church enough to be liable to her Punishments though not to be benefitted by her Communion Though indeed the same cause why you would have Hereticks put to death for feare of harming others with their opinions me thinks should extend to their punishment too unlesse you believe us to be as bad as Malefactors and not them or that their opinions are so irrationall as not likely to spread and ours so reasonable that against them the sword is the best shield and therefore as Brennus did his you put that into the scales for want of weight it being of giving Reasons as the Poet saith it is of giving Requitalls Irasci quam donari vilius constat Another reason which perswades me that you are mistaken in what you say of Gregory as this mistake facilitates my beliefe that you are so about Austines too is that Bede tells that some Romanists having converted the King of Kent that King did not yet force any to become Christians for saith he he had learned of these his Masters that the service of Christ WHICH REASON EXTENDS FARTHER THEN TO PAGANS must be voluntary and not forced Now if these received what they taught from Gregory as you often tell us then either he did not as you often say or thought that unlawfull which himself did And howsoever this Custome hath encreased since is very unconsiderable for unlesse it have its authority explicitely or implicitely from the Apostles it can give none since and unlesse it be proved to be well done at first no continuance can give this or any other action more justification then at first it had Resp Moses speech I believe is mistaken the force of it being that the banishment of Bishops shewed his faith because the banished were Catholickes which shewed Lucius to be none Repl. If Moses had meant as you would have him he should not have said onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not indefinitelie the banishing of Bishops but the banishing of Orthodox Bishops the leaving therefore of that out wherein according to you the whole sence of his Argument lay seemes to me plainlie enough to shew that he meant what they and you denie especiallie he adding as you may see in Zozomon their being punish'd by labour as well as punishment and then saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which things are whollie abhorring from Christ and all right Beleevers concerning God and in Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Gods servant ought not to fight for so he counted to punish Resp But what can be said if the Church useth that for the prevention of a greater and more dangerous evill which all politique Estates use for the remedies of lesse and tesse dangerous evils and are commanded for it For if Faith be the way to Salvation and Heresie be the bane of Faith if Salvation the greatest good then the danger of a Countries being over-runne with Heresie is the greatest of dangers greater then the multiplicity of Theeves greater then the unsurety of the wayes greater then a Plague or Invasion why then doth not reason force us to use meanes to prevent it which the same reason and experience teacheth us to be most efficacious in this and all other contagious and gangrening maladies of the Common-wealth I hope reason it selfe and the zeale of the Author to his own and Countries salvation will supply my shortnesse in this point for supposing a Church be assured she is in the right and that the doctrine preach'd as then leadeth to damnation I know not why Caiphas his words should not be propheticall in this case and that truly it doth expedire that Unus moriatur pro populo non tota gens pereat Repl. I wish heartilie you were as good a Caterer as a Cooke I meane that you brought as good reasons as you dresse artificiallie what you bring For I finde there is in your words a verie notable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to steale a man into your opinion before he hath askt himselfe why but if he stay to doe so then all your excellent embroiderie will not keepe him from discerning manie bracks in your stuffe To prove which I will bring many reasons besides what I have taught alreadie by which it shall I hope appeare why those whom you call Hereticks should not be put to death although Malefactors may although even the lawfulnesse of that since other punishments which would not shorten their time of repentance might peradventure serve to represse them is not absolutelie certaine First Malefactors plainlie offend against their Consciences at least thinke not themselves bound by them to commit their villanies neither pretend they otherwise which they whom you call Hereticks either bona fide follow or doe for ought at least you can know Secondlie What are Malefices must be known bef re Malefa ors and Heresies before Hereticks now of the first Mankinde agrees but of the second but you onely a small part of Christians and yet you differ too about the waies of knowing them and consequentlie whether some things be Heresies or no as for example whether the Oath of Alleagiance containe any wherein since some of you are deceived me thinkes it should incline you to thinke it not impossible for you all to doe so in what you all agree to be such Thirdlie Malefactors are not or should not be punished for such without a plaine knowledge that such they are but although there were an impossibilitie of mistaking what is Heresie yet there is no possibilitie of knowing who are Hereticks the forme of which is obstinacie a secret and to man an undiscoverable qualitie whom he onelie should punish who onelie knowes Fourthlie Malefactors are certaine to hurt others whereas neither are Heretickes sure to perswace any and if they doe yet they may hurt none since who receives their beleife bona fide and through meer error is unharmed by it Fifthlie Whom they doe harme it must be brough their own fault and by their own consent whereas without either the Malefactors are cause of much mischiefe even to the most guiltlesse Sixthlie Malefactors passing whollie unâ—â—nish'd peradventure not put to death would â—ring a certaine destruction to the state which temporall Magistrates are appointed to watch over which yet in speculative opinions is not concerned Seventhly The punishment even by death of Malefactors brings not any
there is some such Guide and Judge required since sure you receive not that upon its own authoritie and if men may find the necessitie of a Guide and Judge without any Guide or Judge and remain in Unitie about that why may they not also about whatsoever is clearly taught by God which reason assures us to be all that is necessarie and if you say that all things necessarie are not clearlie taught because we do not though it proves not that we might not agree upon them then I replie that I may as well say that neither is it cleare that there is a Guide because we dissent from you in it although receiving the authoritie of the Scripture out of which Cardinall Perron confesseth that Saint Austine saith that both the necessitie of your guide the Church and she her self are to be known and reason which as they may be plain in this point for you and yet perswade us not so may they be in all necessarie points and yet we who make theirs our ground not perswade one another As little see I why there can be no Entitie nor Church where there is no Unitie For the first though there be small Unitie among Christians yet certainly Christians and their Religion have some Entitie indeed if what you say were true there were no Entitie in yours For the second I know not why two parties over-valuing their differences may not conceive each other to be none of the Church and so declare even by excommunications and yet remain both Parts of it for if a Husband misse-suspecting his Wife of Adulterie declare her to be no longer his Wife this cannot make her give over being so if the bond be indeed not broken as well as Chrysostome and Epiphanius both excommunicated by each other and yet both Saints or as particular men may by your own confession be interiorly in the Church although seeming out of it even to the Church her self and so those be both of the Church between whom there is no Unity For not onely in your own Cariophilus his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also though the persons have power yet if the cause have not sufficiencie I take you to agree that an excommunication is but a brutum fulem as Victors of the Asian Bishops The best therefore and strictest definition and which I think you will not refute which I can give for the Church is especially in that sence as out of it there can be no salvation those who are desirous to know Gods Will or Christs at the strictest for I am not certaine nor I beleeve is it defined among you whether an explicite knowledge of Christ be absolutely necessarie to Salvation though I know no guiltlesse ignorance of him can bring unavoidably upon any man eternall torments and ready when known to beleeve and follow it and sure many of these may eternally disagree even in points which are necessarie abstracting from particular cases and yet their differences not exclude them from the Church and consequentlie a Church may be without Unitie Quod erat demonstrandum Resp Now for the Controversies mentioned besides that there is a meanes to terminate them they be such as bring no breach of the ancient life and action of Christians which all those opinions do which for the most part are reputed to make Hereticks Repl. You saw verie well that if no Unitie no Church were a true Proposition yours hath in it differencies enough to destroy its being a Church and therefore are faine to applie what salves you can but all in vaine For your meanes to terminate them doth not make them not to be before they are terminated and consequently by your Rule yours is no Church till then Besides their bringing to breach of the ancient life and action of Christians proves not but one of them may be a Heresie since you say not your selfe that all Heresies are such but onelie for the most part and indeed to prove that you must be able to set down what those opinions are which before a definition may make a Heretick which I beleeve you will not venture to doe in haste though we much desire it at your hands that we may know if none of them be such Resp That some controversies amongst us are not resolved is a thing necessarie amongst humane affaires where things must have a time to be born to encrease to fall and the greater things are the greater is their Period Repl. It is true that some time to be taken notice of must passe between an opinions rising and being condemned but that so long they should run on and many of your Councels having since been held is sure not necessarie and shewes that you esteem not Unitie so necessarie as you pretend some opinions I am sure you can soon enough quash as that not long since risen in Spaine concerning Fornication being but a Veniall Sin And whereas you say the greater things are the greater their period though this be ture in some things yet not in this for sure the greater a difference is the greater necessitie is there that it be soon decided and so if your decision have power to effect it as you pretend among you it hath it must fall as soon as it is born like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Creatures that live but a day Resp Wherefore I do not see why this may hurt the Church more then the suits which hang in our Courts prejudice the government of the Land Repl. If any of these opinions be of that importance as that though uncondemn'd the Holders are Hereticks as some may be and my definition being concluded of such among you some of these may be some of them then sure they hurt the Church much and more then the Suites hurt the Government which their hanging hurts not at all though it hurts sometimes unavoidablie the Parties But if where there is no Unitie there were no Common-wealth as you say where there is no Unitie there can be no Church then the Government were much prejudic'd by the Suits as your Church by this rule is made no Church by the differences And indeed if men were not agreed about the power of the Governours as you are not about some of your questions it must be a maime to the government of any Common-wealth as consequentlie these are to the goverment of your Church Resp The last point of the Authors discourse is to shew how errors might have crept in wherein I shall have no opposition with him for I doe not thinke the question is how they should creep in but how they should be kept out Repl. Here Sir I cannot but beleeve that you intended to refresh your selfe with some Mirth as with Musicke between the Acts for though both our ends be that errors should not creep in yet the question was whether it were possible that they might creepe in and to my affirmative part it conduced to shew those waies by which either they