A view of some exceptions which have been made by a Romanist to the Ld Viscount Falkland's discourse Of the infallibility of the Church of Rome submitted to the censure of all sober Christians : together with the discourse itself of infallibility prefixt to it. Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A45471 of text R15560 in the English Short Title Catalog (Wing H610). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 543 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 104 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2018 A45471 Wing H610 ESTC R15560 12158757 ocm 12158757 55236 2248544765

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A45471) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 55236) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 600:9) A view of some exceptions which have been made by a Romanist to the Ld Viscount Falkland's discourse Of the infallibility of the Church of Rome submitted to the censure of all sober Christians : together with the discourse itself of infallibility prefixt to it. Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643. Of the infallibility of the Church of Rome. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A45471 of text R15560 in the English Short Title Catalog (Wing H610). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread [6], 200 p. Printed by J.G. for R. Royston ..., London : 1650. Reproduction of original in the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign Campus). Library. eng Catholic Church -- Infallibility. eebo A view of some exceptions which have been made by a Romanist to the Ld Viscount Falkland's discourse Of the infallibility of the Church of Rome. Submi Hammond, Henry, 1650 207 95691 462 0 0 0 0 0 48.28 D The rate of 48.28 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the D category of texts with between 35 and 100 defects per 10,000 words. 2005-12 Assigned for keying and markup 2006-05 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-06 Sampled and proofread 2006-06 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

A view of some EXCEPTIONS Which have been made BY A ROMANIST TO The L D Viscount FALKLAND'S DISCOURSE Of the INFALLIBILITY of the CHVRCH of ROME . Submitted to the Censure of all sober Christians . Together with The Discourse it self of Infallibility prefixt to it .

The second Edition newly corrected .

LONDON . Printed by J. G. for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane . M.DC.L .

To the READER .

THE Length and quality of this insuing trouble will seem to have been given the Reader somewhat impertinently , if a brief account be not first rendred of the occasion thereof .

The sad effects of the present differences , and divisions of this broken Kingdome , having made peace , and unity , and infallibility , such pretious desireable things , that if there were but one wish offered to each man among us , it would certainly , with a full consent , be laid out on this one treasure , the setting up some Catholick Umpire , or Daies-man , some visible , infallible Definer of Controversies ; the Pretenders to that Infallibility , having the luck to be alone in that pretension , have been lookt on with some reverence , and ( by those who knew nothing of their grounds , or arguments ) acknowledged to speake , if not true , yet seasonably ; and having so great an advantage upon their Auditors ( their inclinations , and their wishes to finde themselves overcome , going along with every argument that should be brought them ) and so a faire probable entrance , by that inlet of their affections , to their minds , they began to redouble their industry , and their hopes , and instead of the many particulars of the Romish doctrine , which they were wont to offer proofe for in the retaile , now to set all their strength upon this one in grosse , and by the compendiousnesse of that course to expect a more easie reception , then formerly they had met with ; the very gaines , and conveniences , that attend this doctrine of theirs , if it were true , being to flesh and blood ( which all men have not the skill of putting off ) mighty Topicks of probability that it is so .

To discover the danger of this sweet potion , or rather , to shew how farre it is from being what it it pretends , and so to exchange the specious for the sound , the made-dish for the substantiall food ( allowing the Universall Church the authority of an irrefragable testimony , and the present age of the Romish Church , as much of our beliefe , as it hath of conformity with the universall of all ages ) but not a priviledge of not being able to say false whatsoever it saith , and so to set us in the safer though longer way , thereby to whet our industry in the chase of truth , in stead of assuring our selves that we cannot erre ( which is not a vertue , but an excellency , not a grace to be crown'd , but a great part of the crowne it selfe , reserv'd for another world , a felicity , but not a duty ) this Discourse of the Lord Viscount Falkland's was long since designed ; as also to remove the great scandals , and obstacles , which have obstructed all way of hope to that universall aime of all true Christians , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Catholick harmony which Iamblicus talkes of in the spheares above , but would found better in this vault ( this arch to beare up those spheares ) the Church below , the Universall peace of Christendome ; for to this nothing is more unreconcileably contrary than pretensions to Infallibility in any part of it ; all such making it unlawfull either for themselves to mend , or others to be endured , shutting out all possibility either of compliance , or charity , or reformation in their owne , or mercy to other mens errours . What was thus by his Lordship designed in all justice , was by an intire lover of peace and truth published in all charity , to resist and check a threatning tempest , which rising from out present evils , was apt ( if it did not begin ) to shake some . The Printing of this Tract presently provoked an Assertor of that Infallibility , to take upon him the answering of it , and to complaine that an Answer which had been by the same hand given it formerly , was not permitted to attend it into publick . This then being a second Care , was probably to have arrived to a higher degree of perfection , and indeed among the Favourers of that pe●swasion , was cried up for so satisfactory a piece , that it was delivered to a Member of the Church of England , as unanswerable . From him it came to those hands , which returned it to the Authour with this ensuing Rejoynder , withall intimating , that since in his , he seemed to wish the same freedome of the Presse , which his Lordship had found , both the Answer and the Reply should be recommended thither , if he pleased .

After he had detained the Reply some weeks , he was pleased to returne it with a protestation , That he neither intended , nor would permit his to become publicke , pretending ( that I may give you his owne words ) his Treatise to have been no finish'd worke , but onely a first draught , or inchoation , ventured abroad , to explore the judgements op one of two intelligent Adversaries , that so the Authour by his second ( he might have said third ) thoughts , might be better able to understand , what was to be altered in it , what added or what taken a way , either as superfluous , or offensive , and till that act was done , and withall till an approbation and license given by those , to whom it belonged , neither the worke , nor any line of it , is to be acknowledged or vouched by the Authour . And so both were returned with some few alterations and additions in his Answer , and marginall Notes on the Reply , and one sheet at the end of them , containing a new Scheme of probation , of the pretended Infallibility , and a preloquium to it , wherein the passage just now mentioned , is interminis recited .

This the Replicant ( to avoid all appearance of severity ) was content to accept for sad earnest , and therefore freely exprest his willignesse to give the Authour leave to provide a new Answer to his Lordships-Treatise , which he might be willing to owne in publicke , which when he should doe , promise was made to prepare a speedy Answer thereunto , and on those termes to be content to lay aside the former .

That this should be done , was affirmed on one part , and on the other expected some months with patience , till at length the Answerers pleasure was made knowne , that that resolution was put off , and that in stead of so meane a combat either with his Lordship , or this Replicant , he was pleased now to designe a full discourse on that Subject , without taking notice of either , any farther , than he should thinke fit to take in his way any thing by them objected against his position , and that this should be printed beyond the Seas .

When this will be performed I cannot tell . Onely this is now discerned ( somewhat contrary to expectation ) that what hath been disclaimed by him , is extolled by others , and the weaknesse of the Replicant sufficiently despised ; Wherein though he hath not much temptation to thinke himself injured , being ready to acknowledge the emptynesse of these Papers ( and more then so , to render a reason of it , viz: the fate which they were under , by a necessity of attending this Apologist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which yeilded them occasion of little variety , unlesse they would extravagate . ) Yet could he not resist the Reasons which charged it on him as a duty , thus confidently to importune the Reader with the view of the whole matter , as farre as it hath past between them ; setting downe that Answer to , and this Vindication of his Lordships Arguments by Chapters , and then ( not doe him the least injustice ) adding in the end of all , the Answerers marginall Replyes , and that concluding Sheet ( that even now was mentioned ) with a Rejoynder to that also .

By all this , endeavouring to lay grounds , for all men to judge , how little truth there is in that so Epidemicall perswasion , that there is no middle , betwixt asserting an Infallible Judge , and the falling headlong into all the Schismes , and Haeresies of this present age .

My Conscience assuring me , that the grounds on which the establish'd Church of England is founded , are of so rare an excellent mixture , that as none but intelligent truely Christian minds can sufficiently value the composition , so there is no other in Europe , so likely to preserve Peace and Unity , if what prudent Lawes had so long agoe designed , they now were able to uphold ; For want of which and which onely it is , that at present the whole Fabricke lyes polluted in confusion and in blood , and hopes not for any binding up of wounds , for restauration of any thing , that lookes like Christian , till the faith of the reformed English have the happinesse to be weighed prudently , and the military Sword being timely sheathed , the Power and Lawes of Peace be returned into those hands , which are ordained by GOD the Defenders of it .

H. H.
Of the INFALLIBILITY of the CHURCH of ROME . A Discourse written by the Lord Viscount FALKLAND .

TO him that doubts whether the Church of Rome have any errors , they answer , that She hath none , for She never can have any . This being so much harder to believe than the first , had need be proved by some certaine arguments , if they expect that the belief of this one should draw on whatsoever else they please to propose : Yet this is offered to be proved by no better wayes than those by which we offer to prove she hath erred : Which are , arguments from Scripture , Reason , and Antient Writers ; all which , they say themselves , are fallible ; for nothing is not so , but the Church ; which if it be the onely infallible determination , and that can never be believed upon its owne authority , we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible : for these other waies of proof ( they say ) may deceive both them and us ; and so neither side is bound to believe them .

If they say , that an argument out of Scripture is sufficient ground of Divine faith , why are they so offended with the Protestants for believing every part of their Religion upon that ground , upon which they build all theirs at once ? and if following the same Rule with equall desire of finding the truth by it , ( having neither of those qualities , which Isidorus Pelusiota sayes , are the causes of all Heresies ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , pride and prejudication ) why should God be more offended with the one than the other , though they chance to erre ?

They say the Church is therefore made infallible by God , that all men may have some certain Guide ; yet though it be infallible , unlesse it both plainly appeare to be so , ( for it is not certaine to whom it doth not appeare certaine ) and unlesse it be manifest which is the Church , God hath not attained his end ; and it were to set a Ladder to Heaven , and seem to have a great care of my going up , whereas unlesse there be care taken that I may know this Ladder is here to that purpose , it were as good for me it had never been set .

If they say we may know it , for that generall and constant Tradition instructs us in it ; I answer , that ignorant people cannot know this , and so it can be no Rule for them ; and if learned people mistake in this , there can be no condemnation for them . For suppose to know , whether the Church of Rome may erre , ( as a way which will conclude against her , but not for her ; for if She hath erred , certainly She may , but though She hath not erred hitherto , it followes not that She cannot erre ) I seeke whether She have erred ; and conceiving She hath contradicted her selfe , conclude necessarily , She hath erred , I suppose it not damnable though I erre in my judgement : because I trie the Church by one of those touch-stones her self appoints me ; which is , Conformity with the Antient. For to say I am to believe the present Church that it differs not from the former , though it seem to me to doe so , is to send me to a Witnesse , and bid me not believe it .

Now to say the Church is provided for a Guide of faith , but must be known by such marks as the ignorant cannot seek it by , and the learned may chance not to find it by , though seeking it with all diligence , and without all prejudice , can no way satisfie me .

If they say , God will reveal the truth to whosoever seeks it in these wayes sincerely ; this saying both sides will ( without meanes of being confuted ) make use of ; therefore it would be as good that neither did .

When they have proved the Church to be infallible ; yet to my understanding they have proceeded nothing farther , unlesse we can be sure which is it ; for it signifies onely that God will alwaies have a Church which shall not erre ; but not that such or such a Succession shall be alwaies in the right ; not that the Bishop of such a place , and the Clergy that adheres to him , shall alwaies continue in the true faith . So that if they say the Greek Church is not the Church , because by its owne confession it is not infallible ; I answer , that it may be now the Church , and may hereafter erre , and so not be now infallible ; and yet the Church never erre , because before their fall from truth , others may arise to maintain it , who then will be the Church ; and so the Church may still be infallible ; though not in respect of any set persons whom we may know at all times for our Guide .

Then if they prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church , and not the Greeke , because their opinions are consonant either to Scripture or Antiquity , they run into a circle , proving their tenets to be true ; first , because the Church holds them , and then theirs to be the true Church , because it holds the truth : which last , though it appeare to me the onely way , yet it takes away it's being a Guide which we may follow without examination , without which , all they say besides is nothing .

Nay , suppose they had evinced , that some succession were infallible , and so had proved to a learned man that the Roman Church must be this , because none else pretends to it ; yet this can be no sufficient ground to the ignorant , who cannot have any infallible foundation for their beliefe , that the Church of Greece pretends not to the same ; and even to the Learned it is but an accidentall argument , because if any other company had likewise claimed to be infallible , it had overthrowne all so proved .

Nay , it is but an arbitrary Argument , and depends upon the pleasure of the adversary ; for , if any society of Christians would pretend to it , the Church of Rome could make use of it no longer .

The chiefest reason why they disallow of the Scripture for Judge , is , because when differences arise about the interpretation , there is no way to end them ; and that it will not stand with the goodnesse of God , to damne men for not following his will , if he had assigned no infallible way how to find it . I confesse this to be wonderfull true , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and let them excuse themselves that think otherwise . Yet this will be no argument against him , who believes that to all who follow their reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures , and search for Tradition , God will either give his grace for assistance to find the truth , or his pardon if they misse it : and then this supposed necessity of an infallible Guide , with this supposed damnation for want of it , fall together to the ground .

If they command us to believe infallibly the contrary to this , they are to prove it false by some infallible way , ( for the conclusion must be of the same nature , and not conclude more then the premisses set downe , ) now such a way , Scripture and Reason , or infused faith cannot be , ( for they use to object the fallibility of them to those that build their Religion upon them ) nor the Authority of the Church , for that is part of the question , and must be it selfe first proved , and that by none of the former waies , for the former reasons .

The Popes infallibility can be no infallible ground of faith , being it selfe no necessary part of the faith ; ( & we can be no surer of any thing proved , then we are of that which proves it ) and if he be fallible , no part is the more infallible for his sideing with them . So if the Church be divided , I have no way to know which is the true Church , but by searching which agrees with Scripture and Antiquity , and so judging accordingly . ( But this is not to submit my selfe to her opinions as my guide , which they tell us is necessary . ) Which course if they approve not of as a fit one for a Learned man , they are in a worse case for the ignorant , who can take no course at all , nor is the better at all , for this Guide , the Church ; whilest two parts dispute which is it , and that by arguments he understands not .

If I granted the Pope , or a Counsell by him called , to be infallible , yet I conceive their Decrees can be no sufficient ground ( by their owne axiomes ) of Divine faith . For first ( say the most ) No Councell is valid not approved by the Pope , ( for thus they overthrow that held at Ariminum ) & a Pope chosen by Symony is ipso facto no Pope . I can then have no certainer ground for the infallibility of those Decrees , and consequently for my beleife of them , then I have that the choice of him was neither directly nor indirectly Symoniacall ; which to be certain of , is absolutely impossible .

Secondly , suppose him Pope , and to have confirmed the Decrees ; yet that these are the Decrees of a Councell , or that he hath confirmed them ▪ I can have but an uncontradicted attestation of many men , ( for if another Councell should declare these to have been the Acts of a former Councell , I should need againe some certaine way of knowing how this declaration is a Councells ) which is no ground ( say they ) of faith , I am sure not so good and generall a one as that Tradition by which we prove that the Scripture is Scripture , which yet they will not allow any to be certaine of but from them .

Thirdly , for the sence of their Decrees , I can have no better expounder to follow then Reason ; which if , though I mistake , I shall not be damned for following , why shall I for mistaking the sence of Scripture ? Or why am I a lesse fit interpreter of one , then of the other , where both seeme equally cleare ? And where they seem so ( I meane equally cleare ) and yet contradictory , shall I not as soon believe Scripture , which is , without doubt , of at least as great authority ?

But I doubt whether Councells be fit deciders of Questions ; for such they cannot be , if they beget more , and men have cause to be in greater doubts afterwards ( none of the former being diminished ) then they were at first .

Now I conceive there arise so many out of this way , that the Learned cannot end all , nor the Ignorant know all . As ( besides the forenamed considerations ) Who is to call them , the Pope , or Kings : Who are to have voices in them ; Bishops only , or Priests also : Whether the Pope or Councell be Superiour ; and the last need the approbation of the first , debated among themselves : Whether any Countries not being called , or not being there ( as the Abissines , to great a part of Christianity , and not resolvedly condemned by them for Heretiques , were absent at the Councell of Trent ) make it not generall : Whether if it be one not every where received ( as when the Bishops sent from some places have exceeded their Commission , as in the Councell of Florence ) it be yet of necessity to be subscribed to : Whether there were any surreption used or force , and Whether those disanull the Acts : Whether the most voyces are to be held the Act of the Councell , or those of all are required , ( as Canus saith , All the Councell cannot erre , the most may ; which never yet agreed ) or Whether two parts will serve ( as in the Tridentine Synode , ) a considerable doubt , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Tom. 2. pa. 272. because Nicephorus Callistus relateing the resolution of a Councell at Rome against that of Ariminum makes them give three reasons . One , That the Bishop of Rome was not present . The second , That most did not agree to it . Thirdly , That others thither gathered were displeased at their resolutions : which proves , that in their opinions , if either most not present agree not to it , or , all present be not pleased with it , a Councell hath no power to bind . All these doubts , I say , perswade me that whatsoever brings with it so many new questions , can be no fit ender of the old .

In those things in which , before a Generall Councell have defined , it is lawfull to hold either way , and damnable to doe so after ; I desire to know how it agreeth with the Charity of the Church , to define any thing , and so bestow upon the Devil one path more for us to walke in to him ?

If the infallibility of a Generall Councell be a point of faith , I desire to know why it is so ? Scripture and Tradition seem to me not to say so : But if they did , so , I suppose , you will grant they do of this doctrine , [ That the soules of the blessed shall see God before the day of judgment , and not be kept in secret Receptacles : ] For , else the doctrine of prayer to Saints cannot stand : and yet for denying this , doth Bellarmine excuse Pope John 22. ( of which beliefe they know he was not alone ) because the Church ( he means , I doubt not , a Generall Councell ) had not then condemned it . I desire to know , why should not he be condemned as well without one as many Heretiques that are held so by their Church , yet condemned by no Generall Councell ? which if he makes to be the rule of Heresie , it had been happy to have lived before the Councell of Nice , when no opinion had been damnable , but some against the Apostles Councell at Hierusalem , because there had yet been no Generall Councell :

At least , why shall not I be excused by the same reason , though I believe not a Councell to be infallible , since I never heard that any Councell hath decreed that they are so ? Neither , if it have , can we be bound by that Decree , unlesse made certaine some other way that it selfe is so .

If you say , we must believe it because of Tradition ; I answer , sometimes you will have the not believing any thing , though not declared by a Councell , to have power enough to damne ; ( that is , when it makes against us ) at other times the Church hath not decreed , unlesse a Councell have , and their errour is pardonable , and they good Catholiques .

Next , ( as I have asked before ) how shal an ignorant man know it ? for he , in likelyhood , can speak but with a few , from whom he cannot know that all of the Church of Rome's part doe now , and in past Ages have believed it to be Tradition so certainly as to make it a ground of Faith , ( unlesse he have some revelation that those deceive him not . ) Neither indeed can those that should enforme him of the opinions of former times be certainly enformed themselves ; for truly if ( as they would perswade us ) the relation of Papias could cosen so farre all the Prime Doctors of the Christian Church into the belief of the doctrine of the Millenaries , so as that no one of those two first Ages opposed it , ( which appears plain enough , because those that after rose up against this opinion , never quoted any for themselves before Dionys: Alexandrinus , who lived at least 250 yeares after Christ . ) Nay , if those first men did not onely believe it as probable , Dial. cum Tryph. pag. 307. lib. 5. cap. 33. but Justin Martyr saies he holds it , and so do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Irenaeus sets it down directly for a Tradition , and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this ; ( which is plainer than any other Tradition is proved , or said to be ( out of Antiquity ) by them . ) If ( I say ) these could be so deceived , why might not other of the Antients as well be by others deceived in other points ? And then , what certainty shall the Learned have , when after much labour they thinke they can make it appeare that the Antients thought any thing Tradition , that indeed it was so ? And that either the folly , or the knavery of some Papias deceived them not ? I confesse it makes me think of some that Tully speaks of , who ( arcem amittunt , dum propugnacula defendunt ) lose the fort , whilst they defend the out-works ; for , whilst they answer this way the arguments of Tradition for the opinion of the Chiliasts , they make unusefull to them the force of tradition to prove any thing else by . For which cause it was rather wisely than honestly done of them , who before Fevardentius set him forth , left out that part of Irenaeus which we alledge ( though we need it not much , for many of the Fathers take notice of this belief of his : ) Yet he justifies himself for doing it by a worse blow to them than this it self , which is , saying , that if they leave out all Errours in the Books they publish , ( that is , I suppose , all opinions contrary to the Church of Rome ) bona pars Scriptorum Patrum Orthodoxorum evanesceret , a good part of the writings of the Orthodox Fathers must vanish away .

But the Tradition that can be found out of Ancients ( since their witnessing may deceive us ) hath much lesse strength when they argue onely thus : Sure so many would not say this is true , and joyne in opinions , if there were no tradition for them . I would have you remember they can deliver their opinion possibly , but either before the controversie arise in the Church ( upon some chance ) or after . If before , it is confest that they write not cautiously enough ; and so they answer all they seem to say for Arius and Pelagius his faith , before themselves , and so consequently their controversie ( though it may be not their opinion ) arose . If after , then they answer often ( if any thing be by them at that time spoken against them ) that the heat of disputation brought it from them , and their resolutions to oppose Heretiques enough ; I desire it may be lawfull for us to answer so too , either one of these former wayes ; or that it is ( as often they say too ) some Hyperbole , when you presse us in any thing with the opinions of Fathers . At least , I am sure if they may deceive us with saying a thing is a Tradition , that is not , we may be sooner deceived if we wil say and conclude it for a Tradition , when they speake it onely as a Truth , and ( for ought appeares ) their particular Opinion .

For besides , if when Salvian , comparing the Arians with evill Livers , ( and that after they were condemned by a Councell ) extenuates , ( by reason of their beleiving themselves in the right ) with much instance the fault of the Arians , and sayes , How they shall be punisht for it in the day of Judgement , none can know but the Judge . If ( I say ) they confesse it to be his opinion , they must also confesse the doctrine of their Church to be different from that of Salvian's times ; because he was allowed a Member of that for all this saying ; whereas he of the Church of Rome that should say so of us would be accounted Sesqui haereticus , a Heretique and a half : Or else they must say ( which they can only say and not prove ) that he was so earnest against ill men , that for the aggravation of their crime he lessened that of the Heretiques , and said , what at another time he would not have said ; which if they doe , will it not overthrow wholly the authority of the Fathers ? Since we can never infallibly know what they thought at all times , from what they were moved to say by some collateral consideration .

Next to this certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome , which averseth me from it ; comes their putting all to death , or at least paines , that are so , where they have power : which is an effect , though not a necessary one , of the first opinion ; and that averseth me yet more ; for I doe not believe all to be damned whom they damne , but I conceive all to be killed whom they kill . I am sure if you look upon Constantine's Epistle , written to perswade concord upon the first disagreement between Alexander & Arrius , you will find that he thought ( and if the Bishops of his time had at first thought otherwise , he would have been sure better informed ) that neither side deserved either death or damnation , ( and yet sure this question was as great as ever rose since : ) For having spoken of the opinions as things so indifferent , that the Reader might almost think they had been fallen out at Spurn-point or Ketle-pins , he adds , Niceph. Tom. 1. pag. 555. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , For that which is necessary is one thing , that all agree and keep the same faith about divine providence . I am sure in the same Author , Moses , a man praised by him , refusing to be made Bishop by Lucius because he was an Arrian , and he answering , That he did ill to refuse it before he knew what his faith was ; Answered , Tom. 2. p. 206. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , The banishing of Bishops shews ENOUGH your faith . So that it is plaine he thought punishing for opinions to be a marke which might serve him to know false opinions by .

I believe throughout Antiquity you will find no putting any to death , unlesse it be such as begin to kill first , ( as the Circumcollians or such like ) I am sure Christian Religions chief glory being that it increased by being persecuted , and having that advantage of the Mahumetan ( which came in by force ) me thinks , especially since Synesius hath told us , and reason told men so before Synesius , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , De Regno . Every thing is destroyed by the contrary to what setled and composed it . It should be to take ill care of Christianity , to seek to hold it up by Turkish meanes : at least , it must breed doubts , that if the Religion had alwaies remained the same , it would not be defended by waies so contrary to those by which it was propagated .

I desire recrimination may not be used : for though it be true that Calvin hath done it , and the Church of England a little , ( which is a little too much ) for , Negare manifesta non audeo , & excusare immodica non possum , yet She , confessing She may erre , is not so chargeable with any fault as those which pretend they cannot , ( and so will be sure never to mend it : ) and besides , I will be bound to defend no more than I have undertaken , which is , to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible .

I confesse this opinion of damning so many , and this custome of burning so many , this breeding up those who know nothing else in any point of Religion , yet to be in readiness to crie , To the fire with him , and , To Hell with him , ( as Polybius saith in a certaine furious Faction of an Army of severall Nations , and consequently languages , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , All of them understood onely this word , Throw at him ) this I say in my opinion was it chiefly which made so many so suddenly leave the Church of Rome , that indeed , to borrow the Authours phrase , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — They needed not perswasion to doe it , but onely newes that others had begun : For , as this alone , if believed , makes all the rest be so too ; so one thing alone mis-liked , overthrowes also all the rest .

If it were granted that , because it agrees not with the Goodnesse of God to let men want an infallible Guide , therefore there must be one ; and that the Church of Rome were that one ; yet if that teach any thing , to my understanding , contrary to Gods Goodnesse , I am not to receive her doctrine , for the same cause for which they would have me receive it , ( it being as good an argument : This Guide teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse , therefore is not appointed by God ; as to say , It is agreeable to his goodnesse there should be a Guide , therefore there is one . ) And sure it is lawfull to examine particular doctrines , whether they agree with that principle which is their foundation ; and to that ( me thinks ) to damne him that neither with negligence nor prejudication searcheth what is Gods will , though he misse of it , is as contrary as the first can be supposed .

I would know whether he that never heard of the Church of Rome shall yet be damned for not believing her infallible . I have so good an opinion of them , as to assure my self they will answer , he shall not . I will then aske , whether he that hath searched what Religions they are , and finds hers to be one , and her infallibility to be part of it , if his reason will not assent to that , shall he be damned for being inquisitive after truth ? ( for he hath committed no other fault greater then the other ) and Whether such an ignorance ( I mean after impartiall search ) be not of all other the most invincible ?

Nay , grant the Church to be infallible , yet , me thinks , he that denies it , and imployes his reason to seeke if it be true , should be in as good case as he that believes it , and searcheth not at all the truth of the proposition he receives : for I cannot see why he should be saved , because , by reason of his parents beliefe , or the Religion of the Country , or some such accident , the truth was offered to his understanding , when had the contrary been offered he would have received that ; and the other damned that beleeves falshood , upon as good ground as the other doth truth ; unlesse the Church be like a Conjurers circle , that will keep a man from the Devill though he came into it by chance .

They grant that no man is an Heretique that believes not his Heresie obstinately ; and if he be no Heretique , he may sure be saved . It is not then certain damnation for any man to deny the infallibility of the Roman Church : but for him onely that denies it obstinately , and then I am safe ; for I am sure I doe not .

Neither can they say , I shall be damned for Schisme , though not for Heresie , for he is as well no Schismatique , though in Schisme , that is willing to joyne in communion with the true Church , when it appeares to be so to him ; as he is no Heretique though he hold Hereticall opinions , that holds them not obstinately , that is ( as I suppose ) with a desire to be informed if he be in the wrong .

Why , if it be not necessary alwayes to believe the truth , so one believe in generall what the Church would have believed , ( for so they excuse great men that have held contrary opinions to theirs now , before they were defined , or they knew them to be so ) why ( I say ) shall not the same implicit assent to whatsoever God would have assented to ( though I mistake what it is ) be sufficient ? When indeed to beleeve implicitly what God would have believed , is to believe implicitly likewise what the Church teacheth , if this doctrine be within the number of those which God commands to be believed .

I have therefore the lesse doubt of this opinion , that I shall have no harme for not beleeving the infallibilitie of the Church of Rome , because of my being so farre from leaning to the contrary , and so suffering my will to have power over my understanding , that if God would leave it to me which Tenet should be true , I would rather choose that that should , then the contrary . For they may well beleeve me , that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant bookes , and making my selfe giddy with disputing of obscure questions & dazled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , If I could believe , there should alwayes be ( whom I might alwaies know ) a society of men , Coesarius . whose opinions must be certainly true , and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Synesius . labour to discusse & define all arising doubts so as I might be excusably at ease , and have no part left for me but that of obedience , which must needs be a less difficult , and so a more agreeable way then to endure endlesse volumes of commentaries , the harsh Greeke of Evagrius , and the as hard Latine of Ireneus , and be pained by distinguishing betweene different senses and various lections , and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlam that would preferre these studies before so many , so much more pleasant , that would rather imploy his understanding , then submit it ; and if he could thinke God imposed upon him only the resisting temptations , would , by way of addition , require from himselfe the resolving of doubts . I say not that all these bookes are to be read by those who understand not the languages , for them , I conceive , their seeking into Scripture may suffice . But if I have , by Gods grace , skill to look into them , I cannot better use it then in the search of his will , where they say it is to be found , that I might assent to them if there I finde reason for it ; or if I doe not , they may have no excuse for not excusing me .

For whereas they say , it is pride makes us doubt of their infallibility ; I answer , that their too much lazinesse and impatience of examining is the cause many of them doe not doubt .

Next , what pride is it , never to assent before I find reason for it , ( since they , when they follow that Church as infallible , pretend reason for it , and will not say they would , if they thought they found none ) and if they say , we doe find reason but will not confesse it , then pride hinders not our assent , but our declaration of it ; which if it do in any one , he is without question , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , condemned by himselfe , and it must be a very partiall advocate that would strive to acquit him .

One much prevailing argument which they make , is this , that whosoever leave them , fall into dissention betweene themselves , whereas they in the meane while are alwayes at unity . I answer , first , in this whereof the question is now , they all consent . Secondly , when there is fire for them that disagree , they need not bragge of their uniformity who consent . Thirdly , they have many differences among them ( as whether the Pope be infallible ; Whether God predeterminate every action ; Whether Election and Reprobation depend upon foresight ; ) Which seeme to me as great as any betweene their adversaries ; and in the latter the Jesuits have Ancienter and more generall Traditions on their side ; then the Church of Rome hath in any other question ; and as much ground from reason for the defence of Gods goodnesse , as they can thinke they have for the necessity of an infallible guide ; yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Heretiques , and must us .

If they say , The Church hath not resolved it ( which signifies only , that they are not agreed about it , which is that we object ) I answer , It ought to have done , if conformity to the ancient Church be required ; in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austin ( who is very various I confesse in it ) delivered the contrary to the Dominicans , as not doubtfull ; and to say , it is lawfull for them to disagree whensoever they doe not agree , is ridiculous : for they cannot doe both at once about the same point .

And if they say , they meane , by the Churches not having concluded it , that a Councell hath not , I answer , that they condemne some without any , and why not these ? Next , I say that the opinion of the Diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of a Representative ( which hath its authority from the other ) and therefore if all extant for foure hundred years teach any thing , it is more Heresie to deny that , then any Canon of a Councell .

But may not howsoever any other company of People ( that would maintain themselves to be infallible ) say as much , that all other Sects differ from one another , and therefore should all agree with them ? Would those not ( think they ) ascribe all other mens dissentions , and learned mens falling into divers Heresies to their not allowing their infalibility ? to their not assenting to their Decrees ? and not suffering them , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to sit as teachers of those things that come in question , and to have all others in that place of Disciples obedient to them ? which is that which Nilus , a Greek Bishop , professeth , that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans , was the only cause of seperation between them .

They use much to object , How could errours come into the Church without Opposition and mention both of that opposition in History ? I answer , they might come in not at once , but by degrees ; as in the growth of a child , and the motion of a clock , we see neither in the present , but know there was a present when we find it past . Next , so many Authors being lost , who can make it certaine to me that from none of those , we should have had notice of this opposition , if they had come to us ? Next , I say there are two sorts of errours , to hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false , or that is but profitable and probable : Of the second sort that errours should come in , it appears not hard to me , and especially in those ages where want of Printing made books , and consequently learning not so common as now it is ; where the few that did study busied themselves in School-speculations only , when the Authority of a man of chief note had a more generall influence then now it hath , and so ( as Thucydodes saith , the Plague did in his time , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the disease that first setled in the head easily passed through all the body ) considering how apt all men are to desire that all men should think as they doe , and consequently to lay a necessity upon thee reciving that opinion , if they conceived that a way to have it received : And then if it were beleeved generally profitable , ( as for example , Confession ) who would be apt to oppose their calling it necessary , for the same cause for which they called it so ? Besides , if this errour were delivered by some Father in the hot opposition of some Heretique , it may be none of his side would oppose it , lest they might take advantage by their dissention , and he that disputed for the Orthodox side , might lose by it much of his authority .

The word [ necessary ] it selfe is often used for very convenient ; and then from necessary in that sense to absolutely necessary , is no difficult change , though it be a great one . The Fathers use Heretiques sometimes in a large sense , and sometimes in a stricter , and so differ in the reckoning them up ; Some leaving out those that others put in ( though they had seene the precedent Catalogue : ) The doubtfulnesse of the sense of those words might bring in errour . Names , as an Altar , Sacrifice , Masse , may have been used first in one sense , and the name retained , though the thing signified received change ; which may have been the art of the Church of Rome , as it was once of an Emperour of Rome , Cui proprium fuit nuper reperta ( I leave out S●●lera ) priscis verbis obtegere , whose property it was to cover things newly found out with ancient tearmes . And the same Author tells us , that the same State was as it were cheated out of her liberty , because there did remaine , Eadem Magistratuum vocabula , The same titles of Magistrates ; and I believe that if the Protestants beyond the Seas would have thought Bishops as good a word as Superintendents , ( and so in other such things ) many , who understand nothing but names , would have missed the Scandall they have now taken .

These waies ( I thinke ) things may have come , without much opposition , from being thought profitable to be done , and probable to be believed , to be thought necessary to be both : and how many things little by little may have been received under old names , which would not have been so at once under new ones ? ( the first of these being no such small fault but that part of the Montanists heresie was thinking uncommanded fasting-daies necessary to be observed , which without doubt might lawfully have been kept . )

But my maine answer is , that if for an opinion to be in the Church without known precedent opposition , be a certain note of being received from the beginning , let them answer , how came in the opinion of the Chiliasts not contradicted till two hundred years after it came in .

To conclude , if they can prove that the Scripture may be a certainer teacher of truths to them then to us , so that they may conclude the infallibility of the Church out of it , and we nothing ; If they can prove the Churches infallibility to be a sufficient Guide for him that doubts Which is the Church , and cannot examine that ( for want of learning ) by her chiefe marke , which is conformity with the Ancient ; If they can prove that the consent of Fathers long together ( if they had it ) is a stronger argument against us , then against rhe Dominicans ; If they can prove that though the first of them affirme that such a thing is Tradition , and believed by all Christians ( and this assertion till a great while after uncontradicted ) yet they are not bound to receive it , and , upon lesse grounds , we are ; if indeed any can prove by any infallible way the infallibility of the Church of Rome , and the necessity under paine of damnation for all men to believe it , ( which were the more strange , because Justin Martyr , and Clemens Alexandrinus among the Ancients , and Erasmus and Ludovicus Vives among the Modernes , beleive some Pagans to be saved ) I will subscribe to it , And Sophoc . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 .

If any man shall vouchsafe to think either this , or the Author of it , of value enough to confute the one , and enforme the other , I shall desire him to doe it with proceeding to the businesse , and not standing upon any small slip of mine , ( of which sort this may be full ) and with that Civility which is fit to be used by men that are not so passionate as to have the definition of reasonable Creatures in vaine ; ( remembring that truth , in likelyhood , is where her Author God was , in the still voice , and not in the loud winde ; And that Epiphanius excuseth himselfe if he have called any Heretiques in his anger , Deceivers , or Wretches , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and I request him also to bring me to the Truth , ( if I be out of it ) not only by his Arguments , but also by his Prayers : which wayes , if he use , and I still continue on the part I am of , and yet doe neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , neither am wilfully blind , nor deny impudently what I see , then I am confident that neither he will have reason to be offended with me in this world , nor God in the Next .

FALKLAND .
A view of the Exceptions , which have been made by a Romanist to the Lord Viscount Falkland's Discourse , Of the Infallibility of the Church of ROME .
SEPTEMB. 11. 1645.

THis day there came to my hands , A Treatise Apologeticall , touching the Infallibility of the Church Catholique , in answer to another of the like argument lately published . And although I have no temptation to spend any more time upon it then a single reading hath cost me ; nor to think it so dangerous a piece , that I should not venture it abroad with the weakest sonnes of my mother , without an appendant antidote , or defensative against the poison of it , especially being not obliged ( in any other notion , then that of the respect I beare to the honour and memory of that noble Lord ) to vindicate his discourse from the exceptions here offer'd ; yet being not sure , that I can excuse the so excessive thrift of a few houres ( which yet I could very gladly otherwise employ , then in drawing one end of a saw in a controversie of this nature ) I shall give the Author of the exceptions or Apology , ( in as few words as is possible ) the reasons why I am not moved by them , much lesse perswaded that they are so extraordinarily lucky , as to give , as is pretended , full answer , to all that Master Chillingworth's large Book hath superstructed on this foundation . And this I shall doe in such a manner , that it may appeare , that I desire onely to satisfie his reason , and not make him payment of his scoffes or triumphs , in that spirit of meeknesse , which is proper for the restoring of one overtaken in an errour , ( hoping in charity that he is such ) of an infirme , not a malicious mistaker . And the first thing we have to view , is that which is entituled ,

A note upon the title of the Adversarie's . C. 1.

We against whom this enquirer writes , or rather to whom he propounds his difficulties , with a pretending desire of procuring a satisfaction , are defenders of the Catholique Churches Infabillity ; which Churches chief Pastour , or Metropolitan , though he be particular Bishop of Rome , as of some one place or other he must be , yet neverthelesse from that one portion of it is not the whole and universall Church aptly to be stiled the Church of Rome , as in the Enquirers title it is called , no more then the Church of England can be rightly termed the Church of Canterbury , or the Protestants of England the Canterburians , as the Scotch Puritans have called them , onely because the chief Bishop and Primate of the whole Kingdome hath his seat at Canterbury . By the self same reason then cannot we justly be called Romanists , as it hath pleased some Protestants to entitle us . The reason of this assertion , is , That Rome and Canterbury are but small , and onely materiall portions of either Church , and therefore no way sufficient to give a denomination to the whole . As then the Church of England is wrongfully called the Church of Canterbury , so , in like manner is the Church Catholique wrongfully stiled the Church of Rome , or as such , controverted to be fallible , or infallible , forasmuch as this perfection of being infallible is not claimed by her as she is Church of Rome , but as she is the Catholique , and , according to the appointment of Christ , governed by S. Peter , and his successours . For this cause we have altered the title , and stated the question in tearmes more proper and formall , enquiring not Whether the Roman Church , but whether the Catholique be infallible , and this ought to be the title .

But before we enter upon the examination of particular difficulties , the Reader may please to know , that this same Enquiry was written by the Author diverse yeares agoe , in his Catholique Mothers life time , and was by her mediation forthwith answered at large , and the answer sent unto the Enquirer fairly bound up ; in whose hands , though it rested long , yet had it never any reply made unto it , though it was sometime threatned it should . At that very time Chillingworths Booke began to be in moulding , and it may be that same new labour diverted the Enquirer , and altered his designe . Now at length in a time most unseasonable , by the frivolous officiousnesse of I know not whom , these old papers are forced to see the light , and to leave their answer behind them . After so meane and creeping a fashion doe they appeare now unto the world . But although no notice hath been taken of any answer made already , or of giving licence for any other to be made hereafter , or , if made to be published in print , and have the advantage to be dispersed abroad in many copies ; yet are we not by this discouraged from composing one , for , though for want of the Printers helpe , it shall lye concealed , and in much restraint , yea and be in danger to perish , as the other did before it , yet may this small labour fall , at least , into some few hands , and remove out of their way such dangerous stumbling blockes as have beene cast into it by this Enquirer , who , by his casting of doubts , about the method of resolving faith , hath thereby , amongst all those who are not much versed therein , endangered the stability and safety of the whole fabrique , not of Catholique Religion onely , but of Christian in Generall .

As for the Papers themselves , and their particular contents , they , in a word , are Chillingworths Booke in little , and an Embryo of his large volume growne up after , made bigge and bolstered out with many new materials borrowed from Baron the Scotch Minister , and that impious author Volkelius , the veines of whose poisonous doctrines and discourses , are observed to runne branching throughout all Chillingworths worke . Wherefore this small collection containing the substance of the other larger booke , the confutation of this Enquirers allegations , cannot but in substance conteine a confutation of all Chillingworths delated errors and sophistications , wherewith so many soules have beene perverted , or brought into great troubles and perplexities .

C. 1. Answer to C. 1.

To the exceptions made against the title of the Lord Viscount Falklands discourse , I answer , by saying these few things ,

First , that it is no news to heare of the Catholique Roman Church ; it hath frequently beene used and avowed by your owne writers , and as I conceive , is by your selfe acknowledged , when you say , the perfection of being infallible it not claimed by her ( i. e. the Church Catholique ) as she is the Church of Rome , but as she is the Catholique ; which words by the rules of discourse must suppose you to thinke the Catholique Church to be capable of a double appellation , Roman and Catholique , though the perfection there spoken of , belong to it onely under the second notion . And beside you say in another place , that the Roman Church is the Catholique ; whence it will follow , that the Catholique is the Roman ; And if this be not propriety of speech , his Lordship is not to be blamed for it , but you , whose dialect he is faine to use .

This then being presumed to be granted by your writers , and , as I conceive also by you , that the Roman Church is the Catholique Church , or that the Roman and Catholique are two names for the same Church , it will certainly follow , that he that affirmes the Catholique Church to be infallible , must affirme the Roman Church to be so too , though not quatenus Roman . For any particular man being affirmed to be a Christian , whatsoever will be true to be said of this Christian , will be true to be said of this man ( by the rule of quicquid praedicatur de praedicato , praedicatur de subjecto ) if this Christian have a promise made , a priviledge instated on him , this man hath so also , and if any that yeilded the former , shall deny the latter , it will never be sufficient ground or authority for such denying , to affirme , that it was made to him as a Christian , and not as a man ; for the whole man being a Christian , and not onely some part of him , even that which belongs to him onely for Christianities sake , doth as truly belong to him , as that which his humanity gives him title to .

Or 2●y. If you have sprang a subtlety , and by helpe of that meane to disclaime the expression of other your friends , and therefore will not allow the Roman Church , to be in propriety of speech , the Catholique Church , and yet will agree with them in all but in the expression ; truly you have revealed no great mystery to the world . And as long as you define ( as you do ) the Catholique Church , ( as it is the subject of the pretended Infallibility ) to be that which is governed by Saint Peter and his Successours , we that meane no more by the Roman Church then that which is so governed , shall assoone beleive the Roman Church to be infallible , as the Catholique under your notion of it .

The short of it is , we shall never agree upon any thing till the equivocall tearmes be explicated , and one single sence of this , as of all other phrases , agreed on betwixt both parties . Tell us then plainly that by the Catholique Church you meane the Vniversall all the world over , without any kind of restriction , and not that onely which is governed by the Pope of Rome , which is a great restriction of the word Catholique , ( and must be not onely affirmed but proved by you to be none ) And then I shall thus farre consent with you ;

First , that the Vniversall Church is in fundamentals infallible ( not from any thing inherent in it selfe , but by a prerogative acquired , i. e. by the promise of Christ , that his spirit shall leade them into all truth , and that he will be with them to the end of the world , and the like ; ) but then this Infallibility must signifie no more , or be no farther extended , then that Christ doth and will so defend his Church , that there shall be for ever , till the end of the world , a Church Christian on the Earth , i. e. that the whole Church shall not at once make an universall defection , erre from the foundation , or doe any thing by which there shall cease to be a Church on earth .

But then 2dly . I say that this very Vniversall Church , though it be in the sense infallible in fundamentals , is not yet a rule , or Canon , or guide , or Judge infallible , even in fundamentals ; visible it is , infallible it is , but 't is not a visible judge , or rule infallible . And the reason of this assertion is this , that its Infallibility , explained as we have explain'd it , is all that can be certainly inferred from Christ's words , ( and that belongs not at all to judicature ) and so any other Infallibility that shall be pretended to belong to judicature , must be inferred from some other tenure , or else it will not be inferred .

If you cannot be thus liberall to us , and tell us that by Catholique in this question , you meane that Catholique without restriction ; Tell us then Secondly , that you meane a representation of that Catholique , i. e. a Councell Generall , Oecumenicall , and then I shall acknowledge many priviledges to belong to that ; An humble , though not an absolute obedience , and in a word , that nothing is to be preferred before it , but the Word of God , or the Church truly Vniversall . Yet after all this , that it is not infallible or inerrable , I have the judgement of Panormitan , and shall adde his reason also to back it ; Because , saith he , * * Licet concilium generale representet totam ecclesiam Universalem , tamen in veritate ibi non est vere Vniversalis ecclesia , sed representative , quia universalis ecclesia constituitur ex collectione fidelium , & ista est ea ecclesiae quae errare non potest . C. signific . ex● : de Electio . the Generall Councell is not truly , but onely by representation , the Vniversall Church , and supposing such a Councell to erre , it would not yet follow , that the Vniversall Church or multitude of all Christians doe erre , because 't is possible that some out of the Councell doe not erre , yea , and in the Councell too , though a major part overcome the better . In this I have the concurrence of Occam . dial . p. 3. tr. 1. l. 3. c. 5. Cardin. Cameracensis . c. 1. Waldensis Doctrin . fid. l. 2. artic. 3. c. 26. & quest. vesp . arg. 3. ad lit . O. Antoninus , to . 1. de sacram . l. 2. c. 19. Card. Cusanus in summarum par. 3. tit. 23. de concil . general . c. 2. sect. 6. l. 2. Concord . Cathol. c. 4. Et Nic. de Clemangis , Collat. 2. p. 64 , & 73. with this farther confirmation of it from the opinion of the † † Antiquis patribus concilium celebraturis solenne suit jejuniis , orationibus , spiritûs assistentiam implorare , inutili sa●è diligentiâ si exploratum habebant se non posse falli aut deficere in his propter quae fuerant congregati . Ancient Fathers , evidenced by their practice ; In that ( saith he ) it was solemnly accustomed by them at the beginning of such a Councell , by fasting and praying to implore the assistance of the spirit , which had beene a piece of uselesse diligence , if they had been before assured , that they could not be deceived or faile in those things for which they were assembled . Which argument , if it doe not infallibly induce the conclusion to those that pray for those things which they are sure of ; yet is it an evidence , that they that use it are of the opinion which they inferre by it , and will be of force to those , that from the mention of some of the Ancients praying for the dead , conclude them to be in a mutable state ; as I conceive some of your freinds are wont to doe . To this assertion of ours I might also cite the Concordance of the Jesuits generally , who that they may fasten all Infallibility in the Pope alone , attribute nothing at all to a Councell but this , that the errour of a Councell cannot be confirmed by the Pope , which is in effect no more , then that Councells begin to be infallible , when the Pope confirmes them , i. e. when the Councell is at an end ( which kind of Infallibility they will afford , I presume , to every Heretique , ( and to me while I thus write ) that my errour cannot be confirmed by the Pope ) unlesse they will be so bountifull to adde also , that such a Councell cannot erre , if it follow the instructions of the Pope , which will also be acknowledged true of any the meanest Lutheran , or Calvinist , as well as of that Councell .

If neither of these two be it you meane , then be ingenuous , and tell us , you either mean the Pope of Rome , as the Jesuits doe , or else that you meane those parts of the Catholique that are governed by him , and then as we shall tell you , that it is the very thing which we learn't from you to meane by the Roman Church , so you that affirme that to be the notion of the Catholique Church , must acknowledge to affirme the same thing to be Infallible , which we say you doe affirme , when we propose the Question of the Roman Churches Infallibility ; and in this there is no matter of deceit or difficulty , but that that Church under the government of the Pope , which we affirme to be fallible , even in the highest degree , fallible in fundamentals , you undertake and contest to be infallible . 'T is true , this we call the Roman Church , conceiving it to be your Dialect , and if you say it is not , we will consent to you , and in obedience to your example , call it so no more ; on condition you will be but as reasonable , and give it some other title ; whether that of the Westerne Church , which were a good large Province , ( and yet of that Saint Basil complaines in no lower stile then this , Ep. 10. That they neither know nor endure the unity of Faith ) or any other title , besides that of the Catholique Church , which we are sure cannot properly be allow'd it , unlesse it appear , First , that all Christians ought to be govern'd by the Bishop of Rome ; and Secondly , that all they which are not so governed , are no longer members of the Catholique Church ; and if you affirme both these , we professe to deny them , and then that must be the matter of debate ; and till that be agreed , there will be no other question seasonable to be proposed in this matter , and wen it is , there will be no other needfull .

And for the parallel of the Canterburians , which you use to prove the unfitnesse of the question under these termes , it is but a thin fallacy ( easily seene through ) if it be thought to conclude any thing . To the clearing of which , be pleased to observe , that the Bishop of Canterbury may be considered in a three-fold relation : First , to his particular Diocesse of Canterbury , of which he is Bishop ; Secondly , to the whole Province of Canterbury , of which he is Metropolitan ; Thirdly , to the whole Nationall Church of England , of which he is Primate ; his two former relations are terminated in Canterbury , under the two significations of the word , but the third is terminated not in Canterbury , in any notion of that word , but in all England ; and thence it followes , that the Church of Canterbury ( whether as a Province , or a Diocesse , which are the onely two Notions we in England have of it ) being not of the same latitude with the Church of England , it will be improper to call the Protestants of England Canterburians : But then on supposition that there were a third notion of it , whereby the Church of Canterbury , and the Church of England were of the same latitude , or to him that were confidently perswaded that they are so , it were no impropriety at all to call all English Protestants by that denomination ; and if to prove it were improper , it should be affirmed that 't is but an accident that he that is Primate of all England should be Bishop of the particular See of Canterbury , there would be no force in that proof ; First , because that which is true per accidens , is neverthelesse true , and denominations being ad placitum , are many times accidentall ; yet for all that denominations as much , as if they had been by nature or per se ; and Secondly , because we are now upon a supposition ( though it be but a supposition ) that there is a Nationall Church of Canterbury , as well as a Province and Diocesse . And therefore I say on this supposition , if it had so happened , or been agreed on , that all that are under the Primate of Canterbury should be called the Church of Canterbury , as it hath been agreed on , that all that are under the Metropolitan of Canterbury , should be called the Province of Canterbury , we should never challenge any man of improper speaking , that should call us Canterburians . As for the Scotch Puritan you speak of , that calls us so by way of reproach ; you cannot be ignorant of his meaning , or think it pertinent to the purpose , to which you apply it ; It was used by him onely in relation to the present doctrines of the then Bishop of Canterbury , ( and onely some men scoffed at under that title , as followers of his ( as they erroneously conceived ) particular , or personall doctrines ) which is quite another notion of the word , then that which you have occasion to speak of .

From all this it will consequently appear to be as unreasonable for you , who acknowledge a notion of the Roman Church equipollent with Catholicke , and affirme the whole Catholicke Church to be govern'd by the Primate , or Pope of Rome , and urge the necessity of Christ's precept , that the Church which you pronounce infallible , must be so governed , ( or else that it is no longer Catholicke ) to make any difference between the stile of Catholicke , and of Roman Church , or of Catholicks and Romanists ; no man among us fetching the denomination of Roman , or Romanist ( when he thus speaks ) from the relative Diocesse of Rome , as the Pope is a Bishop , or from the relative Province of Rome , as he is a Metropolitan , but from the relative Church of Rome ; the whole number of those Christians who acknowledge the Pope their Primate or Partriarch , which you that affirme him to be Primate of all Christians by full right and succession from Saint Peter , must acknowledge him to be of the whole Catholike Church ; In which acknowledgement because we agree not with you ( but contend that his Patriarchate is limited as well as his Diocesse or Province ) as we cannot therefore speak throughout in your language , and call that the Catholicke Church , which is but a part of the Catholicke , or debate the Infallibility of the Catholicke Church with them , that meane by that phrase onely that are under the Roman Communion , or government of the Pope of Rome , whil'st we mean Catholicke without any restriction , ( or if we should so speak , shall be guilty of leaving a maine equivocation in the words of the question , which ought of all things to be avoided by distinguishing , before we goe about to debate any thing , and after distinction made and agreed on , that by Catholick is to be meant onely those which are in Obedience to the Pope , we will then debate it under that title also ) so may we very reasonably use your dialect , when we agree in the meaning of it , as in the phrase [ Roman Church ] we doe ( meaning both of us , all those who are govern'd by the Pope ) of which Church in that notion we now enquire , whether that be infallible or no ? And so much for the phrase of the Question , or Title of that Treatise .

And then I shall adde no more to the second part of the first Chapter , then by acknowledging the treatise of that excellent Lord to have beene written many yeares since , and now not unseasonably publish't at a time when some arts were used ( though , blessed be God , improsperously ) to pervert unstable minds , and this pretended Infallibility a maine auxiliary call'd in for that purpose ; As for any answer long since framed to it , I am perswaded that that Lord thought it not such , as that his reputation should be concerned in providing an answer for it ; And for the Publisher 't is very possible that he might never heare of any such , ( which I guesse also by my selfe , who had long since a copy of the one , but till I read it here , never heard of the other , ) or if he did , had reasons which he can justifie to any ingenuous man , why he did not publish it also . Which being now said to you ( and which you had before no ground of thinking to be otherwise ) you will hardly give a civill account , why you should charge ( and now not aske pardon for charging ) on the Publisher a frivolous officiousnesse , by which that answer is forced to stay behind ( though it were also sufficient to tell you , that when you set out all your Bookes at Rome or Doway , with our answers annext to them , we will then publish this of yours at Oxford ) or on the Edition , the stile of a m●ane an● creeping fashion of appearing to the world ; which words being so contrary to truth , ( which is punctually this , the Booke was licensed by the Vice-chancellour ; Printed by the Printer to the Vniversity ; the Authour's name put in the Title page ; and all this proclaimed on every wall and corner of the City , on purpose that every one that had kindnesse to the Romane Church might read it ) if they signifie any thing , have onely this interpretation of which they are capable , that he that wrote them cared not how absolutely groundlesse his accusation was , but onely was willing to accuse .

What you mean by the next words [ that no notice hath been taken of giving licence for any other answer to be made hereafter , or if made to be published in print , and have the advantage to be dispersed abroad in many copies . ] I professe I cannot tell , and yet was insolent enough to thinke , that I could have constituted a piece of plaine English , of which I understood every word single , but now finde , I had overvalued my owne abilities , and should be more modest hereafter , but that by finding in the * * The place to which these words reply , are upon this admonition mended by the Apologist in his revisall , by putting in after the word [ Metropolitan ] these words [ is the Pope , who ] and two lines after in stead of [ it ] [ His Diocesse ] he might as reasonably have mended the other also . sixth line of the Book the nominative Metropolitan without any verb after it , I am inclined to thinke that it is part of your stile to neglect those vulgar rules in which I had beene instructed .

As for the sad newes that you acquaint us with , [ that this other answer of yours shall lye constrained , and in much restraint , yea and be in danger to perish ] Though that be a heavy aggravation of the misery of these wicked times , yet sure this paper is not the onely sufferer in that kinde , and may both be thought to have deserved it aswell , and be as able to beare it with some patience , as many other good sonnes of the Church Catholique have been ; and yet if it will but sue out its habeas Corpus , I doubt not but the law will be open for its plea , and in the meane I have designed this present paper to offer it baile , and obtaine its enlargement through this City , so it will promise faithfully not to goe farther , then its surety is ready to attend it . By this meanes , if it be accepted , it shall have leave to visite all its Catholique freinds , and others to whom it desires to performe any civility , or from whom to receive any kindnesse .

In the meane , how his Lordship's treatise [ hath cast dangerous stumbling blockes , which may endanger the stability and safety not onely of Catholique Religion , but of Christian in generall ] I shall promise to consider with you when you proceed to any proofe of it , and till then onely advise you and all my fellow Christians to conclude no more against any creature , then you produce premises to justify ; For by so doing you will appeare not onely injurious to him with whom you deale , ( in rash causelesse anger and censure ) and secretly reproachfull and contumelious to the Reader ( by conceiving him so tame , so unworthy of the reasonable soule , which God hath given him , on purpose to distinguish betwixt reason and no reason , betwixt proofe and libell , betwixt argument and confidence ) but withall you will teach others an evill lesson against your selves . If you please I shall give you an Example of each of these .

That which you adde in the bottome of the Chapter concerning Master Chillingworth's Booke , besides that it is utterly impertinent to the confuting of this , which is the present businesse ( nay it is an argument on this side , both for the seasonablenesse of publishing it ( as an Epitome usefull and gainfull to supersede the trouble of reading the larger Booke ) and for the leaving the former answer behind , if the Publisher had knowne there had beene any ; because , as you before intimated , the publishing of Master Chillingworth's Booke then was conceived to have taken away all force and considerablenesse from that answer ) is first , very unjust to Master Chillingworth , in saying without any proofe , that he borrowed his new materials from Baron and Volkelius . Secondly , it is contumelious to the Reader 's judgement , who is supposed to be so easy , as to conclude that to be an ill Booke , which is affirmed to borrow materials from a Scotch Minister , and an impious Author ; from which contumely I conceive he is able to vindicate himselfe , by telling you , First , that what is supposed to be borrowed from the Scotch Minister , is very authentique English Divinity , and indeed that Baron is content to professe himselfe to have borrowed ( and that in this particular ) from our Writers , especially ( if my memory faile me not ) from Bishop White , and the first edition of the Bishop of Canterburies Booke under his Chaplaine's name , from whom also Master Chillingworth might borrow , if he were in any want , and not from him , and yet I believe would not , if he were alive , be ashamed to have profited by so worthy a Scotchman as Baron was . Secondly , that Volkelius his being an impious Author , cannot extend to every part of his worke , nor conclude , that that which is supposed to be borrowed from him , is therefore impious or poisonous ( if it be , let it be produced and proved to be so by some other proofe , then that of the impiety of the Author ) but rather that Master Chillingworth had the skill of discerning , and tooke nothing but balsome , and antidote , where if he had been apt to mistake , he might have faln on poyson . Thirdly , this will teach others , if they be apt to learn , an evill lesson against your selves ; I meane not that of repaying evill with evill ( God forbid that any injustice in others should so provoke us , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to be like them ) but onely this particular lesson , which hath cost us little paines to peirce or construe , that if this Tract of yours be a satisfactory answer to all Master Chillingworths Booke , then a satisfactory answer to this your Treatise , will be sufficient answer also to the three great Latine Volumnes , which they say , you have written against Master Chillingworth . And this I shall be more glad to have obtained by your owne rule of concluding , then patient to try by reading them over , whether it be truly so , or no ; especially if those that have tasted them , passe a right judgement upon them .

Thus farre I have given my selfe scope to take up almost every word you say in your first chapter , but am unwilling to thinke , that thereby I am engaged to doe the like in all that followes . Truely upon reading on , I see the subtilty of composure , and the particulars incident are not of such weight , as that I can promise my selfe patience to examine it so strictly ; I meane not patience , as it is opposed to anger or passion ( for by Gods helpe I shall not yeild to any temptation , that shall bring me into that ) but as it is opposed to wearinesse and lassitude ; and I must be pardon'd , if I thinke I could spend my time better to my selfe and the benefit of others , then in following the exceptions line by line , and giving them a large answer ; for that any man may be patient to doe so , or to reade it when 't is done ; it is necessary , that the Text , which must beare that Comment , must have somewhat either of difficulty , or subtilty , or profit in it ; either of which , whensoever I can finde , I professe I shall be most ready to enlarge upon it , ( and now acknowledge it an obligation from the Author , if he will point out to me , where I shall have fail'd ) and in other particulars be more mercifull to the reader , and my selfe .

To the 1. §. Chap. 2.

True it is , and we grant it willingly , that every proofe that is solid and good , must be , a notioribus , and that every sure conclusion must also be deduced from no other premises or principles , then such as be knowne , and , at least , be as certaine as we desire the conclusion should be . Neverthelesse we doe absolutely deny , that this assertion of ours touching the Churches infallibility , is by us offered to be proved by waies no better then our Adversaries offer to prove that she hath erred , as this Inquirer pretends we doe ; for we affirme that our Churches infallibility is proved by reasons which are reall and true , and that on the other side , the adversary offers to prove the contrary , onely by such as be no more then seeming and pretended . Now true reason or authority is a way quite different from pretended , and much better then it , and therefore the Inquirers charge is false , or , at least , light and ineffectuall . Must all controversies in Philosophy be undecidable , because both sides pretend reason ; or no suits of Law be judged , because both sides pretend Law ? Certainly , whatsoever both sides doe pretend , yet there is but one side that hath it , as namely , but one side of Philosophers have true reason , and but one side of contendents have true Law , and so in like manner but one side of contending Christians have true reason for them , Scripture , or Tradition , howsoever both may pretend it , and therefore we doe not goe about to prove the Church is infallible by the selfe same wayes that you goe about to prove that she hath erred , but by wayes that are quite different from them , and the same but in name onely , and no farther ; By which it followes , that , either you are deceived , or we , and it is not necessary that both . And so much for this great and principall difficulty which troubled the Inquirer so much as he writ to London for the solution of it , which thing , surely , was more then needed , for it might have been done at Great Tue without consulting London about it , or either of our two Vniversities .

We doe not maintaine , as he falsely supposes , that Reason , Scripture , and Fathers be all fallible , universally speaking but , in some cases only , as , namely , reason is not fallible in such verities as be evident , but in other that be not so , it is . Againe , Scripture is a most certain rule whensoever it is certainly expounded , otherwise it is not . Lastly , the Fathers be assured and undoubted witnesses of the Doctrines which were held in their time , though not undoubted definers of them . And , by this answer , all the three main propps of this Authors discourse are overthrown , and fall unto the ground . * * In this place the Apologist in his revisal put in these words [ So that in fine all these three be infallible ] I must a little wonder to what purpose . For if they belong to the words immediatly precedent , they will then signify , that the three propps of his Lordships discourse are infallible . But if to the former part of the Section to signify Reason &c. to be infallible , they are then either to be understood , that they are infallible in all cases , and then that is point blanke contrary to what he had said [ that they were fallible in some ] or else that they are infallible onely in some ; and then that he had said distinctly before , and needed not to have again a new repeated .

C. 2. Answ. to the 2. Chap.

To the second Chapter , I need only to put you in mind , that when his Lordship saith [ the wayes of proofe that the Church of Rome can never have any errours , are no better then those by which we offer to prove she hath erred , and nameth three heads of Arguments , from Scripture , Reason , and Ancient writers , and proveth you to affirme all these are infallible , because nothing is in your opinion infallible but the Church ; and from thence concludes that we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible , because all the meanes proposed to induce that knowledge , being of necessity somewhat else beside that only infallible , must needs be fallible ] it will be very unsufficient in you to reply , that his Lordship hath not said true in the first particular , upon no other ground of proofe , but only because you [ affirme that the Churches infallibility is proved by Reasons which are really true , and that the contrary is by us offered to be prov'd only by such as be only seeming and pretended ] for this very thing that you affirme , viz. that those your reasons are reall and true , is a part of the very question in hand , and as much denyed by us , as the infallibility of your Church , and therefore , by your own rule of proceeding à notioribus , cannot be proper means to conclude , that his Lordship erred , to him that will farre more easily be brought to believe that your reasons are not reall , then that his Lordship erred in this particular , and that will as readily confesse he erres , as that those reasons are reall .

It appeared strange to me that you should begin with such a petitio principii , untill by reading on , I discerned that this one meane Sophisme hath run through most Paragraphs of your following Treatise , which is a shrewd infirmity in a confutation , to take that for a principle granted , and so bestow no proofe upon it , which is by you known to be denied by us , and yet to conceive that this will be able to satisfy our other importunities .

2dly . You must observe that his Lordship had said only this , [ that your Churches infallibility is offered to be proved by no better wayes , than those by which we offer to prove she hath erred ] which is an undertaking of his Lordship , and not a bare assertion , and sure you cannot say he offers to prove it by reasons onely seeming , for you as yet know not particularly , what those reasons are , any farther , then that they are from the same heads , by which you offer to prove the contrary .

And Thirdly , if the Arguments which he offers be only seeming on his side , yet if you marke it , they are so seeming to him , and as long as they seem to him to conclude that the Church hath erred , the very same arguments , or those that are no more seeming , cannot assure him , that she is infallible ; for by your own confession every solid proofe must be ex notioribus , i. e. not only by media which are more true , but which are more known to him , to whom this proofe is offered ; and , if you marke , that is it to which his Lordship's argument drives , that the reasons by which you prove the infallibility of your Church , are such as you confesse your selves to be fallible : Marke , not which you confesse to be false , but fallible , your confessing them fallible is enough to his Lordship's turne , though they should have the luck to be true , because the infallibility of your Church , on which , as on a foundation and principle , you must build in many after difficulties , had need be infallibly asserted and knowne , or if it be but fallibly , will it selfe be fallible ( no conclusion ascending higher , then the premises have ascended ) and so , though it were true , yet not fit to commence a principle of all other truths .

Now that these reasons or premises of yours are fallible and by you acknowledged to be so , his Lordship was not content to affirme ( and so is himselfe farre enough from giving you example of begging the question ) but proves it by this argument , because with you nothing is not fallible but the Church . This may be dissolved into an hypotheticall syllogisme , whereof you must deny one proposition , or else the conclusion is forfeited . If with you the Church be the only infallible , then with you any other reasons , by which you prove the infallibility of the Church , are not infallible , but with you the Church is the only infallible , therefore with you any other reasons by which you prove the infallibility of the Church are not infallible . Now if you look over your answer againe , you shall find that your only exception commeth not home to any part of this syllogisme , for you doe not so much as say , that any thing is infallible but the Church ; Or , if now you will see your want , and make additions to your answer , then say distinctly , is any other thing beside the Church infallible , or no ? If it be , let it be named ; if it be not , the conclusion is granted us . And till this addition be thus made ( i. e. for this present answer of yours ) 't is , I conceive manifest , that you have said no syllable to the prime part of his Lordship's first Section .

As for your instances of Phylosophy and Law suites , they can prove nothing against his Lordship , unlesse you can name some sect of Phylosophy , that hath not only truth , but infallibility , and tell us which it is , and prove that by arguments which are confest to be infallible ; till you have done that , your instance is not pertinent , and if ever you shall doe it , 't will not be concluding against us , unlesse you produce the like arguments for the infallibility of your Church against us , which must be some other then are yet proposed .

As for Lawsuits , that they are determined to one side by the Judge , doth not prove that that Judge is infallible ( which is the only matter of debate , ) and if the contenders are bound to stand to his award , it is , because the Law and supreme Magistrate have commanded them to doe so , and because this is evident and infallible , that they have done so , by the commission which the Judge hath from them . And when the like is produced for your Church , I hope all your Subjects will submit to it , but then it must be moreover proved that all Christians are such Subjects , or else we hope we shall not be involved under that obligation .

As for your long deduction from whence you conclude that either wee are deceived , or you , and that it is not necessary that both should , we grant it , and professe our opinions , that though both you and we are fallible , yet only you are , or can be deceived in this particular , ( which we conceive is cleare , because only you pretend Infallibility , which we not pretending , but affirming that we are not so , cannot in this be deceived , unlesse we be infallible ) but see not what it concludes against his Lordship , whose argument depends not on any such assertion , that both parties are deceived , but only that your pretended Infallibility is by you proved by no other arguments , then those which you confesse are fallible .

What you adde by way of triumph and scoffe I must not answer , but by yeilding you free leave thus to please your selfe , and ( if this recreation tend at all to your health ) to advise you to do so still , and ( whensoever it may be for your divertisement ) to reckon up the names of London , Great Tue , and the two Vniversities .

After the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sang , you at length bethinke your selfe that his Lordship had affirmed , that Scripture , Reason and Fathers , are by you maintained to be all fallible ; and to this you answer by a distinction of universally speaking , and in some cases onely , and acknowledge that you affirme them all to be fallible onely in some cases . Now first you ought to have given answer to his Lordship's proofe for what he said , which was this , that you affirme that onely the Church is infallible ; from whence it is a conclusion , that therefore Reason , and Scripture , and Fathers , are by you affirmed to be fallible , whereas you letting the premises alone , apply answer to the conclusion , which is as much against Logicke as to deny it . without denying the premises , or shewing the falsenesse of them . But then Secondly , that which is fallible in some cases onely , is by that acknowledged to be fallible , and by that is proved unsufficient to prove another thing to be infallible in all things , for if it be fallible in any , case , it may be fallible in this , that it pronounces that other to be infallible ; and till there be some infallible argument produced that it is infallible in that particular pronouncing , its Infallibility in other things will availe nothing ; or if it doe , it may availe also for us to prove what we offer to prove from it , that your Church hath erred .

There is no possible avoiding of this , but by saying and proveing it infallible in inducing your conclusion , and false aswell as fallible in inducing ours , ( for if it be true , though it be fallible , it will serve our turne , but it must be both , or will not serve yours , you being obliged to prove the Infallibility of your Church by something which is it selfe infallible , because it must be matter of faith with you , which nothing is , but what is infallibly induced , but it is sufficient for us to beleive you and your Church fallible , though we should make it no matter of faith that you are so ) which because you endeavour not to doe in this place , it will be impertinent to examine the truth of what else you adde ( concerning the cases wherein you affirme Reason , and Scripture , and Fathers to be infallible ) any farther then thus , that by your owne explication of the distinction , and enumeration of cases , I shall conclude , that Reason doth not prove infallibly that your Church is infallible , because the Infallibility of your Church is not an evident verity ; Scripture doth not prove it so , because it is not certainly expounded to that probation ; Fathers doe not prove it so , because it was not a doctrine held in their time , and affirmed by them to be so . Each of which negations of mine though they were as sufficient proofe as what you have offered to the contrary , yet I shall undertake to make good against you , if you shall thinke fit to call me to it , by setting downe your reasons to the contrary .

And so if on your supposition , his Lordship 's three maine props were fallen to the ground ( which is another boast that had no more relation to the present matter , then ground in truth ; and therefore I beseech you leave out such excesses hereafter ) yet your supposition being not so much as endeavoured to be proved , the props stand as firmly as is desired .

To the second §. Chap. 3.

The Enquirer is here much mistaken , for we are not at all offended with Protestants for their alleadging Scriptures , but for their doing of it after a way which is fallible and uncertaine ; in which case we say Scripture can be no foundation of faith . Wherefore though they alleadge Scripture and we also , yet doth it not follow thence that the Protestants disprove the infallibility by the selfe same media or meanes , by which we endeavour to prove the same . It is true , they attempt to doe so , but that they doe it , is denied . The Scripture when surely sensed or expounded , is a different medium from the same Scripture sensed unsurely or expounded falsely . Now he that takes an unsure way , which no reason or discretion commends unto him , and leaves the sure , which Reason does perswade him to be such , if that man chance to erre , it is easie to understand why God should be more offended with him , then with others that doe not so but hold a prudent and contrary course .

The summe is , that holy Scripture , after such time as it comes to be knowne certainly for Canonicall and shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church , foundeth an argument strong and invincible ; but when otherwise , one that is probable onely , or ad hominem ; and this latter we say is your case , and out of this give a reason why your resolves are temerarious and presumptuous , and , in fine , such wherewith God may be displeased justly , forasmuch as no man ought to goe about this worke unadvisedly , or expose his salvation without all need , to chance and uncertainty , as if he meant to build upon the sand .

C. 3. Ans. To the third Chap.

I answer , that through this whole Chapter the same fallacy returnes againe , of satisfying his Lordship's argument by a bare affirming ( but not proving ) a thing which is as much denied by his Lordship , viz. that your alleadging of Scripture for the infallibility of your Church , is by an infallible and certaine way , but our alleadging of it for every part of our religion is by a fallible and uncertaine . ] ( For though you in tearmes affirme onely the latter of these , that which is against us , yet in charity to you I shall suppose you imply the former , or if you will say you doe not , I shall then answer , that the granting of what you say , doth not vindicate your Infallibility , but onely accuse us , not cleare your selves ) or if that which you adde by way of explication , may passe for a proofe of it , viz. that Holy Scripture when it shall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church , foundeth an argument strong and invincible , but when otherwise , onely probable and ad hominem . ] I answer , that this being applyed to the matter in hand to you and us , must , if it signifie any thing , have this importance , that the places of Scripture which you bring for the Infallibility of your Church , are expounded according to the interpretation of the Church , but the places which we bring for the severall parts of our religion , are not so expounded . And then I answer , that by the Church you may ( and I conceive ought to ) meane the Vniversall Church truly so called , without your ordinary clogge or restriction ; and then all that we require of you is to make your affirmation good , and produce the places of Scripture which that Vniversall Church hath so expounded to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church , ( which till you doe produce 't is petitio principii againe ) and then we shall shew our selves ingenuous , and ( though we might reply something which ad homines might be answer ) yet shall we part with all other advantages of defending our selves , and in plaine ground yeild you the cause , and contend no longer with you .

But if you meane by the interpretation of the Church the interpretation of the Church in the notion wherein we enquire , whether it be infallible , viz. that society of Christians which have been govern'd by the Pope ; Though then we might deny , that you have any such interpretation of Scripture for your infallibility , and justifie the deniall , ( for if you please we will undertake to shew that some eminent persons in the Church of Rome , perhaps Popes themselves , never interpreted any Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of your Church , and that many other differ among themselves , what is that Church which they affirme from Scripture to be infallible , and that will amount to the same also ) yet we shall content our selves with this other answer , that the interpretation of that Church , unlesse Saint Peter himselfe , or some other acknowledg'd to be inspired , joyne in it , is not Infallible , and for you to say it is , and not to prove it , is a petitio principii againe ; And for any other notion of the Church which shall be said so to interpret , when you shall fasten on it , we shall undertake to make good either that it doth not interpret the Scripture to the asserting the Infallibility of the Church , or else that the Church in that notion is not infallible .

As for the other part of your assertion which you principally insist upon in this Chapter , that our case is contrary to yours , i. e. that we found not our religion on Scripture expounded according to the interpretation of the Church , we utterly disclaime it , ( and for you to affirme it without proofe , is petitio principii againe ) and to put it to a faire issue , we make this offer , that what ever proposition we affirme without shewing Scripture for it , and that expounded according to the interpretation of the ancient Church , we will presently forgo on your first instance ; and if you would pay us the like offer , and your party make it good , I doubt not but as turbulent a Sea as the state of Christendome is at this time , the whole Church might quickly be at , peace , or at least the dissentient party not be considerable . I remember a passage in Saint Hilary , depredicating the Bishops of France as very happy men , quòd aliam non cognovissent confessionem● , &c. that they knew no other confession then that ancient and most simple which through all Churches from the Apostles age had been received . And I am a little confident that that which first made , and hath ever since fomented the breaches of that pretious body , is the multiplying and imposing of new confessions and articles of beleife from the suggestion of private or lesse publique spirits , and that hath made the body like Aristotle's insectills , which for want of bloud runne out into a multitude of legs ; every such new article so multiplyed ( above the number of those which Scripture in the truly Catholique interpretation of it , will authorize , not onely as true , but necessary to be so acknowledged ) being an effect of some want of bloud , I meane charity in the Authors , ( for though to teach any man any certaine truth be an act of charity , yet to make an article , i. e. to require every man to beleive whatever we conceive to be truth , is a great uncharitablenesse ) and a cause or occasion of more ; the adding to the necessary truths , ordinarily being a forerunner of the abatement of the inventory of the necessary performances , I meane of those which are indispensably required of us under Christ . These last few lines I confesse to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which I hoped might not be unwelcome to you ; If they be , I am sorry you were troubled with it , the seeing that there was nothing more in your Chapter , which wanted answer , gave me temptation and liberty for it .

To the third Section Chap. 4.

The third Section is all true , but concerns us nothing , because amongst ours there is care enough taken for shewing which Church it is that is the true and infallible , and on the other side much negligence and partiality in the enquirers after it , in many of them , at least , though not in every one .

C. 4. Answ: To the fourth Chap.

In your fourth Chapter , though you are just in acknowledging the perfect truth of his Lordships third paragraph , yet must you not be beleived on your bare word , that you are not concern'd in it . For I conceive it cleare that you are , because that argument from Reason ( for such is that which is mentioned there , as in the second paragraph the argument from Scripture , and in the fourth the argument from Fathers or tradition ) which you use to prove the Infallibility of your Church , viz. that it is therefore so made by God ( or that it is reasonable to thinke that God therefore so made it ) that all men may have some certaine Guide ] can never be able to conclude any thing , unlesse it be made knowne by God as certainly ( or so offered by God to our knowledge , that 't is our fault if we know it not ) both that there is such an infallible Church , and which it is . Now that God hath so made knowne these two , it being impossible for reason to assure us any otherwise then by shewing us some sure word of prophecy , I meane some revelation from God , with sufficient evidence that it is revelation , and this being not by you pretended to be shewed , it availes little that you tell us , that among yours there is care enough taken to shew which Church it is that is the true and infallible ; for if by [ shewing ] you meane demonstrating any way that it is so , this you know we deny , and saying it againe without proofe , is petitio principii ; but if by shewing you meane the pointing us out that for the true and infallible , of which you are a member , we have little obligation or encouragement to beleive you say true , being a witnesse in your owne cause ; I am sure no evidence that ( if you speake according to your judgement ) you are Infallible in that shewing or telling ; For if we had , we must be supposed to have that evidence of your infallibility without ( because before ) your shewing , and so to stand in little need of it .

To the fourth Section Chap. 5.

The answer is , that people illiterate may have evidence sufficient whereby to resolve and satisfie themselves without making any search into Histories , Fathers , or Scripture ; and therefore this Enquirers supposition is false , and indeed it were a hard case , if no man might be able to understand what he was to beleive , without looking into all these ; and yet as hard as it is , doth this Enquirer impose it upon all , if not in expresse tearmes , yet by the consequence of his doctrine . As for our selves alone , what need can we have for seeking out the true sence of Scripture , and a conformity of doctrine with the Ancient , more then other Christians have ? Surely according to this method of his , all true religion , whether in our Church , or any other , would be impossible to be learned by the illiterate , and very hardly by any other men .

But what evidence can the illiterate have , or rather from whence ? Out of the present face , condition , and visible practice of religion in the Church , out of the antient monuments yet remaining that give in their depositions , out of common fame and unsuspected testimonies , out of the manifest perfections and excellencies both of the Church and Religion ; out of all which , as from so many cleare signatures and characterismes of truth , ariseth an evidence of credibility that this Church and this Religion are the true , and whatsoever is once so creditable , cannot possibly be false , because for the verity of that , the veracity of God doth stand engaged , as Ric. Victorinus hath long since declared . For it is a cleare case that all such things be true which God makes evidently credible and worthy of acceptance by the publique acts of his owne providence ; for otherwise that providence should publiquely entangle and deceive us by obliging us , or , at least , publiquely and potently inducing and perswading us to believe that which were false ; and so by following that way which God hath signed out for us , we should goe astray ; which thing can neither be done , nor yet permitted to be done , without imposture , as all the antient Schoolemen doe observe . By this meanes then are prudent publique motives able to make a certainty , though not by their owne vertue , yet at least by the vertue of the Supreame veracity which goes annexed with them .

Moreover , this measure of evidence perceptible by the illiterate and weake , though it be not so ample as others have , or stand in need to have , yet is it sufficient to sway their understanding , and to call in the divine assistance for the supplying of whatsoever by reason of ignorance or incapacity , Prov. 3.32 . is wanting in them . Cum simplicibus est sermocinatio mea ? saith the Wiseman . Therefore it is false and injurious to say , as this Enquirer seemes to doe ; namely , That such men as these doe assent to truth upon no better grounds then others doe to falshood .

The Enquirer's inference against the Church is this . We thinke she hath erred , therefore she may : The Inference is good , but the Antecedent is infirme , and ought not to have beene made , because he cannot have so great reason to judge she hath erred , as on the contrary that she hath not ; in regard that it is farre more likely he himselfe erred in making that judgement of the Church , then that the Church erred in making that judgement of the truth , or that she hath contradicted her selfe ; it being farre more probable , that a private man should be deceived , then a whole Church . Wherefore it is a great act of presumption and temerity in any single man , though never so intelligent , to judge the whole Church hath erred , rather then himselfe .

The Enquirer saith , that he tries the Church by her conformity with the Antients , as she her selfe appoints . But what then ? Doubtlesse she is not that way to be c●nvinced , forasmuch as every intelligent man will suppose that no particular man is able to examine that so well at she her selfe hath done before him , and therefore may be pleased to understand that this pretended non-conformity of hers ought to be discovered very clearly and perfectly before he adventure to condemne her ; and this great discovery having yet not beene made and manifested to the world , may justly be thought an act impossible , and be judged in such as make pretensions of it , a worke rather of a strong apprehension , then of any solid judgement . If then our Enquirer in this case should be rejected , let him not complaine of us , as if we sent him to a witnesse , and after bid him not believe it , but rather bid him not believe himselfe , and his owne judgement more then the Churches ; that is to say , more then he ought ; nor suffer himselfe to be misled by the testimony of a witnesse to whom we did not send him , I meane himselfe , in hearkning unto whom self-love too much inclines him , and made him over credulous , as to their great griefe it hath made very man .

Now for the better understanding this point of conformity with the Antients , of which this Enquirer , and Chillingworth his confederate doe talke so much , and seeke to urge against us ; the reader may please to know , that they themselves are bound to solve this knot , as well as we ; for it will be both as necessary and as hard for them to finde out the conformity of their doctrines with the Antients , as it is for us to finde out ours ; and againe , the conformity of this moderne Scripture with the Antient ; and these present copies of the Greeke and Hebrew with the Originall , or Archetype of the same languages , as it is to finde out a conformity of this Church and her Doctrines with the Antients ; and so these Authors have made a rodde wherewith to whip themselves , as commonly wrangling people doe .

Secondly , That there be other notes of truth besides this conformity , and therefore the enquiry after it is not necessary for any man .

Thirdly , That we may know this conformity by the truth a great deale easier , than the truth by conformity ; because truth may be knowne by the present notes , and such as are before our eyes ; but conformity must a great way off , and through a thick mist of many Ages , if it be sought after by examination of particulars .

Fourthly , That the enquiry after conformity by examining the Antient rites , and the innumerable darke passages and decisions of Antiquity cannot be a generall method for the instruction of all , or of the greater part of Men ; for it is a long businesse , and so cannot be ready at all times , but rather after divers years : it is also so difficult , that few have learning or ability to go through with it ; for the passages of Antiquity be very intricate , and require a great light of understanding for their discovery . You see the Enquirer , Sect. 37. confesseth he was much vext with the harsh Greek of Evagrius , and the hard Latine of Irenaeus , and with distinguishing between different sences , and various lections , &c.

If this learned Gentleman found so much difficulty in the search ; what must become of the greater part of Men , if there were no way but this ? for in comparison of the rest , few have so much wit as he , or so much leisure ; few understand Greek or Latine either , whether harsh or pleasant , few so painfull . Must no man that is not acquainted with Evagrius or Irenaeus , come to the knowledge of the truth ? nor any man be able to know the Creation of the World , and the Old law , without he can read in Hebrew , or learn the New law without reading the New Testament in Greek ? These were very hard conditions , and certainly such at God never imposed upon us .

Doubtlesse we are not obliged to find out the Originall Copies of Scriptures and Fathers , of which sort , as I suppose , there be none extant , nor trouble our spirits with judging about various lections ; we are not bound to impossibilities for our instruction and salvation , but have a ready way assigned us , which is the conspicuous body of the present Church , which body is like a City built upon a hill , and that hill is a rock not to be undermined .

It will be therefore sufficient that we can any sure way come to the knowledge of the truth without taking care whether it be conforme unto the Ancients or no ; for sure we are , all truth is conforme to that it should be , abstracting from the consideration either of Antient or New , and this alone may be sufficient to content any Man .

Yet if he would know conformity , I will shew him a readier way than examination of places ; let him but take the voluntary confession of the Magdeburgians in their severall Centuries , and he need seek no further ; for they acknowledge all that we desire , and this acknowledgement of theirs cannot but satisfie , for they make it neither out of ignorance of the truth , nor out of affection to us .

C. 5. Answ. To the fifth Chapter .

Your fifth Chapter is a very long one , and by that length and the contents of it , puts me in mind of him that owing his Fellow Sixpence , being not able to pay him , offered him a hundred Counters one after another in a sudden motion of his hand , in hope that at length his eyes might dazle , and take some one of them for coyne , or if not , yet rather chuse to lose his Sixpence , than to venture so many cheats by awaiting that payment . For I am perswaded that when I have but repeated to you his Lordships Argument in the fourth Paragraph , you will spare me the paines of shewing that you have not answer'd it , by confessing you have not said one word to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or rationall importance of it .

The intent of the Paragraph is to prove that tradition or Authority of the Antients is not a proper meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church . The meanes of inferring the conclusion are , First , the division of men ( to whom this Argument is supposed to be brought ) into ignorant and learned . Secondly , the insisting on the proposition in relation to each of them , to the ignorant because they cannot know , to the learned because they cannot infallibly know that tradition doth prove this Infallibility .

First , To the ignorant , proving that tradition cannot prove the Infallibility to them , because the ignorant cannot know what is the voice of generall and constant tradition ; Which if it be true , is an infallible argument to induce the conclusion ; ( for that tradition cannot prove another thing till it self be proved , which it is not to him at least , who neither doth nor can know it ) and that it is not true , you doe not so much as pretend , but rather help to prove it more plainly , than his Lordship thought necessary to doe . And this is all that you doe returne to the first part of the proofe , save only by pretending that this knowledge or triall of tradition cannot be necessary to the ignorant ; which as it is true , so is it nothing against his Lordship , who had no use of saying that it was necessary , but rather the contrary ; and by saying it is impossible implies he cannot thinke it necessary ; and therefore when you affirme of his Lordship , that by consequence of his Doctrine he imposes this impossible taske upon the illiterate , and doe not so much as pretend to mention that consequence , this is so clear a prevarication , that you cannot take it ill at any friends hands , to call upon you to confesse and retract it ; and of that nature is that other suggestion here , that his Lordship seems to say , that ignorant men doe assent to truth on no better grounds than others doe to falshood , ] there being no such syllable here affirmed , ( and if afterwards there be , we shall there meet with it . )

The second part of the Argument is in relation to the learned , proving that tradition cannot to them infallibly prove the Infallibility of your Church , or be a rule by which to square your beleife in this particular , so farre at least , as to make it to them necessary to be beleived , ( as your friends doe and must say it is ) because it is possible they may mistake in it , and that mistake will not be damnable in them , if they fall into it with a good conscience , as possibly they may ( i. e. if they use their best diligence to find the truth by tradition , and are not kept from it either by prejudice or passion ) though it should fall out they doe not finde it .

This argument thus drawne out at length , his Lordship confirmes by a cleare and pertinent instance ; suppose me in my inquest , whether the Church may erre , to enquire whether it ever hath erred , and in that inquest suppose me to meet with some motives which really perswade me that the Church hath contradicted her selfe , ( which if she hath done she hath certainly , erred , because both branches of a contradiction cannot be true but one of them must needs be false ) in this case it followes , that I beleive she hath erred ; Wherein though it is possible that I may erre ( because the premises which I beleived true may be false ) yet because it is but an errour in my judgement that did so thinke ( and that being reconcileable in this case with sincerity , will not be damning to me ) it will follow , that it will be pardonable in me , though never so learned , that Tradition doth not convince me of the truth of that , which I did really conceive it shewed me to be false ; it being as pardonable in the learned to beleive that errour which they conceive Tradition tells them , as it was impossible for the unlearned to know what is Tradition .

The whole weight of this part of the Argument lies in this , that what ever is necessary to be beleived must be offered to be proved by a meanes wherein the learned at least cannot erre pardonably , and therefore the Infallibility of the Church offered to be proved by Tradition ( that Tradition being a thing wherein the learned may erre pardonably ) is not proved by that meanes to be necessary to be beleived . Or in a Syllogisme thus ; That wherein the learned may erre pardonably , is not a meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church to be necessary to be beleived , but Tradition is a meanes wherein the learned may erre pardonably , therefore Tradition is not a meanes to prove the Infallibility of the Church to be necessary to be believed .

This is the summe of what his Lordship saith in the other part of that paragraph ; and to no part of this Syllogisme , or of the materialls there , out of which I have formed it , doe you returne the least answer or deniall , but rather confirme the Minor , First , by using Arguments to prove , that it is a difficulty and knot , common to Papists with Protestants , to finde out the conformity of their doctrine with the Ancients ; which difficulty being granted , will prove that in that matter the learned may erre pardonably . Secondly , by asserting that there be other notes of truth besides this of conformity with the Ancients , and therefore that enquiry after that is not necessary to any man ; which seemes a disclaiming of that as of an unfit Argument . Thirdly , by saying that we know the conformity by the truth , much easier then the truth by conformity . From whence it will follow , that conformity is a very ill Argument , and the worse the Argument the more pardonable the errour in it . And fourthly , by the professed unfitnesse of this Argument , at large dilated on by you , with this conclusion , that the conditions for the understanding of Tradition are so very hard , that certainly God never imposed them on us . On which grounds you offer us another meanes of proving it , ( which shewes that this was unsufficient in your opinion ) viz. the conspicuous body of the present Church ; which if it be not a very fallible meanes also ( as in many respects I might prove it were particularly by this , that the compasse of Christians that are of that Church of yours , is not by common computation a third part of the Christian world ) is certainly very distant from Tradition ; which that it is not a meanes infallible in this matter , is all that his Lordship now contends in that present Argument .

The onely thing that is by you produced against this difficulty of using this meanes , ( and so pardonablenesse of erring ) is the last period of the Chapter , which commends the reading of the Magdeburgians as a readier way to know conformity , then examination of places .

To which I answer , that if they have voluntarily confessed that there is constant Tradition for the infallibility of the Roman Church , then have you fitly cited them ; if they have not , or if upon my present instance you doe not shew that they have either directly , or by certaine consequence , then have you wronged them in this your affirmation , and left your selfe no meanes to prove your conclusion by that medium .

This is all I shall say to that long Chapter , and in that I have shewed , that through it you much mistooke the Argument proposed in the title of the Chapter , the confutation of the fourth paragraph , of which there being two parts , you spake no word against either of them ; and therefore if I should allow every word of that Chapter to be true , though you would be beholding to me , yet would it be no advantage to you against his Lordship's present reasoning , to which all you say is very extrinsecall and impertinent . But that I may not lay too great an obligation on you by so liberall a grant , I wil mention to you some infirm parts in that your discourse .

I have touched on three already ; and your evidences ( that your Church and Religion is the true ) which you mention for the illiterate , and are no one of them evidences , may be added to the number ; which I need not prove , because you have not attempted to prove , but onely assert the contrary . And so also your Divinity cited out of Ric: Victorinus , if applied to your purpose : [ that whatsoever is once so creditable ( as you have there made the Infallibility of your Church ) can never be false ] Which beside other falsities , must inferre other things to be infallible , beside that onely infallible ; for 't is sure that other things may by you be made so creditable , and as sure , that what ever else cannot be false ( God's veracity standing engaged for it ) is infallible also ; and ( not to mention your proofes of that Divinity ) such is your assertion , that the Enquirer's inference against the Church is , [ we thinke she hath erred , therefore she may erre ] for his inference is onely this ; if she hath erred , certainly she may ; which I should say is another great injustice , by changing his Lordship's words , but that it is repaired and expiated with another act of more kindnesse to us , though of as little force of reason ; that the i●ference is good , but the antecedent is infirme ; whereas in t●uth the Inference had beene nought , but the Antecedent either t●ue , or onely in the power of the Searcher of thoughts to disprove in him ; so againe , that the discovering the non-conformity of your Church with the Antients , may justly be thought impossible ; when if we had not actually done it , yet hereafter we might ; and when in the present businesse we affirme ( and you goe not about to disprove ) that your pretending to the Infallibility of your Church is inconformable to the Antients , because they did not so pretend ; and surely such is your affirmation , that to send one to a witnesse , and yet bid him not believe himselfe in what he conceives that witnesse tels him , is not as bad , as to send him in like manner , and bid him not believe the witnesse ; there being no possibility of believing what the Witnesse saith , but by believing himselfe , affirming that that Witnesse said it : For if you say it be by believing of you ( i. e. another Witnesse ) that that Witnesse said it ; I answer , that that will include a believing himselfe also , viz: himselfe affirming that you testified that the other Witnesse said it .

I shall trouble you with no more at once , lest you count me uncivill ; one thing onely more I shall let you know I take notice of , that in the compasse of very few words you cast off much of the respect due to Antiquity , by saying , that it is sufficient , if we can by any sure way come to the knowledge of truth ( mentioning at that time onely the conspicuous body of the present Church for such ) without taking care whether it be conforme to the Antients , or no , &c. By which as you acknowledge your preferring the conspicuous body of the present Church ( for the finding out of truth ) before Antiquity , which is the strangest speech I could have look'd for from a defender of Tradition , so I confesse I see the reason why a Section that undertooke to prove that Antiquity was no infallible proofe of your Churches Infallibility , had in a long Chapter of answer to it , never a word said in confutation of it ; and so I very friendly take leave of it .

To the fifth Section , Chap. 6.

Out of that which hitherto hath beene said , it appeares plainly how the conclusion which the Enquirer would inferre in this fifth Section , is no way applicable to our manner of probation of the Churches Infallibility : for we doe not , as he surmiseth , maintaine that our Church the Guide of Faith , is to be knowne by such markes by which the ignorant cannot seeke it , and the Learned may chance to misse , although with all diligence and without prejudice they enquire after it ; for we affirme that our first principles of probation are certaine and manifest , and out of them , we with certainty , though not with evidence , evict the Church . By which manner of proceeding it is cleare , that our probations are Logicall and conformable to the rules prescribed for the hunting out of truth by Aristotle in his Analytiques , and the Philosophers in generall .

Some peradventure will deny our Churches verity to be evidently credible : If any doe it , the matter must be remitted to an equall triall betweene us . But , say you , who must be the Judge ? I am no Socinian , nor inclining to that sort of mis-believers , yet neverthelesse , I say , right reason must be he , and every man 's owne conscience ; and of these Judges , I hope all men will allow , and it is reasonable sure they ought to doe so , because reason is in all questions the last and the interior Judge , without whose assent and approbation , no exterior is sufficient and compleat . For exterior Judges be as spectacles to the eies ; and as spectacles , be they never so good , cannot see without eies , so cannot revelation , be it never so manifest , give the last sentence about any doctrine , nor be sufficient without reason .

It may be further replied , that these principles of ours are also question'd . Admit they be , yet neverthelesse may they be certaine and evident , otherwise we should grant nothing to be certaine ; for there is no one thing so evident , which is not question'd by some or other .

C. 6. Answer to the 6. Chap.

That which you say to the fifth Section , is in effect the denying the conclusion , when the premises are either not deny'd , or not confuted ; for that which his Lordship saith in that Section , you acknowledge to be a conclusion , and is so indeed of all that went before ; all directly tending to this , That the Church provided for the guide of faith , it offered by you to be knowne by such markes as the ignorant cannot seeke it by , and the Learned , though never so honest in his search , may chance not to finde it by . This then being the conclusion of all the discourse you professe to deny , upon no other proofe but by affirming , that your principles of probation are certaine and manifest , i. e. by saying the direct contrary to his conclusion , but not thinking needfull to prove it ; And so beside that other absurdity in Logick , there is petitio principii againe .

In doing this you were , I conceive very much resisted by your owne spirit ; for the satisfying of which you are faine to say this strange thing , that your principles of probation are certaine and manifest , and out of them you evict the Church with certainty , though not with evidence : where either you must affirme to thinke that [ evident ] and [ manifest ] are not all one , or else that the conclusion is not evident , when the premises are ; either of which you shall have free liberty to take the choyce of , and maintaine in your reply . And when you have shewed your skill in so doing , you then shall have leave to boast that your probations are Logicall and conformable to the rules of Aristotle in his Analitiques , and the Philosophers in generall ; but till then 't was to no more purpose to say that of your selfe , then 't will be to the edification of any that I have repeated it to you .

Having thus confim'd the conclusion with that great popular argument ( that prevailes with so many ) a bare confidence of affirming it , it is very remarkable what your next attempt is ; why , in stead of that hard taske which lay so heavy upon your shoulders , to get an easier , if 't were possible ; and therefore you foresee that some may peradventure deny your Churches verity to be evidently credible . Good Sir , what is this but to suborne a weaker adversary to challenge you , that you may be excused from fighting with the stronger ? we desire plaine dealing , that you will prove your principles of probation to be certaine and manifest ( which is the thing you affirm'd ) and not to thinke to put us off with more obscure and lesse containing tearmes of your Churches verity being evidently credible . For first , your Churches verity ( i. e. I conceive its being the true Church for I hope you speak not now of its Metaphysicall verity , or its being truly a Church , for so it may be , and be very fallible , and very corrupt ) is an equivocall phrase , and , in what ever sense , is not so much as your Churches infallibility ; for it may be a true Church , and not be infallible , i. e. upon supposition , that what ever now it taught were actually true , 't were yet possible it might erre , even when it doth not ; nay , if its verity should signifie that it were a true Church ( as perhaps you meane ) exclusively to all others , i. e. that the Catholique Church were the Roman Church , and the Roman the Catholique ; yet speaking of the present state of the Church , i. e. of the present Roman Church , though it were supposed to be the present Catholique Church , yet may that be fallible again , because those that are now in the truth , may fall into errour , and others rise up , as they fall , to be defendors of the truth , and so the promise of God of keeping his Church from finall or totall falling , be made good still .

As for that other largest notion of the Catholique Church ( under which we confesse it to be infallible ) that of the universall Church all the world over , without any restriction ; I conceive it impossible , that by your Church ( which is the Church with an eminent restriction ) you should meane that ; and upon that ground it was , that I affirm'd , that the verity of your Church , in what ever sense , is not so much as its infallibility .

Then againe your phrase of evidently credible , is not sure so much as certaine and manifest ; for though evidently credible sound strangely , ( and if it have any sense in it , hath also some obscurity ) yet I shall suppose you meane by it , that which is credible , or may be believed , and of which it is evident that it may , the words Grammatically can beare no other sense then this , that it is evident that they are credible ; now certainly to be evident and certaine , is much more then to be credible , though it be never so evident that it is credible . For suppose me actually to acknowledge that you have some probable arguments that your Church is the true Church ; nay suppose it is so evident that you have such arguments , that every man that hath common understanding will be ready to acknowledge you have so , doth it thence follow , that I , or all others , doe and must acknowledge that you have demonstrated it ? this is to make no difference between the two sorts of Arguments in Logick , Topicall and Demonstrative ; or in a word , to conclude that to be infallible , which you durst not say was any more then credible ; for as for the word [ evidently ] added to it , it cannot have such an influence on the word , credible , as to make that quite another , or higher sort of things then it was ; Credible in the clearest or highest degree is but credible still , as the eminentest or excellentest man in the world is a man still ; and therefore in briefe , if we should helpe you to fewer adversaries then you have , and take off that suborn'd enemy of yours , whom you suppose to deny your Churches verity to be eminently credible , you would have gain'd by it but little peace from his Lordship , who would still require you to make good your pretension of infallibility , which will be a much harder theme to declaime for popularly , ( I am sure Logically ) then the credibility of the verity of your Church .

As for your way of answering that objection , because the objection is not needfull for us to make , Any reply , or confutation of your answer will be as unnecessary . I shall onely report to other men from your owne pen , one notable decision of yours , that in a triall of huge importance , concerning the credibility of the verity of your Church ( I must be faine to use your phrase ) right reason and every man 's owne conscience must be the Judge ; which being so great an act of complyance and favour both to those which assert reason , and to those that maintaine the private spirit to be the Judge of Controversies , i. e. to two sorts of men , which have hitherto beene believed opposite enough to your infallibility , it will be but gratitude to reward so great a bounty , with a favourable interpretation of a good meaning , and he should be very rude and uncivill , who would not grant upon such your demand , that you are no Socinian , nor inclining to that sort of mis-believers ; for sure he that makes right reason the Judge of his very principles , must needs be so rationall , and ingenuous , that he can never be an Heretique , though he say the very things that Heretiques doe .

As for your very excellent similie of the eies and the spectacles , I shall not have a word to say to it , save onely this , that although you have gotten the inclosure and monopoly of spectacles , ( I meane of imposing of an exterior Judge upon us ) yet other men may be allowed to have eies , as well as you , i. e. to have reason and conscience to Judge of your Judge , and then the issue ( according to your premises being granted to you ) will be this , that they whose reason and conscience tels them , that 't is not evidently credible , that your Church should be the true Church , exclusively to all others , shall not be obliged to believe it is so ( for their owne reason , say you , and Conscience is to be judge ) that they whose reason , &c. tels them it is so credible , may believe it , if they please ; nay , if they have no arguments as credible to the contrary , and upon impartiall search can finde none , it is very reasonable for them to believe what to their conscience is so credible ; but if they have such arguments to the contrary , or if it be their fault that they have not , they are sure no farther bound to believe it ( if they are not Subjects of your Church ) then those dictates of their conscience doe extend to oblige them , or ( if they are Subjects , yet ) no farther then the doctrine of obedience rightly stated ( which will be too long a worke for a parenthesis ) hath influence on mens opinions ; but then still , what ever their case be for believing the verity of your Church , they can no way from thence be obliged to believe your infallibility .

You confesse there may farther reply be made to you , that these principles of yours are also question'd , but take no notice upon what grounds of reason or Scripture they are question'd , and so thinke you can deale with so unarm'd an adversary , as you please , by telling him they may be certaine and evident , though they be question'd ; and perhaps I shall confesse to you , that if they were onely question'd , and no reason that were not by you easily answered , brought to justifie such questioning , it were sufficient which you say , that questioning doth not disprove certainty ; ( and yet if every man's conscience be the Judge , as you acknowledge , then unlesse you can make it evident that that man's questioning is against conscience , you will have no way to keepe it from being certaine , and evident to him ) but when there be arguments produc'd to backe that questioning , which you have no way to answer , but by saying they may be certaine and evident for all that ; he that disputes with you , will be excus'd to thinke he hath more reason to say ( and that you say must be judge ) that it may be otherwise .

To the 6. & 7. Sections , Chap. 7.

No doubt there can be , but God will reveale his truth to all such as seeke it with sincerity of heart ; and though both sides , as the Enquirer objecteth , may make use of this for an exterior allegation , yet not as of interior helpe and preparation ; and therefore this sincerity is not a disposition unprofitable , though it be a proofe inefficacious , and thus much we grant willingly , neither doe we challenge it as an argument of truth .

We grant him also , that before such time as we can believe the Church , we are to acquire sufficient principles for informing us which is she ; and also before we can believe upon her determinations , we must have principles of knowing she is infallible , and all this we make profession we doe , de facto , know . Neither doe we take this Church to be a Proteus , that is to say , sometimes of one shape , sometimes of another , but a conspicuous body constantly adorned with the robes of truth , and annexed to a Succession of Pastours legitimate from one age to another .

C. 7. Ans. to Chap. 7.

Your answer to the sixth Section is by giving a distinction to tell us now both sides make use of the pretence of seeking truth sincerely ] and concludes , that sincerity is not a disposition unprofitable , though it be a proofe inefficacious ; which because you are willing to grant , I will containe my selfe from springing any game or recreation for the Reader at this time ( of which he that were playsomely disposed , would finde aboundant matter in the review of your distinction here applied ) and give you present payment for your favour by acknowledging , that that which you grant , is all that is begg'd from you , viz. that God's promise of revealing of truth to those who seeke it sincerely , is not at all an argument , that they that pretend to the benefit of that promise , must have reall title to it ; or consequently , that they that have no other arguments to prove their Churches Infallibility , but that they seeke truth sincerely , and yet after that sincere search are of that opinion , are to be heeded in their pretensions . This justifies his Lordships sixth paragraph , as fully as if you had subscribed it without your distinction .

His Lordships seventh Paragraph consists of two things ; First , a resuming of a part of his former argument , which had beene onely mentioned , but not inforc'd before , that [ supposing the Church were proved to be infallible , yet were not that sufficient to give any man certaine knowledge which were it : ] Secondly , a solid proofe of this affirmation , by plaine reason , because the granting the Infallibility of the Church did onely conclude , that God would alwaies have a Church that should not erre , but not that this was appropriated to any particular Church , to such a Succession , to the Bishop and Clergy of such a place , &c. Thirdly , by a lively instance of the Greeke Church , which though it were now in the right , might hereafter erre , and so the Greeke Church be now fallible , and yet at the time that that erred , another Church might arise the Champion of truth , and so still the Church be infallible .

To these two parts of the Paragraph your dispatch is short , ( and annext to the nothing that was replied to the former Section ) to the first , a liberall Grant of that which no man thankes you for , ( that it is as necessary to know which that infallible Church is , as that the Church is so ) but then saying and professing , that you doe , de facto , know which is the Church , and that she is infallible ; which ( beside that it is your old beloved petitio principii , to say you know it , & offer no proof for it , but your profession and a Latine word , ( when the very thing that his Lordship was just a proving , was , that you neither did nor could know it ) comes not at all home to his Lordship's matter of shewing , that the acknowledgement of the Infallibility of the Church doth not evict , which is she : For if 't were acknowledged that you did know it , yet might it be by some other meanes , and not by proving or confessing the Church to be infallible .

As for his Lordship's proofe and instance added to his proposition , 't was so despicable a thing , that 't was not worth taking notice of ; but instead of any such thing , you give us a declaration of your owne opinion , that the Infallible Church was not a Proteus , but a conspicuous body constantly adorned with truth , &c. which is againe the meanest begging of that which was just then denied , and disprov'd ; and must so stand , till you can annex reasons to your opinion , and answers to his Lordships reasons .

To the 8. Section . Chap. 8.

We never goe about to prove our Church to be the true , therefore , because it holdeth with the truth , or teacheth true doctrine , as this Enquirer seemeth to suppose we doe ; but rather contrariwise , because it is the true Church of Christ , therefore we inferre it teacheth true doctrine ; but that it is the true Church , we prove first of all and originally by reall revelations , called in the Scripture , Verba Signorum , that is , by signes , ostensions , or motives of credibility ; Psal. 104.27 . which motives for a great and sufficient part of them , are the same by which we prove to Infidels the truth of Christianity it selfe . For these same motives , though when they are considered but in generall , and as it were afarre off , doe perswade Christianity but in generall , without designing out in particular this or that Individuall Christianity ; yet neverthelesse the selfe-same being understood distinctly , doe designe out a distinct and individuall Christianity , and are applicable to none else ; as for example , the same species which shew me a man in generall afarre off , the selfe-same afterwards , when he comes nearer , being distinctly perceived , doe shew me that man is this individuall ; as Plato for example , and no other : For reall species doe not represent unto us , Entia rationis , or , Individua vaga , but determinate Individuals , namely , as often as those species are distinctly and compleatly understood . As for the Circles into which both this Enquirer and Chillingworth would cast us , and make us dance within them whether we will or no , they are but Chymaericall conceptions of fidling and trifling dispositions , which love to have toyes wherewith to entertaine themselves , and in this point of resolution , as we have declared it already , have no semblance of reality .

C. 8. Ans. to the 8. Chap.

His Lordship supposing in charity that you had attempted to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church by its agreement with Scripture and Antiquity , which is in effect , by holding the truth ; You plainely tell him he is mistaken in you . It seemes you defie such meane waies of proving yours to be the Church , as accordance with Scripture or Truth , you must have it by some more noble way of demonstration ; and if you would stand to this peice of gallantry , and never urge Scripture or Fathers to prove your opinions , but content your selfe with your being the true Church , to prove all after it : As I confesse I should not charge on you that Circle which his Lordship doth in this particular ( supposing , as he thought favourably to you , that you had proved the truth of the Church by the truth ( and consonancy to Scriptures and Fathers ) of your doctrines ) so I should have two quarrels more against you , in stead of that one composed . First , that you would disclaime Scriptures and fly to miracles , ( for such are your reall revelations , as you interpret them by the verba signorum , in the Psalme , the signes being there interpreted by the wonders that follow ) that you would fly to Gods extraordinary providence , when I presume you conceive his ordinary would have served your turne ; for sure if at another time a man should have asked you , is not your accordance with the Scriptures and Fathers a prime proofe that you are the true Church , I doubt not but you would be so well natured as to confesse it ; and why now should the Devils infirmity , the feare of a Circle , make you so cowardly , as not to dare to owne so popular an argument , especially when your fire comes downe slowly , or your bath Col the voice from Heaven , ( which is the onely proper notion that I know of a reall revelation ) is not very audible to us that are afarre off : nor if we were , to be put upon the racke ; doe we know , or can confesse at this day , that we or any of our Fathers ever heard that 't was so ever revealed , that the Roman Church is the true , or the infallible Church . And besides when you know , we Protestants are a little hard of beliefe , and dare not credit your owne report , that you have such ostensions , and revelations , and signes , when you neither produce witnesse , nor tell us , when or what they were , but give us farther ground of jealousie , by an odde phrase let fall by you , that those reall revelations of yours are motives ( no more then ) of credibility , when as true miracles acknowledged to be such , are grounds of Faith , and he is an Infidell that believes them not ; and to be but a motive of credibility , is but a petty thing that every topicall argument will take place of , probable being more then credible in the ordinary notion of the words .

The second quarrell that your words have brought upon you , is your telling us ( without proofe that it is so , but onely by giving a similitude to shew it may be so , and so , in your phrase , to be a motive of no more then credibility , which in him that concludes it is so , is petitio principii againe ) that the same motives you use to prove the truth of Christianity against Infidels , will prove yours to be the true Church ; which being confidently said , we are so vile in your eies , as not to be vouchsafed so much as the mention what they are , ( unlesse by your former words we conclude you meane miracles ) much lesse any evidence concerning them ; And yet by the way , the miracles by which we prove the truth of Christianity to Infidels , must be those which we meet with in Scripture , and not those other in your Legends ; and upon a strict survey and recollecting of all them ( and so comming as neare to them as can be ) I must professe I cannot see your Churches being the true Church in those miracles , neare so clearly and distinctly , as I can see the man afarre off to be one of my acquaintance , when he comes neare me , which you undertooke I should , and made me try ; and therefore I hope will recompence me for the losse of my labour , by giving me your reasons next time for your assertion , that I may try againe whether your proofes are more lucky then your experiments .

But then I cannot see why you should be scurrilous upon both his Lordship and Master Chillingworth , for thinking you were in danger of the Circle , in which sure Baron had deprehended your Friend Turnbull , and in which you had beene engaged infallibly , if you had but gone about to prove your Church the true Church by the truth ( or consonancy to Scriptures and Fathers ) of your opinions ; which way of proving me thinkes 't is possible you may stand in need of , before you come to the end of your answer . In the meane , as the calling downe Hercules upon the Stage , was wont to be a Character of a Tragicke Poet , i. e. of a fabulous , wonderfull undertaker , Cum fabulae exitum explicare non potuerit , so to fetch us in miracles and ostensions , to prove that divine truth that you confesse must not be proved by the Scripture , will passe for a peice of Poetry , I feare , instead of a motive of credibility ; and those that are chearfully disposed , will be apt to tell you , that you were faine to conjure hard , and doe , or pretend miracles , or else you had beene enclosed in that Circle .

To the 9. and 10. Sections , Chap. 9.

To these I answer in a word , that neither the Greeke , nor any other Church can pretend the Primacy or Principall succession of Pastours , that is to say , from the President of the Apostle Saint Peter ; none , I say , besides Rome , can pretend this ; and without this one , no●e can be authenticall or sufficient to prove a Church , or a succession of Pastours Ecclesiasticall ; and so the Enquirers starting-hole in the Greeke Church , into which he alwaies makes his retreat , is prevented and shut up against him .

By this also is the 10. Section answered , for whatsoever Churches claime unto succession shall be alleadged , it can no way evacuate that of Rome , as hath before beene shewed .

Ch. 9. Answ. to Chap. 9.

Your answer to the 9. and 10. Sections , signifies a great deale , viz: that you were so put to it by the conviction of his Lordships argument , that to dis-intangle your selfe you have ventured to vent a peice of very severe divinity , which my charity to you makes me hope you will not justifie ; and if you will , yet your no argument produced , gives me nothing to answer , nor otherwise to reply , then by denying as mercifully and obligingly to the world , as you doe cruelly affirme ; viz: that without succession sufficient from Saint Peter , there is no succession sufficient to prove a Church , or a succession of Pastours Ecclesiasticall ] and this is so strange a newes to our eares ( who were confident that what ever you deeme of the other two parts of three of the Christian world at this present , you had allowed liberty to Apostles to ordaine Churches , as well as ( and without succession from ) Saint Peter ; and indeed that that which in the second and eighth line of your Chapter , you call the Greeke Church , might have beene acknowledged to be a Church in the seventh ) that had you not said it in the most evident tearmes ( None beside Rome can pretend this , and without this one , none can be sufficient to prove a Church , &c. ) & had there been any way imaginable but this , to answer his Lordship's argument , I should never have thought this had beene your meaning ; till I see you againe owne this severe doctrine , I shall not take paines to confute it ; and when I see that , I must say , that his Lordship presumed you had not been so bloudily minded when he proposed to you the argument in those two Sections .

And yet after all this , I doubt not but with a little change , his Lordships argument will still hold against you , even after you have ventured on such strange practices , to secure your self from it , Thus ; suppose you had evinced that the succession from S. Peter were infallible , and so proved the Roman Church to be so , because none else pretended to succeed S. Peter , yet this can be no sufficient ground of belief to the ignorant , who cannot have any infallible foundation of belief , that the Greek Church doth not pretend from S. Peter , whether by S. Mark at Alexandria , who might be ordained by S. Peter , whose right hand , they say , he was in the penning of the Gospell ; or by Evodius at Antioch , where S. Peter was Bishop seven yeares ( as your owne Baronius ) or by any other , or ( to the ignorant it matters not ) by no other known way ; and even to the learned it is but an accidentall argument , because if any other company had likewise claimed Succession from Saint Peter ( as they of * * Euscb . hist. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Antioch do ) it had overthrown all that probation ; nay it is but an arbitrary argument which the adversary can confute by but denying ; for if any society of Christians so called , would pretend to be from Saint Peter some other way , then by succeeding him at Rome , or submitting to his government , your Church could make use of it no longer .

As for that which you adde in a word of answer to the 10 Sect. that what ever Churches claime unto succession , shall be alleadged it can no way evacuate that of Rome ; if it be applied to his Lordship's argument , it is absolutely false , for if Rome's claime to Infallibility together , and to succession to Saint Peter , be to be proved by this , because none else pretends to it ( which is the argument which his Lordship here confutes ) then sure any other Churches claime , or pretending to it will evacuate that claime or title , that by that argument is pretended , and contrary to this there is yet nothing shewed .

To the 11. Section , Chap. 10.

What mercy God will use in pardoning the errorurs of those men who doe seeke sincerely and yet misse , makes nothing at all against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide , because those misses or mistakings be cases extraordinary . Besides , I would know why any pardon should need for such innocent errours which be defects involuntary , and so can be no crimes ; wherefore me thinks the discourse of our Enquirer in this Section is not coherent .

C. 10. Answ: To the Chap. 10.

His Lordship's argument Sect. 11. is very strong against the collecting a necessity of an Infallible guide for the interpreting of Scripture from the topick of God's goodnesse , by proposing another way of reconciling God's providence with his goodnesse in this matter , ( which if it may be done , concludes that other unnecessary ) viz. by mentioning a doctrine of more Evangelicall oeconomy ; in which errours may be reconcileable with mercy , when God doth give grace to the diligent seeker to finde out truth , or by this dilemma , that without such an infallible guide , upon the use of Reason in the interpretation of Scripture , and search for tradition , God will either give grace to finde what is so sought , or pardon if he misse ; and so though it stand not with Gods goodnesse to damne him for every errour , to whom he hath assigned no infallible way to finde out all truth , yet to him that is confident that God will not damne any man upon such tearmes , as the servant laid to his charge , when he told him he was an austere man , &c. to him that teaches not such legall bloudy doctrine against God , this argument of the Romanists will not be pressing at all ; this expedient of the Gospell-grace or Gospell-mercy being as fit for the turne of infirme soules , as an infallible guide would be ; as indeed the state of imperfection wherein we are placed , is as fit for our turnes , when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Gospell is revealed , and proportioned to it , as Adam's Paradise of Supernaturall all-sufficient strength , and innocence would be .

To all which all that you returne is only this that all this is nothing against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide ; because those misses or mistakings are cases extraordinary : To which I answer , First , that if it were supposed that against the ordinary provision of a guide the argument were not of force , yet sure it might against the necessity of it , and then that is all that is pretended to by his Lordship , and that which alone is destructive to you ; and therefore 't is strange you should couple them together as so sociall things , which are so distant and separable , for sure though Evangelicall grace and mercy doe not exclude an ordinary provision of an infallible way , but leave it in medio , that God may if he will make that ordinary provision , yet notwithstanding this , it followes not that such a provision is required , or nenessary ; There is a wide distance betwixt [ possible if God please ] and [ necessary to the vindicating of God's goodnesse ] now against the latter onely it is that his Lordship argues , and is not at all concern'd in th' other , and therefore I shall not need to examine whether the first be true , it being so cleare , that the second hangs so loose from it , and will alone serve our turnes as well .

But then Secondly , I professe not at all to understand what you meane by that reason of your assertion , [ because the misses or mistakings be cases extraordinary ] for first , how can it be denied in this imperfect infirme state of mortality , that now we are in , but that errours and mistakings are very ordinary ? That they are common there is no doubt , and as little that they are agreeable to that order or course that is now among men , and to you that say in the next words , that you know not why such defects should need any pardon ( and to us that acknowledge that they that reforme all other , and pray daily , demitte debita , shall through Christ have pardon of course for these ) sure they cannot passe for extraordinary cases in either sense , for that would imply , that now under the Gospell it should be ordinary , or regular to punish involuntary errours ( which you say can be no crimes ) and extraordinary either for us to commit , or for God to pardon them .

But then Secondly , if it were true that these misses , &c. were cases extraordinary , yet can I not see how these words can be annext to your former , as a proofe of their being answer to his Lordship ( because how extraordinary soever the misses may be , the pardon for misses may doe as well for you , as an infallible guide ) unlesse you meane somewhat else by ordinary cases , then what my capacity hath reacht to , and till you please to instruct me better , I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and by exercising my charity in not judging what I doe not understand , invite yours to instruct me that I may .

As for the Coherence of his Lordships discourse , you have little temptation to doubt of that , when you have said that he conceives that such errours or missings should need pardon , for to that , all that he saith is coherent ; It seemes you are not of his opinion for the truth of that ; and whether is in the right I shall not now examine , or enlarge to any so accidentall and extrinsecall discourse , but onely tell you , that believing as you doe , you ought to have said [ not true ] when you mistooke , and said [ not coherent . ]

To the 12. Section , Chap. 11.

To this charge we answer , that our proofes of a sure guide , are themselves also sure ; and what proofes those are , we before have signified , Chap. 8. & Sect. 8. and before Chap. 5. Sect. 4.

Ch. 11. Answ. to the 11. Chap.

Your next Chapter being but a reference to what you had before said ( and that before examined by us ) my answer shall be answerably onely a reference also , without taking more paines , to put you in minde , how unfit your Verba signorum ( which you there affirmed to be motives of credibility ) are now to proceed or commence infallible proofes , for those are they which his Lordship's argument requires in his 12. Section .

To the 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , Sections , Chap. 12.

The Infallibility of Popes or Councels is no point of doctrine necessary to be knowne distinctly , before any resolution of faith can be made , because it is sufficient to learne out of Catechismes and the common practice of the Church , what is to be believed : Neither is there any more probable feare of missing which is the See Apostolique , and which the Churches living in communion with it , then there is of a Subjects being ignorant to what Kingdome he belongs ; and , as for doctrine of beliefe , it is found out as readily , and as surely as the other , by those meanes of instruction which we have signified already . As for the Simony objected , Sect. 14. it is no impediment of his power , so he be received peaceably by the Church , and not 〈◊〉 in question for it . The like may be said of the decrees and definitions of Councels , together with the sense or meaning of them . And by this the 15 , and the 16 Sections are answered .

C. 12. Answ. to the 12. Chap.

His Lordship , in quest . after your infallible ground of faith , tooke into consideration the Popes Infallibility , Sect. 13. the Infallibility of a Councell by him called , Sect. 14. and produced arguments , I conceive , convincing against each .

To these your onely answer is , that neither of these Infallibilities are necessary to be knowne distinctly before any resolution of faith can be made , and you give your reasons for it , because , &c. which is in plaine tearmes to grant and prove the thing which his Lordship desires , and proves ; for if they were the ground of faith , they would be necessary to be knowne distinctly before any resolution of faith , the foundation being absolutely necessary to the superstruction in materiall edifices ; and in intellectuall , the distinct knowledge of a ground of faith being as necessary to a distinct resolution of faith , as the ground it selfe , which workes not upon any man's understanding ( the seat of this Faith ) any further then it is knowne . This concession of yours being all that is demanded of you at this time , we shall not need insist on , nor debate farther , what influence the case of Simony may have upon the Popes Infallibility ; If he be infallible at all , He , or He and a Councell , you say 't is not necessary to ground faith , ( which is the onely use we have of it in this present enquiry ) for it seemes the Catechismes , or common practice of the Church , are sufficient to teach what is to be believed .

What ? Is the Popes and Councels Infallibility made unnecessary ? and is a Catechisme and common practice of the Church sufficient for the grounding of faith infallibly ? Certainly we are growne very low , and are supposed men of very moderate desires , if it be thought we shall thus be content with the Infallibility of a Catechisme : For whatsoever is sufficient for the grounding of faith infallibly ( remember [ infallibly ] must come in , for otherwise 't is not to his Lordship's discourse ) must it selfe be acknowledged infallible . Which if you shall please to affirme of any of your Catechismes , as I shall first desire to be directed which Catechisme it is , that of Trent , or what others , ( that I may not mistake in the choice of my Guide ) so I shall make bold to demand whence this Infallibility , or authority of this prime guide of faith is to be fetcht ? It will be sure from the authority of the Pope ( or Councell ) of that time when 't was compiled and confirmed , and then still we fall backe to the infallibility of the Pope , or Councell , which it seemes in the last resolve is become necessary againe to the grounding of Faith , and so againe must be knowne before any resolution of Faith be built ( even upon the Catechisme ) which was the thing you just now denied : As for the common practice of the Church , that that should be a ground of Faith , or sufficient for us to learne by it , what is to be believed ( besides that this is a weaker ground then Catechismes , as much as errours are more likely to get into the practice of the many , then into the Bookes of the Learned , or Authentique Writings of the Church ; and accordingly 't is observable in the particular of images , that the common practice of men is much more grosse , then the Writings of the Learned ) 't is impossible that that should ever be a guide , quâ cundum , which way we are to goe , till it be some other way proved , that we ought to goe that way .

For the improbability of missing the See Apostolique , and which be the Churches that live in communion with it , we have no obligation lying on us to deny it ; his Lordship's words gave you no occasion to assert it ; nor can we see what at this time you can get by it , when you acknowledge the Infallibility of Pope or Councell unnecessary to be knowne before any resolution of faith can be made .

You adde [ and as for doctrine of beliefe , &c. ] This I should conceive you had spoken of before in those words [ what is to be believed ] and then your memory was short to put it in againe within five lines , as if it had beene a new matter .

I told you 't was not necessary , after you had confessed the cause to insist on the matter of Simony , which was an argument of his Lordships to defend it . Yet that you may not complaine that any word of yours is neglected , or lost upon us , I have considered that also , and aske you whether it be not true what his Lordship saith , that a Pope chosen by Simony is ipso facto , no Pope , you ( durst not , I conceive , because you ) did not before deny it ; and if now you will take more courage , let your minde be knowne , and we shall not doubt to bring as Classicke Authors as your selfe against you . If it be true , then is your answer of no validity , because of no truth ; for either that infallibility , or whatever other power , must be annex'd to him as a man ( which he may be indeed , though he be not Pope ) or under some other relation , which infallibly belongs to him , ( neither of which , I conceive , you will affirme , for then ten thousand to one , some other will communicate with him in that claime ) or else he must be Pope , when he is , ipso facto , no Pope ; or else that power must be annext to him by some body , that may thinke him Pope when he is not , and then either God must runne the errour , or that power be given him from some other , for that God should know him to be no Pope , and yet give that power of Infallibility ( for if you speake of any other power it is not pertinent ) to him , as long as he is peaceably received , must , First , conclude that a no-pope may be infallible . And Secondly , that whosoever is so received by the Church , is so ; which unlesse there be some promise of Gods to assure me that he hath promised it to the Churches blind reception , will , for ought I yet see , conclude againe , that either the chaire or the peoples errour gives him that prerogative .

To the 15 , and 16 , Sections , you reply no one word , but referre it to your former answer , whether , if I knew which part of your answer it were ( for that immediately precedent I conceive 't is not , for I hope the Simoniacall election hath nothing to doe with the decrees of Councels ) I should attend it , but the scent being cold , I am at a losse , and so must be content to give over the game .

Yet seeing I am on this matter of the Popes Infallibility ( because you have wholly avoided that question , and by a kinde of stratagem diverted it , and so not given me any occasion to defend his Lordship in that matter ) I shall a little consider the reader , ( to whom I am much obliged , if he shall have had patience to read thus farre , i. e. to endure the penance of so much Nothing ) and give him a few collections of my owne , to this purpose of the Popes infallibility ; not that I conceive they will from me finde any better entertainment then his Lordship's reasonings had done , but because they are for the most part the concessions of your owne men , from whence I here transcribe them .

That the Pope is not onely fallible , but even judicially subject to errour , deviation , defection , and ( in Ocham's phrase , haereticabilis ) to heresy , apostacy , Atheisme , and in his practice to sinne of any the most hain us kinde , and consequently to damnation irreversible . I shall assert no farther then these honourable Names will avow and authorize me . Among your owne Writers , ( I meane Pontificians ) Lyra in Matth. 16. Waldensis , l. 2. doctrin . fidei antiq. Gerson . de exam. doct. consid. 1 , 2 , 3. Adrianus Sextus the Pope , in 4. sent. de confirm . qu. ult. Driedo de libert. Christ . l. 2. c. 2. Cardin. de Turrecrem . l. 2. c. 16. Almainus de author . Eccles. c. 8. ad 6. &c. 10. & de dom. civ . nat. & Eccl. concl . 3. Archidiaconus Bononiensis , in Grat. gloss . in dist. 19. contra Auxentium . Catharinus in Gal. 2. Yea and the Councels of Constance and Basil , and the Fathers generally there assembled , which I hope tooke not up this doctrine from Luthers or Calvins dictates .

To this purpose is it that we reade of Childebert King of France , that he sent Ruffinus his Legate to Rome , to enquire of Pelagius the Pope , whether he had violated the Faith , as (a) (a) Ad a●n . 556. n. 25. Baronius testifies ; the same was suspected of him by the Bishop of Tuscia , and other Bishops of Italy , to whom he sent his Apologie , saith the same (b) (b) Ib. n. 30. Baronius . So Gregory the first , being under the like suspicion , wrote his (c) (c) Greg. l. 2 . ●p. 4. Apologie to Theodolinda Queene of the Long●bards . So the Popes generally laboured to approve themselves to the Emperours , and purged themselves before them ; Sixtus before Valentinian concerning the crime laid to his charge by Baessus Symmachus upon an accusation of forgery , saith an (d) (d) Anonym : de aerat . eccles c. 7. ap. Gol●astum in monarch . 1.1 . p. 29. Author in Goldastus ; all which are arguments that the Popes infallibility was in those daies unknowne to the world , and the Popes themselves were not very perfect in it ; if they had , they would have beene more confident then to have made Apologies .

Farther yet , the Bishops of Germany met at Brixia , the Bishops of France at Mentz , condemned the Pope for a disciple of Berengarius . Or if the condemnations of such will not be of value against the Pope , you gave reason even now leave to be the Judge , and that , and common sense may be so in this matter , if you will but read the (e) (e) Inter Episiclas Hyber . p. 49. Epistle of Pope Zachary to Boniface , è Cathedra , a Papall and definitive rescript , wherein he condemnes one Vergilius for an Hereticke , for affirming that there were Antipodes ; which whether it were an errour in him , I leave you to judge , and professe my self to be of opinion , that though it were , 't was yet more tolerably discreet and pious , then that of Gregory the seventh , that there is but one name under Heaven , that of the Pope , to whose Seate whosoever paid not obedience , became presently an Idolater and a Pagan ; and if you will undertake to defend this , I will reward you by adventuring to justifie the other . That speech of Gilbert , Bishop of Rhemes , that after was Pope , shall with me be sufficient to expiate for either ; Audaciter dicam , &c. I shall boldly say , In Epist. ad Scquiti Senonensem . that the Bishop of Rome himselfe , if he have offended any Brother , and will not heare the admonitions of the Church , ought to passe for an Heathen and a Publican .

But all these are but trifles , if they be compared with other knowne passages of story , how Stephanus was reprehended by Cyprian , Liberius by Athanasius , Honorius almost by all Christians , of no lesse crimes then Heresy it selfe . Or because that is but one piece of carnality , and there be many others beside that , as probable , and considerable errours , and carnalities , I beseech you review either in your memory , or in Onufrius , and Platina , the lifes and manners of the Popes , the incests , and sorceries , and cruelties of Alexander the 6. the Idolatrous sacrifices of Marcellinus , Calestin's using the helpe of Magitians and Devils to come to the Papacy , and then tell me your opinion , whether Popes may not erre ; and when you have replyed , by way of distinction of manners from Doctrines , be then pleased to answer † † De Papat● . Nilus ( by some more satisfactory way then by calling him pratling Greeke ) this question , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , how it fals out that the Pope can deny God in his workes , but cannot by any meanes in his words ; ( what charme or amulet kept his tongue inerrable , when his whole body was subject to those darts of Satan ) and when you have done that , I beseech you to phansy to your selfe what kinde of crimes you conceive those Popes would have committed , if they had beene fallible .

I shall not enlarge this supernumerary trouble any farther , or expect your answer to every of these passages in Bookes ; if I have wronged any by misciting , I shall be glad to heare of it ; and if they make not all together one probable argument or proofe of the fallibility of the Pope , I beseech you pardon me for this unneedfull importunity .

To the 17 , & 18 , Sections , Chap. 11.

I noted before , that the knowledge of all these particulars recited by the Enquirer , are no way necessary to the Believer , and therefore both this Author and Baron the Scotch Minister struggle in vaine , when as with such care and vehemency they presse them against us . I conclude then , that in the Church of God Councels doe not multiply doubts , but diminish them .

C. 11. Answ. to Chap. 11.

To the 17 , & 18 , Sections , the answer is a reference againe to a note dropt from you before , which truly I should not have been likely to apply to this businesse in hand , if you had not given me that seasonable admonition . Your note , I conceive , referres to your discourse in the precedent Chapter , how Catechismes , and the common practice of the Church teach all , what is to be believed . And ( as then the Popes infallibility , so now ) that of Councels is unnecessary to be knowne , and by that meanes all these particulars also ; for if the infallibility of Councels were necessary to be knowne ( as it must be if they were deciders of questions ) then all these particulars mentioned by his Lordship , would be necessary to be knowne also , because they are incident to every Councell , and the knowledge of its infallibility ( because of its decisions , and even being it selfe ) depends on these .

And the fitnesse of Councels to decide Controversies being the thing his Lordship had now in hand , and which Baron treats on , when he uses the like arguments , sure neither of them struggle in vaine ; but you rather ( who 't was thought in reason would have beene no wiser then your fellowes , and so would have asserted that fitnesse of Councels ) have become a very slippery Wrestler , gliding out of their hands , when their arguments began to lay hold on you ; and after such an escape as this , I confesse 't is matter of wonder to me , how you could thinke fit to end with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , triumph presupposing victory , and victory resistance , and none of these here are to be heard of , but onely a conclusion , that what his Lordship had said and proved , he had said falsely ( a petitio principii againe ) that Councels doe not diminish doubts , but multiply them . Which proposition and proofe of his Lordships , having no need of defending any farther , I shall onely interpose one caution , which I desire may be observed in his Lordships discourse , that it being supposed , that Councels are dot deciders of controversies , ( meaning thereby infallible ones ) they be yet of good authority and use in the Church , to helpe to decide them , and ( notwithstanding all the doubts that his Lordship saith they doe multiply ) be onely denied by us the priviledge of infallibility , not that other of being very usefull and venerable in a lower degree , and ( such the Councell may be ) even next to the Word of God it selfe .

To the 19. Section , Chap. 13.

He maintaines here a strange paradox , and one very improbable , namely , that to define any thing of new , is to bestow upon the Devill one path more for us to walke in towards him . If you aske why , he tells you , because , before the definition made , it was lawfull to hold either side , but after , it is damnable . Belike then with this Author the manifestation of divine truths is the high way to damnation ; but I suppose few men are of his minde . Certainly most are of opinion , that every such verity we learne , had rather beene a new steppe towards Heaven , because knowledge of things divine doe enable men for the attaining of salvation ; and therefore the Apostles by their instructing our understandings in them , shewed the world so many more paths to Heaven . It may be indeed that by accident minds blowne up with selfe-conceit , may by their resisting such revealed truths , take an occasion to transgresse , but that is their owne faults , not the fault of them that teach , or of the verities that are declared , and therefore this cavill of the Enquirers against the definitions of Councels was very frivolous . It should seems he had a great minde to be quarrelling with Councels , that was content to take such a frivolous exception as this against them .

C. 13. Answ. to Chap. 13.

Your great quarrell to his Lordships 19. Sect. comes now to be considered ; wherein the paradox in , and improbability of his Lordships conclusion will not be so great , if you observe but one thing , that the matter of definitions of Councels , which he speaks of , is not divine truths , ( as the following words suppose them , and upon that presse them with absurdity ) but , as I conceive , such things as have beene defined by Councels , being not before defined by Scripture , and so though affirmed to be truths , yet not as divine truths , at least of which it is not infallibly true , that they are so : of which nature I might instance at large in your Councels of Lateran , Constance , and Trent ; for to the antient generall Councels I confesse to beare such reverence , that I shall challenge any of you to exceed me .

Now to cleare his Lordship from the guilt of a frivolous quarrell at this time , I must adde , that in such decisions of Councels , the worth of the matter , and inconvenience of leaving it undecided , are the maine things worth considering ; and so it is possible that the decision may be such , that it may tend , First , to some publique end , whether the clearing of obscure Scripture , or the recovering of some venerable and usefull practice , or doctrine of the Church . Secondly , to the setling and establishing of peace , by interposing such a judgement which may probably sway with both pretenders ; And in these , and the like cases , the advantages being so intrinsecall to the decision , and withall so great , the inconvenience mentioned by his Lordship ought not to prevaile to the disparaging of Councels , because though it be an inconvenience , yet is it over-weighed with other conveniences , and therefore the argument I confesse is not infinitely or unlimitedly true .

But then the case may be , that the matter of the definition is of no such great weight or use , that there is no such assurance acquirable from Scripture , that either side is true , ( nay it may be audacious and untrue ) and as little from any other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that either side will peaceably sit downe and acquiesce in the decision , ( but in matters of opinion probably prove opiniatour ) and so the decision will then rather widen the breach then compose it .

In this case , or when indeed in other respects the ballance is even set , the good of defining counterpoised with the ill , then there is place for his Lordship's argument , and 't is true that then upon that present supposition ( that before decision 't were lawfull to hold either way , and damnable after ) it were uncharitable to define ; my reason is , because when charity doth not move to doe a thing , i. e. when no advantage shall arise to mankinde by it , but on the other side charity shall advise to absteine ; some one , ( though accidentall ) hurt , being foreseen to arise on the other side , there to doe that thing is uncharitable .

Thus have we heard of an expression of Bishop Tunstall of Durham , who died in your communion , that if he had beene Chaplaine to Pope Innocent the Fourth , he would have begg'd on his knees , that he would not define Transubstantiation , as knowing it would tend to the breach of the peace of the Church ; and thus in matters of controversy about Predestination , &c. you know the Pope hath in charity abstein'd to define , and the Apostles ( or whosoever else were the composers of it ) in their Creed defined but a few things ; and generally those Churches that have avoided multiplying of articles , have by wise men beene thought the most Christian , because the most charitable ; and even in matters of rites and humane lawes , the rule is , that they must not be multiplyed unnecessarily ; and the reason is , because they would consequently multiply snares on mens consciences , as unnecessarily , which is just his Lordship's reason in this place .

Which you will rather guesse , because 't is cleare his Lordship speakes of those things in which before a Councell hath determined , it is lawfull to hold either way , perfectly lawfull , ( not excluding also that other circumstance that I have added , viz: when there is no reall gaine expectable by defining ) And when the [ those things ] are by his Lordship so limited and restrained , I know not how ( to make up your paradox ) you could thinke fit to change the phrase from [ those things , &c. ] to [ any thing ] and after to [ divine truths ] and [ things divine ] and [ verities ] in generall , when 't is improbable that he did ( I am sure very possible and probable that he did not ) speake of any such , as are new steps toward Heaven , but such as onely fill mens braines , puffe up their phansyes ( and oft make men to thinke themselves pious men for being of such opinions , and to neglect workes of piety and charity , as not neare so considerable ) and so are to them even that believe them , accidentally pathes to damnation , much more ( if the doctrine of the decisions of Councels be to be extended to whatsoever uselesse definitions ) to those that doe not believe them .

Having said thus much for defence of this supposed paradox of his Lordships , I must desire ( once for all ) these two things from the Reader , which Equity will require of him to grant me ; First , that his Lordship's arguments be not extended infinitely , but onely be supposed to undertake to conclude as farre as is necessary to the present matter , and no farther , ( an example of which this Chapter hath afforded you ) Secondly , that his arguments being by him brought onely to enervate the Infallibility of the Roman Church , be so cautiously taken , as that they be made use of onely to that end , and not at all inclined , or wrested to the lessening the authority of the Church or Councels universall ; for this would be very unjust , and ill inferred , there being a wide difference betwixt authority and infallibility , as also betwixt universall and Roman , though ( by reason of the manner of his Lordships discourse , being , according to the designe , wholly destructive of the one , and not assertive of the other ) the Reader may perhaps be tempted to thinke otherwise ; and therefore I thought it not impertinent thus to fortify him against this prejudice .

To the 20 , 21 , 22 , Sections , Chap. 14.

It is true , we condemne some doctrines which generall Councels have not condemned , and we have great reason for it , because though Councels be one rule of faith , yet not the onely . Againe , these we hold to be infallible , because they are the Compendium and quintessence of the Church , and the body representative thereof , as a King and the three States be of the whole Kingdome .

The cause of Pope John the 22. is cleared sufficiently by Ciacconius in his life , by Caeffeteau in his learned answer to Plessye's iniquity , and by many others , and therefore needs not be argued any more . I grant it a point of faith that the soules of the just shall see God before the last judgement , and doe deny that this doctrine was generally contradicted at any time . Neverthelesse I doe not know it to be of faith that all of them shall enjoy the same vision before that great day , and that none of them shall be detained in secret receptacles , as the Antients hold , till they , together with their bodies , shall be compleatly purged in the great fire of the worlds conflagration , as I have treated elsewhere .

It was not needfull that Councels should define in tearmes their owne immunity from errour , because a Councell both in substance and semblance is the Church , who needs not define her owne infallibility , and therefore needs not , because that same is to be presupposed to all her definitions as a thing knowne without them , before hand ; for otherwise she would not be believed in any of them at all , either touching her selfe , or any other matter . Neverthelesse though this definition be not in tearmes , yet it is virtually done , and in actu exercito , as often as a Councell defineth any thing , by the pronouncing of Anathema against such as doe not submit , and counting them as Heretiques ; It is done againe in the using continually this old forme , Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis .

For a conclusion I demand of these eager impugners both of Church and Councels , what thing it it must regulate our beliefe , and keepe us in discipline and unity ; for if they let all men loose upon themselves , and make all men Judges in the Court of faith , as they , de facto , doe , controversies will multiply apace , and no meanes left to reconcile them ; and while all men have authority of deciding , no man hath it . Reason alwaies did teach us , that confusion would be the effect of this new licence ; yet could we never understand it , till that now costly experience , the mistris of the improvident , hath laid it open before our eies . And now at length we smart for our leaving the venerable decrees and definitions of Church a●d Councels , and doe behold all brought to misery and ruine , both Church and State ; yet such is our blindnesse , as we are not able to dis●erne the true causes of all these evils . The daily growing up of new and new devices in stead of the old faith , and the continuall discords and dissentions thereupon ensuing , evict unanswerably the weaknesse and inaptitude of the rule of faith , and our young and presuming wits way see how farre short they come of their forefathers wisedome , and how much more unhappy then those who were governed by Church and Councels .

C. 14. Answ. to Chap. 14.

The first part of this Chapter in the Apologist , is answer onely to one of three or foure proofes of his Lordship's argument , Section 20. viz. to that against the Councels being a rule of heresy , [ when some passe for Heretiques that are not condemned by any Councell ] To this I confesse it were satisfactory ( if it were proved ) to say that Councels are a rule , but not the onely rule . But then , First , there is no other rule specified . And Secondly , this argument of his Lordships is complicated with three others , being joined with which , it is of force to strengthen one of them ( though of it selfe it were not sufficient to conclude ) and then neither of those are taken notice of . Thirdly , 't is meant but as a proofe against this rule , not against any other . And yet Fourthly , his Lordship's method being to confute every one of them single , as they lye ; all others being disproved , this must be concluded the onely one , or none at all ; and however , no more can here be required , then that here he disprove this from being the rule , not that he disprove all others in this period .

For your way of proofe [ that Councels are infallible ] First , that is not answer to the contrary proofe ; And Secondly , it is by a medium as much denied , as it selfe ( the Infallibility of the Church whose quintessence it is ) and so your old acquaintance , petitio principii againe .

Your second part about John 22. puts us off to Ciaconius and Caeffeteau , whom in obedience to your direction I should advise with , but that I see from what you have learned from them , that either you have proved an ill Schollar ( and 't were insolence in me to hope to be better ) or else that their resolutions are not pertinent to his Lordship's argument ; for the three things that you adde ( I conceive from their Writings ) are nothing at all to it .

First , not that which you grant , for his Lordship grants it . Secondly , not that which you deny , for his Lordship had not affirmed it ( unlesse from these words [ he was not alone ] you conclude , that that which he contradicted , was generally contradicted ; and then what his Lordship said , may be as truly said to be generally granted , for he is not you see alone in so saying . ) Thirdly , Not that which you say you doe not know , for his Lordship knowes it as little , and indeed sayes never a word of it . Whereas the onely thing wherein the force of that part of his Lordships argument consisted , viz. Bellarmines excusing Pope John ( in his denying of that which you believe ) from the no-Councell that had defined against him , hath no title said to it , but continues in great security , to make good the argument , [ that you doe amisse ( and withall either you or Bellarmine are very partiall ) to condemne those that are condemned by no generall Councell . ]

Your Answer indeed to the 21. Section , is nearer to the mark , but yet it hits it not ; The argument is , that no Councel ever decreed a Councell to be Infallible , therefore as farre as the argument is drawne for beliefe , from the infallibility of the Councell , I am not bound to believe it infallible . To this you answer , 1. That for Councels so to define , was not needfull , because a Councell is the Church , and the infallibility of that is a praecognitum in all her definitions , otherwise it would not be believed in any .

Here is excellent contrivance , 1. For Councels to define that Councels are infallible is not needfull ; which sure is needfull , if nothing be to be believed , but what the Councell defines to be so , and that must be granted , 1. if the Councell be the rule of beliefe ; and 2. if the Councell be the Church ( as you say it is ) for that is the onely rule infallible , if you be not deceived . 2. That the Councell is the Church in substance . ] I thought it had beene in representation onely , and that nothing is the Church in substance , but the Church in its full extent , of which you said before , the Church is onely the quintessence , which sure is not the same in substance with that whose quintessence it is , but onely the representation of it . 3. That the Infallibility of the Church is a praecognitum ; if so , then it is a principle ; and if so , then I am sure I must not looke to see it prov'd , and then as long as we deny it , ( as we doe , you know ) that is petitio principii againe . 4. That unlesse the Church were presumed infallible before its determination , it could never be believed in any : this supposes men very hard-hearted , that never will believe any thing , but what some presumed infallible tels them .

There is a beliefe ( as well as a certainty ) cui non subest dubium , of which a man doth not doubt , as well as cui non potest subesse falsum , in which there can be no falsity ; and the Schooles have told you of a certainty of adherence , where there is none of evidence ; and let me tell you , this is the difference betwixt beliefe and knowledge , the latter onely is inferr'd demonstratively , or by premises that cannot be otherwise , the former being content with probable arguments , so they be strongly probable , and such as have not any the like , or of as considerable weight to be ballanced against them . And this sure is the reason that Faith is by God thought fit to be rewarded , as being an act of the Believers choyce , ( and knowledge not , because it is necessarily and irregably induced ) and yet such , as that it will be all obstinacy and perversnesse to resist , when it comes well provided with arguments extreamly probable .

For , if you marke it , the most weighty actions of our lives , and those which we doe most constantly , and most confidently , are founded no deeper then on probabilities . We eate and drinke for the strengthening and refreshing of our bodies , and yet conceive not our selves to have any certainty of evidence or demonstration , that every bit we eate , or drop we drinke , may not choake , or poyson us ; yet having probabilities , on which to ground a beliefe , that they are wholsome , and no strong contrary probability , that our table shall become a snare , or death unto us , we doubt not to feed as securely , as if Euclid had beene our surety by one of his Demonstrations .

So in every piece of land I buy , or estate I enjoy from my Ancestors , 't is possible ( and the contrary not demonstrable , or certaine in that sense ) that there may be some flaw which may undoe me , and yet when I have searcht my evidences , and have the opinion of wise men upon the matter , I sit downe , and trade , and live securely , and all this but upon probabilities , without the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or full armour of infallibility or demonstration .

And so in all matters of fact , which we see or heare not with our owne eies or eares , but as with perspectives and otacoustickes , I meane where we are faine to trust the relations of others , be it that there was a Julius Caesar , or a Henry the eight , the ground of our beliefe is but a probability , viz. the topick ab authoritate , the argument taken from the authority of the relators ; which though it be never so strengthened by the universall concurrence and non-dissenting of all witnesses , cannot yet ascend higher , then to be extreamly probable , and yet sure is as firmely believed of us ; and although it may possibly be otherwise ( the contrary implying no repugnance , or contradiction in nature , and he that should be so mad to affirme it , being not confutable either by rationall , or ocular demonstration ) yet as little doubted of by any man in his right wits , and as little lyable to any scruple , or matter of doubt , as what is most visible before our eies .

This I have said perhaps ex abundanti ( yet shall not repent of it because it is usefull to be considered in order to other difficulties ) to shew you the falsnesse , and inconsequence of that argument , that unlesse the Church were presumed infallible before its determinations , it could never be believed in any . For hereby it hath appeared , that that may be believed , nay cannot sometimes without pertinacy and sinne be not believed , ( as in case the arguments , though but probable , be excessively so ) which brings not with it demonstration , or any thing of equall power or force with it , and such is infallibility .

And from thence you will easily discerne , how possible it may be for us Protestants to believe the universall Church in all things , wherein the testimony appeares to be universall ; nay to believe the Church of Rome in many things , wherein the arguments produced by her , doe actually perswade with us , ( such are her consonancy with antiquity , and the like ) and yet to remaine constant to our present undertakings , that she is not infallible .

But it now appeares that I might have spared this paines , in pressing these inconveniences on that first answer of yours . For it seemes by what followes , that all that answer was needlesse ; For now upon better consideration , 't is true ( with a distinction ) that the Councell doth virtually , and in actu exercito , define its owne infallibility ; and that you prove , First , because it pronounceth anathema's against those that submit not ; Secondly , it doth it by saying [ Visum est Spiritui Sancto , &c. ]

Not to examine your phrase of actus exercitus , as 't is here applyed ; To your arguments we answer , First , that our Councels denounce anathema's too , yet you know doe not pretend to infallibility .

That forme , I conceive , signifies not , that all are damned that believe not what we believe , but that all they that shall dis-believe may be excommunicated , if they be refractory ; and that againe onely in reference to those that are under dominion ; but not that all others that are not under us , should by us be so handled ; or that those that are not excommunicate , are in that other danger ; or if these are , yet not for the sinne of dis-believing an infallible doctrine , but for not believing our lawfull superiours ; which may be a damning sinne , though they be not infallible , their being in the truth , when they make such constitutions , is sufficient for that . Secondly , the forme of [ Visum est Spiritui Sancto ] is onely a forme transcribed from the Acts , arguing it their opinion ( that use it ) that this particular is the dictate of the Holy Ghost , not at all their beliefe , that the Holy Ghost was bound to assist irresistibly : which he must ( as well as assist ) to make the infallibility ; for otherwise when he assists , we may possibly not make use of his assistance . In plaine , 't is an evidence that they thinke they are in the truth , not that they cannot be in the wrong .

To the 22. Section , though you answer not a word , yet you are as discreet as if you did , you doe another thing in stead of it , you aske a question , and harangue upon it at large ; the Question is pertinent enough ( though not to this Section , yet ) to the businesse in grosse , and we answer it in a word , that the Word of God must regulate our beliefe , and reason , in the use of all the meanes that you will commend to us , and you have given us a pledge already , that you will not quarrell with us for this answer ; as for discipline , and keeping in unity , we had , blessed be God , meanes very sufficient to that end , till the sword wrested them ( as all other our lawfull possessions ) out of our hands ; and I believe the Infallibility of the Church is not weapon-proofe , or able to keepe Resisters in obedience , or Schismatiques in unity .

As for your uncharitable judgement , that want of an Infallible Church ( which must be but want of that insolence to undertake our selves to be Infallible ) is ( that and no other ) the * * That passage in the Apologist to which this was returned , is by him in his last thoughts held better to be omitted , and accordingly I have left it out there . cause of all our present miseries ; and his Lordships doctrine in this Book , ( although never so remote ) the cause of his death : This is but to let us see your change or variety , that you can use non causa pro causa , and not deale onely in petitio principii ; thus was Tenterden Steeple the cause of Goodwin Sands , and that is all I shall returne to your State-observation ; the cause of our present calamities , I conceive , came not out of the Church , but when it was infamous , it fled to it for a Sanctuary , to give it an honest Name , and a protection together ; and I could tell you that the League in France was once pretty parallel to ours , and then 't was the observation of a knowing man , that if a true story of the causes of that Warre should be written , the businesse would be traced into such or such a brothell house , that made as if it came out gravely from the Church ; a competition or animosity , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or true cause , when religion was onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the pretended . Besides , let me tell you , that decisions and anathematizings have sometimes done as much hurt toward occasioning of breaches , as licence and acknowledgement of fallibility hath done ; ( and if you marke , the onely colour of charge at this time against our Church , hath beene the imposing too much ) and truly whatever your opinion is , I conceive meeknesse hath the promise of this life , and I never knew that pretending to Infallibility is the onely Symptome of that .

To the 23 , 24 , & 25 , Sections , Chap. 15.

The argument of these three Sections , is , how an ignorant illiterate man cannot be able to trace out all traditions which be truly Apostolicall : and this is sought to be perswaded and made good , by sundry intricate discourses , all which I willingly doe pretermit , and onely signifie that they all fall wide of the marke ; for , in a word , our answer to them is , that private men stand in no need at all of having any particular information of them , but , that it is sufficient for them if they doe learne what is the common doctrine of the present Church , without looking any higher to the Primitive and elder times : because this doctrine now taught is credible and perswasive enough for satisfying of any wise mans understanding , and the setling of his judgement upon it : as for example , it is sufficient for any man desirous of knowing which is the River Thames , to see it at Gravesend or London , without any laborious ascending by it higher and higher , and tracing the shoares thereof , till he come unto the springs ; and more then this would not be needfull for the distinguishing of it from Severne , or Trent , or any other River . For if this kinde of assurance might not be sufficient , then certainly few or none could ever have come to know which water was the famous River Nilus , of which few have ever seene the springs , and which , as it is very likely , doe lye conceal'd in Aethiopia , and wholly undiscovered even to this day .

Against the possibility of searching out traditions Apostolicall , and discerning them from others that be spurious and false , his principall instance , and that in which he most confides , is the doctrine of the Chiliasts or Millenaries ; and the same example is vehemently pressed and repeated often by his Friend Chillingworth . The substance of all they say consists in this , namely , that their doctrine , although now generally received to be erroneous , was received in the first 200. yeares with one consent , as a tradition Apostolicall . For making of this charge good , they both of them doe jointly alleadge Saint Justin as their witnesse . But that we may judge most favourably of this their allegation , we needs must tell them they are mistaken grossely , for Saint Justin speaking there of three severall sorts of Christians which were in his time , affirmes , that of those three but one of them held the doctrine of the Chiliasts : Justin in Dial. cum Tryphone . The first of these three sorts was , as he describeth , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Those , who as he conceived did in all points hold aright . The second classe consisted of such other , who although they did not , like the former , in all things hold aright , yet neverthelesse were , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : men of pure and pious judgement or beliefe , for so he expressely stileth them ; the third and last sort were such as denied the resurrection , and were therefore censured by him to be Christians rather in name then in reality , and justly to be compared with the Sadduces amongst the Jewes . Those of the first sort he telleth did hold the doctrine of the thousand yeares . The second sort , as he expressely witnesseth , although they were orthodox and good , yet did not hold that doctrine . Those of the third sort , as he saith , were Christians , but feignedly , and in name alone , and resembling the Sadduces , yet not for their denying the errour of the thousand yeares , for what relation could that have unto the Sadduces ? But , contrariwise , for their denying the resurrection , as the Sadduces did , and all this appeares clearly , within the compasse of a few lines , in the Greeke text of Saint Justine ; Besides , if all at that time had beene perswaded of the truth of the Millenaries fancy , what needed Saint Ireneus have laboured so much , as he did , and spent so many Chapters in the proving of it ? This being so , it appeares as plainly that the Enquirer and also his Partner Master Chillingworth , were both of them deceived in seeking to father upon Saint Justin , that all Orthodoxall Believers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliasts , and that such as did not , were held as Sadduces , or Heretiques ; for , in the Text of Justin , there is no such matter , but rather the quite contrary to it , as may appeare fully by the Text it selfe , and partly by the words before recited out of him ; for , without all doubt , Saint Justines many of pious and pure judgement or beliefe , and were no Chiliasts , must needs be Orthodox , and could not be Heretiques , nor as the Sadduces amongst the Jewes , unlesse we will say that with one breath , he called them by both contrary names . Againe , if , as these men say , all the whole Church were Chiliasts during the first , second or third hundred yeares , how could or durst Dionysius of Alexandria have opposed them , either without forcing his owne Conscience , or incurring the blame of Heresy ? Now , it is certaine he was not counted an Heretique ; and againe , very unlikely he would straine his Conscience , by opposing any doctrine , received as orthodoxall by the whole Church . Againe , it is probable Saint Dionyse the Areopagite opposed that doctrine , therefore it cannot be certaine , that during the first 200. yeares , it was not opposed : that Saint Dionyse did it , appears by the workes now extant bearing his name ; and , that these works be his , is very probable , first , because they are received for such by the major part , both of the Westerne and the Easterne Church ; secondly , because they were cited for his a thousand yeares agoe , and numbred amongst the rest of the Fathers antient and undoubted Monuments , by an intelligent Author , Philoponus , l. 2. de Operib . Creat . c. 21. & l. 3. c. 9. & 13.

The like may be said of the pretended tradition of the Quartodecimanes touching the celebration of Easter after the manner of the Jewes , which was wholly rejected and forbidden in the first Nicene Councell , and before that time opposed by many , and principally by Pope Victor , who , as Ciacconius conceives , did not cut Polycrates and his Associates from the body of the whole Church , but only threatned it , or , as Eusebius seemes to say , did doe it , but , yet at the instance of Saint Ireneus , and some others , if he had once past it , did not prosecute the censure against them , but let it fall ; and , that it was so , is very probable , because there is no memory made how the sentence was received , whether with obedience , or otherwise ; which particular , doubtlesse , would never have beene omitted by Historians , no more then the sentence it selfe , or the intention of it was , if there had beene any thing to register ; and besides , because we finde not by any record , but that all proceeded with those Asian Churches , as formerly it had done , without any note or alteration . And , by this , is solved all that Chillingworth with so much animosity , objecteth against the learned Cardinall Perone .

Salvian lib. 5. de Gubern . Dei , where he speakes in excuse of some Arian Gothes , speakes not at all in excuse of their Heresy , but supposing that sundry of them might have beene innocently mis led , conceiveth more hope of such mens salvation , then of such Catholiques , who lived carelesly and lewdly . Now , what can this make against the tradition , or definition of the Church ? Onely this Inquirer must say something to his Mother , and be making difficulties where none is .

Ch. 15. Answ. to the Chap. 15.

To the three next Paragraphs , 23 , 24 , 25. you professe it needlesse for you to give any answer , and doe it so willingly , because , as you say , the discourses are intricate , i. e. such as you cannot easily accommodate answer to ; but especially , because it is sufficient for private men to learne the common doctrine of the present Church , and therefore there will lye no obligation on me to reply any thing , save onely this , that his Lordships arguments doe still prove sufficient to the end , to which he designed them , to shew that Tradition is no infallible guide , which that you acknowledge , your diversion seemes to intimate , and your many proofes , that 't is not needfull it should be .

But then it is in you a great injustice , not to take notice of his Lordships designe , to which his arguments are concluding , ( but to impose another on him , to which he never thought himselfe engaged , nor could have foreseene your pleasure without the spirit of divination ) and yet , to chide him for impertinence , and pretermit and despise all that he hath said upon this onely ground of displeasure , because he hath not proved what you now thinke fit to set him for his taske .

This onely you must please to note , that the appointing the ignorant to learne their beliefe from the common doctrine of the Church ( as before you did from the Catechismes ) doth intimate your opinion , that your present Church is infallible , but is no shew of proofe that it is so ( and so Petitio principii ) nay if your words signifie , as they sound [ that your doctrine thus taught is credible and perswasive enough ] I may conclude that your Church is not infallible ; for whatever is taught by such an one , is more then credible and perswasible .

Your subtilty about the way of knowing the River Thames will as little come home to the businesse of Infallibility ( though to Credibility it may ) unlesse every Water-man on the River be as infallible as your Church , for of him it is that I learne it ; and though his credit be great enough for a matter of this moment , and in it I would as willingly be ignorant or uncertaine , as be at the trouble to seeke out a better security : In matters of greater moment , I may be excused if I am not so credulous , if I choose not to believe them , whose interests are concerned , at least if I thinke every Catechisme on the stall to be somewhat lesse then infallible .

Having now sufficiently disclaimed Tradition ( at least shewne your opinion of it , that you have little need of it to sustaine your Churches infallibility ) and so granted as much as his Lordship attempts to prove , yet for some former profession of kindnesse to it , you will now take its part a little ( rather then his Lordship shall be permitted to say any thing true ) and vindicate it from the argument about the Chiliasts . In which I must tell you , that what you here affirme of his Lordship and M. Chillingworth is not true of his Lordship ( whether it be of M. Chillingworth is not tanti , as that not having the booke by me , I should take the pains to examine it . )

As First , this , that he seekes to father on Saint Justin , that all orthodoxall beleivers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliasts , whereas all that his Lordship saith , is but the repeating of Justin's owne words ( wherein he cannot be deceived in your opinion , for you before recite the same ) and translating them ( wherein he is not deceived , for he doth it ad literam ) and in a word affirming , that Justin saith he holds it , and so doe all that are in all parts orthodoxe Christians , which phrase [ all that are ( i. e. which he saith are ) in all parts orthodox ] that it differs from this other of yours [ all orthodoxall beleivers ] I shall appeale to no other judgement then that of your owne conscience , who in the former page affirme , that Justin spake of three sorts of men ; First , Those that did as he conceived in all points hold aright : the second , which though they did not so in all things , yet were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of a pure and pious judgement , ( and those which are such I shall suppose to be orthodoxall beleivers , though as it appears by your acknowledgment , they did not hold right in all things . ) Or if your analysing of the place doe not sufficiently convince you of this difference , ( and the injury that consequently you have done his Lordship ) I shall then , ( having long agoe seriously weighed that place ) First , give you an account of it , such as I doubt not will satisfie you ; and when I have done so , Secondly , confesse the weakenesse of that place to conclude any thing against Catholique tradition ; and yet Thirdly , make it cleare , that you have wronged his Lordship in your report of his citation .

First , For the doctrine of the millennium , I professe to beleive , that it appears not to be Justin's affirmation , that it was not opposed by his contemporaries , but rather the contrary , P. 306. C. which I conclude from these words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . I have signified to you that many doe not acknowledge this doctrine of the 1000 yeares , and those many , Christians that are of pure and pious opinion or judgement . And that you may be beholding to me , I shall also professe , that I am not of the opinion of those learned men that have conceived that period false written ; and that either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( which would be a strange and bold Criticisme , of very ill example , if it were admitted against the consent of copies ; and then Secondly , it would leave a very perplexed period of it ) or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be left out ; For first this would be as dangerous a Criticisme , and of as ill example , which would make Authors opinions mutable into the quite contradictory ; and yet such , as is not without example among you , witnesse the disputation between the Regulars and Seculars in the controversy about the necessity of having an Ordinary here in England , upon occasion as I remember , of a Canon of a Councell concerning Confirmation , one side contending that [ non ] should be in , the other that it should be left out , a controversy about a word , nay a syllable , but yet that of some concernment . Secondly , if either of these emendations should be admitted , the antecedents and consequents would not naturally and in good stile connect , but the sense of this period would be just all one with that that went before immediately .

A Second proofe of what I said I shall fetch from this , that Trypho in that place ( though Justin had told him that he denied not the Millennium , yet ) suspected that Justin had equivocated with him on this ground , because other Christians were not of this opinion , and therefore begins with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , tell me whether you confesse it sincerely , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. and Justin answers , that sure he would not say it if he had not thought it , and thereupon repeats , that he had confest to him , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and promises he would set out a Booke of this disputation , and professe it openly to others as well as him , and adds that he means not to follow men and their doctrines , but God ; all which argues his acknowledgment that the opinion was not uncontradicted by men , nor generally consented to by Christians .

A last proofe shall be , P. 307. that those words which seeme most to the contrary [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] will not come home to the proofe of it , nor indeed of any more then this , that he was of that opinion , and some others in all things consenting with him ; for it being supposed that he was of that opinion , it cannot be expected of him that he should affirme any that hold it not ( though never so orthodox in other things ) to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of right opinion all things : because every honest man supposing his owne opinions to be right , ( for else he will change them ) must also suppose , that they that differ from him in one of those are not in that , ( and so not in all things ) of right opinions .

For the truth is , he speaks of three sorts of men ( wherein I shall not differ much from you ) the first , that denyed the resurrection and the 1000 yeares , and those he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nominall Christians , Atheists , impious , haereticall leaders ; the second , those that acknowledged the resurrection and denyed the Millennium , and those are contained under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Christians of pure and pious opinions ; the third sort , those that held both , as him selfe , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , P. 306. many others , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , P. 307. if there were any that were orthodox in all things .

This being thus set downe ( if you please ) by way of compliance with you in the first place , I shall make no scruple to adde in the second , that by Justin it cannot be concluded , that the 1000 yeares was a matter of Catholicke beliefe in his time , but only favour'd by him , and many others , and consequently , though that were after condemned in the Church , would it not be from this testimony inferr'd , that a Catholick doctrine , ( much lesse a tradition ) were condemned .

And therefore ( which was the third thing I promised you ) you may observe , that his Lordship spake very cautiously , and ( as any man will now conceive ) very critically , according to the importance of Justins words , that Justin held it , and said , that all that were in all parts ( that is in all particular points ) Orthodox Christians did so too , but no more , which is much lesse then what you lay to his Lordships charge , in the first place , that he fathers on Justin , that all Orthodoxall believers of his time received the doctrine of the Chiliasts ; And infinitely lesse , then that which you lay to him in the second part of the charge , that he fathers againe on Justin , that such as did not receive that , doctrine were held as Sadduces or Haereticks ; To which I answer in a word , that sure your memory of things is confused , and so apt to betray you to write things , which are apparently false , for so this particular is , his Lordship not saying one word to this purpose in this paragraph .

Which three things being thus cleared , I shall now proceed to view your dealing in that which his Lordship mentions from Irenaeus in this matter .

Of him indeed it is true , his Lordship saith , that he sets downe the doctrine of the Chiliasts directly for a tradition , and relates the very words that Christ used , when he taught this . And to those words of his Lordship's , I shall make bold to adde the words of Irenaeus on which they seeme to be grounded : P. 497. Presbyteri qui Johannem viderunt , meminerunt audisse se ab eo . & haec Papias Johannis auditor , Polycarpi contubernalis vetus homo , testata reliquit . The Presbyters that saw John , remember that they heard this of him : and Papias , Saint Johns Auditor , that dwelt with Polycarpus , P. 498. an ancient man , left these things testified . This surely sounds somewhat towards a testimony of Apostolick Tradition , and if it be capable of an answer reconcileable with your doctrine of Tradition , may yet certainly be acknowledged a difficulty worth your taking notice of . And yet you that were so large on that of Justin to little purpose , have not vouchsafed to take notice of this of Irenaeus , but on the other side affirme , that Irenaeus laboured very much , and spent many Chapters in proving of it . From whence , I confesse you are willing to assume , that all at that time were not perswaded of the truth of the Millenaries fancies ; but as that is a strange way of concluding , from his spending pains and Chapters to prove it , to inferre that it was not generally believed in his age ( when 't is possible his so large a proving did make all men then of that opinion , and his proving it positively , and not against any adversary , though it doth not prove he had then no adversary , doth much lesse prove that he had ) so is there not added by you any other , or indeed , any tittle of answer to what is brought by his Lordship out of Irenaeus .

His Lordship saith also in this Paragraph , that they that were after against the Millenaries never quoted any for themselves before Dionysius Alexandrinus , who lived 250 yeares after Christ : this indeed sounds somewhat toward concluding , that that was the doctrine of the first age not opposed by any prime Doctor , and might be worth your pains in answering too , but you endeavour not that neither , but would make it improbable , that if it were so generall a doctrine , Dionysius should dare to oppose it . This is very ill arguing against a matter of fact , to aske how could or durst he ? there is nothing done so many yeares since , but some probability may , by a witty man , be brought against it ; I confesse I acknowledge my opinion , that there were in that age men otherwise minded ( as out of Justin it appeared ) and his Lordship saith nothing to the contrary out of any other evidences , ( no more then we made it cleare he did out of Justin ) all that he saith is , that Papias had gotten the Prime Doctours into the beleife of it , and that no one of those two first ages opposed it , that is , wrote or interposed in any considerable manner against it .

And if I were apt to change my opinion in this matter , on easy tearmes , I should goe neare to doe it upon the view of your proofe of the contrary , so exceeding feeble and weake is it . For supposing all the eminent men for those ages had beene for it upon the strength of some places of Scripture , and Papias his report from Saint John , it would not yet be very difficult for a learned man , Dionysius Alexandrinus ( when no act of Councell had interposed or bound up that doctrine ) in the degree that he thought that those places of Scripture were misunderstood , and that Papias had abused them , in the same degree I say , to declare his opinion and the grounds of it , and never force or straine his owne conscience , or incurre the blame of heresy by so doing .

For what thinke you of another opinion that Irenaeus tooke up just upon the same tearmes , of Christs being betwixt 40 and 50 yeares old , for which he vouched Scripture , Advers. haer. l. 2. c. 39. as he did for tother , and the authority of omnes seniores ( larger then Presbytery in tother ) testantur qui in Asia apud Johannem discipulum Domini convenerunt ; id ipsum tradidisse eis Johannem &c. All the Elders witnesse it , that were in Asia with John , that he delivered it to them ; & qui alios Apostolos viderunt , haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt , & testantur de ejusmodi relatione , they that saw the other Apostles , heard the same of them , and beare witnesse of such a relation . This is as high an expression of Apostolicall Tradition ( if we will beleive Irenaeus ) as universally testified to be so , as any could be thought to be . And yet sure you would not thinke it a sinne against Conscience , or obnoxious to the censure of Heresy for any man of meaner parts and authority then Dionysius Alexandrinus to have opposed this phansy , and profest his opinion to the contrary ; you must know that there was not that perfect yoke of tyranny gone out upon all mens necks as now your infallible Church doth glory of , that no man must oppose any the meanest assertion or opinion of the Doctours of the Church , ( though not at all defied ) but presently he must be an Hereticke ; at least divinity was not turn'd into such an art , that it must receive no grouth , or sensible change , but all goe on in the same tracke , beleive ( nor understand ) no more in Scripture , then the present Church understands , and so in effect have all their skill in tongues and fathers , and even their judicative faculty as so many unprofitable burthens upon them , that must not be made use of to the discovery of an errour , to the helping of the world to more light , reforming any thing that is amisse in it .

This which is one of the greatest moderne crimes in Christianity , was not so ancient as those purer daies , wherein life was as censurable , as now false opinions , ( I meane such as though supposed false , are yet perfectly extrinsecall to the anology of faith ) wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , impiety and piety , divided the Church into erroneous and true members , and teaching of opinions not before embraced ( so it were not with pride , or judging of others ) could be well enough endured . And so ( according to the old rule of distingue tempora ) doe but consider how distant those times are from these amongst you on one side , and your opposite extreame ( that runne from you so farre , till they meet you againe at the Antipodes ) on the other , and you will give Dionysius Alexandrinus leave to dare oppose that doctrine of the Chiliasts , though it had ( more generally then it did ) prevailed amongst them .

Another argument you have against the generall reception of that doctrine , [ that 't is probable Saint Dionysius the Areopagite opposed it ] I wonder one that asserts an infallible Church should deale so mightily in probabilities , just as if a profound Geometer should use but Topicall arguments . Now to see how you prove this probability , 'T is proved by the workes now extant bearing his name .

What workes those are , and how improbable to be his , I could give you a large account by some hints which I remember Photius in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 helpt me to , but I shall satisfie my selfe onely with answering your argument out of Philoponus , briefely thus . That in the places by you cited , he mentions onely an Epistle of Dionysius to Polycarpus , in which you know , or may know , there is no word of the Chiliasts , and then that will be a very aliene testimony , and very unable to countenance the bulke of those bookes under Dionysius his name ; which may all be spurious , ( and in them the testimonies against the Chiliasts ) though that letter should be canonicall ; and now see , I pray , what your probability is come to .

For your discourse about the Quartodecimani , I will not divine how it came in here , but am sure it hath no right to be taken notice of by me ; his Lordship having not said one word of them , nor of any friend of theirs , whose interests lye common with them ; and therefore shall I returne no word to that part of your discourse , till you shew how I am obliged to it .

What his Lordship saith out of Salvian you confesse to be true , but see not what it makes against Tradition ; If you be not modest in concealing your knowlekge in this matter , but really ignorant , I shall then tell you . His Lordship proves by this , that the Church that suffers Salvian to be a member of it while he refuses to passe sentence of condemnation upon Arrians ( after they were condemned by a Councell ) either differs much from your Church ( that will condemne any man for an Hereticke , that shall professe not to condemne all Protestants ) or else must suppose and admit the plea for Salvian , that he was so earnest against ill men , that for aggravating of their crime he lessens that of Heretickes . And then if it may be accepted in one Fathers behalfe , that he could speake hyperbolically , or passionately , why may it not be admitted in another , that one of those , or some other collaterall consideration might have influence on any speech that should be cited from them , and then the authority of fathers will cease to be infallible .

For this , by the way , you may please to observe of his Lordship's reasonings about tradition and authority of fathers , ( which before I gave warning of ) that they are not designed , or fitted to the taking away all authority from them , to make them vile or meane to any , but onely to reduce them in ordinem to prove them not infallible : the Topicke à testimonio humano , is but a Topicke still , and though sometimes being heightened with circumstances ( of which it is capable ) it is a very convincing Topicke , yet is not for all this a demonstration ; and so there is a difficulty which may exercise you in stead of scoffing of his Lordship in the close of the Chapter .

To the 26 Section Chap. 16.

The Enquirer seemes to be troubled not a little , because we will not say with him , that men may be saved in a false religion , or because we doe not thinke our religion false , or any other religion true besides our owne ; and in the same veine Chillingworth his Commentatour runnes very fluently , and upon this ill sounding string is harping continually . Yet for all this harping , it will not be easily understood what offence against Charity it can be for us to judge , either that Christianity alone is the saving religion , or that our religion is the onely true Christianity . For say we should be deceived in making this judgement , yet this same at the most can be but a want in our selves of right understanding , and not any breach of charity towards others , or any matter of exclamation , as some frivolous men of late have made it . Wherefore , if we will state the question rightly , we are not to enquire whether we want charity in holding that none but Catholickes and true Christians can be saved , or in our holding that we onely are of that sort ; or againe , whether our adversaries for their accusing us , want not wit and charity together , or at least one of them ; but the question betweene us ought to be , whether there be more saving religions then one ? or whether ours be not that one ? and this is the old controversy in Bellarmine and others , and may be disputed without any anger , or without disguising , or multiplying of controversies on set purpose , done by these Novellists , as it seemes , for making more businesse then needed , or causing more distast and alienation then was before .

The Enquirer is much displeased with us for damning , as he cals it , all that are not of the Church of Rome . But for pacifying of his angry spirit , I demand of any for him , what sinne he thinkes it in us to judge that all who die out of the Church of God , die in an evill state ; or what other , to thinke that our Catholique Church , which he diminitively cals the Church of Rome , is the only Church of God . Let him satisfie me in this , and I will easily satisfie him in the other . In the meane time we are not nice to declare , That there is but one saving Religion . That there is but one true Christianity , and that one is the saving religion . That there is but one Catholicke Church , and that this one Church is , by the institution of Christ , and according to the consent of antiquity , to be governed by the See Apostolique , and by the Successour of Saint Peter , as chiefe Pastour and President of the rest . Now what hurt is there in all this , or what want of Christian charity ? It is not uncharitable to say that some offenders shall be damned , and if any , then why not those who are truly and really Sestaries and men obstinate , for it is like that they deserve it as well as any . There wanted not one of this Enquirers confraternity , who fancied sometimes to himselfe , that all the damnation that was to fall upon the wicked , was an annihilation of them and extinction , and not a perpetuity of torments ; which conceit is so charitable , that it exceeds the charity even of God himselfe , and controules his revelations made to the contrary in the Holy Scripture , and condemnes them as guilty of too much rigour and severity , and therefore no marvaile though we poore mortals cannot escape their censure .

But now , lest any man should thinke our doctrine to be harsh and rigorous , he may please to be inform'd , that we doe not hold every man for a Pagan and an Infidell who embraces Paganisme , but only so many of them as be guilty of their errour through affected , or culpable ignorance ; which defect though it be a formall ignorance of the truth , yet it is a virtuall knowledge of their errour , and an interpretative rejection of the truth , and also a resistance to God and his divine veracity , manifested in his revelations ; and therefore all these , whether Pagans os Heretiques , be hainous offenders , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is to say , judged and condemned by their owne consciences , of which doctrine it seemes both this Enquirer , and after him his second Master Chillingworth , were ignorant , by their insinuating that no man is an Heretique , or selfe-condemned , but onely such as adhere to a doctrine which he formally knowes to be erroneous , that is to say , onely such as doe that which is impossible to be done ; which conclusion is a covert affirmation that there be no Heretiques at all , nor can be any ; and so all is safe , whether sound or no.

In like manner we doe not hold to be an Heretique , or to be out of the Catholique Church every one who embraces an heresy , but such a number of them onely as doe it with an obstinate mind , and without preparation to be reformed , or to hearken unto reason when it is told them . By which doctrine it appeares , that we are not so strict as we may seeme , nor yet so large as some would have us . For on the one side , we doe not maintaine that Heretiques can be saved , or that heresy is not a deadly or damnable sinne , as some Socinians and other Libertines would have us thinke ; And on the other side , we dilate the spaces of the Church Catholique farther then every body conceives we doe , and by that meanes comprehend within it many that in the eye of the world , seeme aliens unto it ; so that our charity is not irregular in judging Heretiques to be in good state , but it is rather in concluding that very many are not Heretiques really and interiourly , though outwardly they seeme to be . And thus you see we doe not cry all men downe to hell , not yet any more then we are compelled to doe by the doctrine delivered to us about that point in Holy Scripture .

After this damning and firing men in the other world , of which the Enquirer hath wrongfully accus'd us , he proceedeth to blame us for sending Heretiques to the fire in this , and therefore saith that he beleives that throughout antiquity we shall not finde the putting to death of any ( for religion ) but onely of such as began to kill first .

This provocation to antiquity , howsoever the matter be , can be of no force , unlesse antiquity did condemne that practice as unlawfull , because antiquity did not all it might doe , but left divers things for posterity to adde as it should see expedient .

Besides forasmuch as concernes punishment of impious men and innovatours both by death and other wayes , if the Authour had lookt better into antiquity , he could not but have beleived otherwise , as our Authours doe shew at large ; for it is cleare that amongst the Jewes in was the practice to punish impious people very severely , and all such as with new doctrines sought to infect others , punishing according to the prescript of Moyses law , some with death , other some by other temporall punishments .

The Canon law also and the Imperiall decree the same , to all which the practice of the Church accords ; and lastly , reason her selfe , and the common rules of equity and justice doe permit , yea and prescribe the same : and these suffrages are so powerfull and prevailing , as they suffice , not onely for the justification of the Churches present practice , but also for the condemnation of high presumption and arrogance of all who should be so hardy as to impugne or question it .

Neverthelesse this same practice of infliction of temporall punishments upon offenders against religion , is not generall without any limitation or restraint , as some may imagine it to be , as if forsooth none of a different religion from ours could be exempted from them ; but contrariwise it admits exception in many cases , as we are about to declare presently .

Know therefore that wheresoever any Kingdome or Common-wealth is setled in a just and a peaceable possession of Catholique religion , without any notable commixture of contrary professions , as for example , in Italy or Spaine , at this present . In this case it is no cruelty or rigour to inflict temporall punishments upon all such as shall adventure to disturbe that setled peace by introducing thither any new doctrines upon pretence of whatsoever reformation ; and that this may be done stands with so much reason as cannot be probably contradicted . Neither is this course of severity any defence unnecessary , forasmuch as vitious and over-weening spirits are most efficaciously repressed and withheld from evill by feare of temporall punishments in this life , because their chiefe aime is at temporall contentments in the same , being moved more with the present , then with those other that are spirituall and to come , conscience and religion having little influence into what they doe . In fine , they are governed more with sence then reason , with stripes then with Philosophy , insomuch , that neither the schooles of Philosophers , nor the Temples of God , can worke halfe so much with these wormes of the earth , as temporall tribunals can . Now though the enemy be never so despicable , is he therefore to be neglected because the meanest Seducer may doe mischiefe , as we finde by the effects of the Tubmen ; and againe , because the grossest errours , if they tend to liberty , or be but new , may be perswaded to the multitude , as , by the successes of Mahomet , it is manifest ; and the rather in this case of ours , because we experience daily , that our people having been once possest , that the Religion of the See Apostolique , and of their own forefathers was superstition , they are easily perswaded , that the farther they depart from that Religion , the more pure and reformed they shall be , and so will be forward to run blindly on , till they passe all the bounds of Christianity , and reforme all to nothing ; for with such bewitched minds as these , every new nonsense will be more acceptable , and be received sooner , then any old sense , and this is the effects of those raylings against Rome which they have heard continually out of the Pulpits now for so many yeers together , without any intermission .

But , although this course of severity be necessary for the preventing of disturbances by innovation , yet neverthelesse it is not to be extended unto all that any where amongst us doe teach , or professe erroneous doctrines , or Religions different from our own , but only against corruptors or invaders , that is to say , such as break in by fraud or violence , and disturbe the quiet of the Church . For , after such time at the invasion is past , and the invaders gone , and that they are succeeded by another generation , which is not guilty of making any irruption , but , with whatsoever errour they are tainted , it is contracted by the vice of education from their Parents and other such instructors , and withall doe behave themselves peaceably , I say that against such as these the Church doth not proceed , nor execute the severity of the Lawes in force against Heretiques ; of this sort be at this day , the descendents of first Protestants in this Kingdome , whose ancestors that were the invaders lived about King Edward and Queen Mary . Against these descendents the Church doth not presse the Canon Law , though against the former sort it did , and had just cause given so to doe . Conformable to this difference between Protestant and Protestant , doe the Catholiques in France and Polonia suffer the Protestants to live with them , without molestation , and to enjoy the liberties and Priviledges of the Kingdome , as formerly they had done in Austria , Stiria and Carinthia , till such time at they became seditious , and conspired against those who gave them freedome .

But now let it be noted and borne in memory , that notwithstanding this gentle proceedings of Catholiques towards the Protestants after so many losses and injuries suffer'd from them , the same Protestants being themselves but juniors , and living by sufferance , fall hotly upon persecution of Catholiques wheresoever they grow to be the stronger side , and that also in most Provinces , after a very violent , mercilesse , and desperate manner , slay , imprison , robbe , banish , defame , in fine suffer Catholiques in no place where they are predominant , and this against all right and common equity . Which manner of proceeding I must tell the Inquirer , is much worse and more unreasonable then Turkish , for the Turkes though aliens , Barbarians and Conquerours , are sensible of the right the Christians of their conquer'd Provinces have for the free exercise of their Religion , and therefore do not goe about to restraine them from it , but let them continue quietly in that right of theirs , and so they doe even to this day , to the great shame of Protestants and Puritans here in these Kingdomes , may it be spoken without offence , being , as all men see plainly exceeded in justice and civility by the Turkes . Wherefore no marvaile that our Inquirer is forced to confesse that Calvin is too blame in this point , and the Church of England a little , which is a little too much for , addeth he , Negare manifesta non audeo , & excusare immodica non possum . Sure this Inquirer came with very little indifferency to give his judgement here , when he saith , the Church of England is guilty but a little , I would know of him what is a great deale , if all that we have suffer'd from it be but a little . But it is well he would acknowledge thus much , for it is more then others have done , and more ingenuity appeares in him , then in them , and perhaps he would have said more , if it might have beene well taken , though in confessing this little he insinuates all . Doubtlesse , no manner of proceeding can be more unworthy then for a latter generation to forget from whose Ioynes they came , and to become harsh and contumelious to their owne fore-fathers children , and persecute them with all rigour , as if they were enemies and invaders , and aliens , onely for their honourable continuing in that faith which their Ancestours did leave them and commended to them as chiefe inheritance in that faith , which hitherto they which assaile it have never beene able by any argument to prove it false ; nor yet on the other side , to evict by any unanswerable demonstration that their owne new faith was true . Wherefore since , if any have more right one then another for the exercise of their Religion in this Kingdome , it is we , and this right cannot be taken from us by any power under heaven , and againe were your reasons never so good , yet you are not to school us , or to be our Tutors , or to compell us unto change . Therefore the severity that hath been used over us hath no warrant for it , no president or example , nothing wherewith to countenance it in the sight of the World , or to justifie it in the sight of God , but is every way abominable and foul , such in fine as neither the Christians used to the Pagans their predecessours , nor Catholiques to the descendents of the formost and invading Protestants , nor any civil man would offer to another .

If the Religion , saith the Inquirer , had alwayes remained the same , it would not be defended by wayes so contrary to those by which it was propagated . But now what wayes are these ? he means force and violence , and saying , To the fire with him , and To he●l with him , for these are the Inquirers owne expressions . To these I adde the slanderous and diabolicall charges of Chillingworth , who knew much of the Inquirers minde , although in all things he did not follow his direction . You professe , saith Chillingworth , c. 2. §. 101. that it is lawfull for you to use violence and power whensoever you can have it for the planting of your Doctrine , and extirpation of the contrary . Thus he , but because he cites no Author for this so heinous an accusation , we may justly suspect that you your selves hold it lawfull for you to slander and calumniate for the defence of your own bad cause , and the overthrowing of the contrary whensoever other means of doing it does faile you , as indeed it falls out continually . The same heavy charge he in foul tearmes reiterates , c. 5. §. 96. You , saith he , teach plainly you may propagate Religion whensoever you have power , by deposing of Kings , and invasion of Kingdomes , and think when you kill the adversaries of it you doe God good service .

For clearing of us against this malitious charge , I call into the Court Saint Thomas of Aquine and all his with him in 2.2 . q. 10. art. 8. as witnesses sufficient to justifie our cause , and shew our innocency , even against the Devill himselfe that great calumniator of our Brethren , and to them I adde Acosta in his booke De procuranda Indorum salute , and Mariana in his history of Spaine in sundry places , and might adde many more sufficient to confute the Adversary , and make him hatefull to every honest heart . Besides though in some cases we , as other professions also doe , make use of penall Lawes wherewith to keep off invaders , and yet not for any interior preservation or defence : In like sort we seek , by the help of the sword and force of Armes to keep the Turkes out of Christendome , shall we all be blamed for doing so , or shall it be said therefore , that we defend the Christian Religion by Armes and violence , and by other meanes then it was propagated at the first ? nothing lesse , we use reasons to perswade and plant our faith , we use the like to defend it against Infidels , Soci●ians , and all other Sects , how then is our Religion planted , propagated , or defended by violence ? It is one thing to be fenced exteriorly and a farre off with Statutes of temporall severity against invaders , which course is a thing expedient and avowed both by us and all , and it is another thing to defend it interiorly by the same meanes , that is to say , to justifie the right truth of Religion by them , and this we disavow , neither doe we practice it any where , as it is most manifest .

The Inquirer was very provident when he desired that , in these accusations of violence , no recrimination should be used , for he must needs see there was more matter returnable , then either could be gratefull , or they could justifie , yet since he will needs talk of killing , and cast the blame upon our side , he must be content if we make some reflection upon the misdemeanors of the Adversary , as well as upon our own innocency . I desire therefore , the intelligent reader to consider , whether in this last age , the Catholiques have put to death more Ministers or half so many , as the Protestants of England have done Priests , who it is well known they have slaine and butchered with great barbarisme and immanity .

But setting aside these heavy crimes of bloud deliberately shed , who is it have afflicted others more in their Estates and Fortunes , they , or we ? and for proof of this , we will offer fair , let them restore all they have taken with a strong hand from us in livelyhoods , both spirituall and temporall in all the Provinces of Europe , and we will restore all we have taken from them , and in that goe no farther then this Seventeenth age which is now passing , be it in this Kingdome , or in those about it . It is well knowne that in all those Provinces , where both Religions are professed and live intermingled , none be on the suffering hand but we , none persecutes but they ; and it is we who are the Aborigines , as I may so tearm us , and thereby have at much right for all indemnity as our Ancestours could divolve upon us . Master Pym in the Parliament House . We are not insensible of the wrong we suffer daily by having it printed and pronounced in publique Assemblies , on purpose to countenance injuries , and to excite against us the ignorant multitude , that our religion it destructive of all others , and that amongst us it is a maine principle or maxime , that all other are to be invaded and destroyed by us , and this it affirmed confidently , though against all probability and experience . It cannot indeed be denyed but truth is destructive of falshood by the owne power , as light is of darknesse , and one contrary of another , but for externall coaction or violence , we leave that to the Accusers , and doe not owne it .

By this it is not hard to make a judgement who have been the encroachers , and who have propogated and maintained themselves by violence , you , or we ? And who are the destructive party and live by the spoiles and oppression of others , let not those who possesse other mens goods cry out of wrongs , or make any brags of just dealing , for neither of these can come well out of their mouthes .

This Enquirer confesseth both sides are in fault , but we in more , and for this assertion of his brings in some light sophistry , because forsooth Protestants hold that they may erre , but we maintaine we cannot , and so will be sure never to mend . That Protestants may erre is granted him , and needs no other probation then experience , whereby we finde thy have filled all this Kingdome with dissentions , and these dissentions with civill warres , so that by this that you have erred , we know you may . But so frequent possibility of erring doth not extenuate but aggravate your crime . For if you may erre so foulely , how dare you undertake to tutour others ? how prescribe Lawes ? with what face Persecute ? If your rule be so weak as it cannot containe you all in one body , but lets you disperse into multitude of Sects , and fall in pieces as now you doe ; why doe you not forsake it and seeke a better for it , or else have none at all ; if you can finde out a surer , why doe you not learne wit by experience , but wallow on still in the same mire ? If this Enquirer speake so ill for his Clients , we will not entertaine him for our Advocate . The Protestants side sets downe for a rule of religion every ones private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture , and so doth Master Chillingworth the disciple of Volkelius . We doe all that , yet we doe not please them ; nay more , we must be punished by them for the result ; what is this but to bid us doe a thing , and then punish us for doing it ? Is not this extreame perversity ? certainly if the rule they give be a sufficient warrant for their receding from the faith of their Ancestours , and for their breaking off from the Church , and standing in defiance of her , then doubtlesse much more may it warrant us to continue on and to keep off from any new doctrines , either of the Protestants , or any other Innovatours whatsoever , and sure this is great reason and cannot be gainsayed .

Besides if we were to yeild , to whom were it to be done ? There is a world of distracted Sectaries now in this Kingdome , all sprung from the same roll , or from the rule of faith which it common to you all , of which one sort imagines there is no Papacy , and these were the first ring-leaders of all the rout ; another , that there is no Episcopacy ; a third , that there is no Clergy , but that Lay-Elders is all in all , and must rule the roast ; a fourth , that there is no Church nor Church-government at all , but that the Church is like a Schoole of Philosophers , where every man may believe and doe what he pleases without being accountable to another , or any obligation of conformity ; and peradventure the Inquirer was one of this number together with his confederate M. Chillingworth ; a fifth sort that there is no Trinity ; a sixth that there is no Sacrament , or at least none necessary , or effectuall . Is it not fit thinke you that these divided Christians should come and write Lawes to others , or punish any man for non-conformity ? nothing more improbable . It is a Comedy to see D. Featly a Protestant , and Page a Puritan make Cat●logues of Heretiques , and when they have done , can finde no way whereby to exempt themselves , nor give a reason why they themselves should not be of the number , as much Sectaries as any other of the Catalogue .

The Inquirer charges us that because we pretend to be infallible we have lesse reason to prescribe to others ; but on the contrary , me thinkes we should have more , for , as he who is really infallible is fittest to guide and governe others , so he that thinkes himselfe to be , is at least in his own judgement more fit than he that does not . He addes that this pretence of infallibility makes us sure never to mend , or as his Schollar Chillingworth speaketh , makes us incorrigible . True if it were a meere pretended one , but that is not yet proved , either by him , or any , although he say here in this 28. Section , he undertakes to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible . But , if , on the other side , it be a reality , and that the Inquirers reasons are but pretended , then surely will not this infallibility keep us from mending , but contrariwise from erring or having any thing to mend , or , which is all one , from any errours to correct . And thus we see that our Religion is maintained by the selfe same arts that bred it , that is to say , not by force , or violence , but by reason , and revelation , and spirituall industries , contrary to the surmises of this Inquirer .

C. 16. Answ: to Chap 16.

Your doctrine of damning all that are out of the Church of Rome , you have enlarged much above the occasion that invited you to it , for all that his Lordship had said on that theme was onely this , that your certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome , averseth him from it . Which if it be true , you cannot blame him ; ( for sure they that heare the punishment of judging , Mat. 7. [ being judged of the Lord ] will have little love to that piece of sensuality , ( or consequently to the religion that requires them to runne upon this danger . ) And that the charge is true of you , you doe at first acknowledge , by labouring to prove that there is no uncharitablenesse in it . Secondly , that it is necessary for you to maintaine , or that otherwise you must fall into some great absurdity , particularly this , that there is any Church but that which is governed by the See Apostolique ; which is a rare petitio principii againe , and saves us the paines of saying one word more in defence of the truth and justice of those true words of his Lordship .

For indeed that enclosure of the Church Christianity , and Salvation , to those that are under the Roman submission , is the uncharitablenesse that you are charged of . The envy of which it seemes ( after all your confidence ) you are willing to remove from you , and therefore adde an handsome lenitive , to keepe any from thinking that your doctrine is rigorous or harsh . And truly if you might be taken at your word , he were very unkind that would require more charity of you then you yeild even to Pagans themselves , whom you will not hold Pagans , unlesse they be guilty of their errour through affected or culpable ignorance ; and then sure you will be as good to us , ( that would be a little above Pagans ) and till you can prove us to be guilty of errour , and that through affected or culpable ignorance , with an obstinate mind , without preparation to be reformed , or hearken to reason when 't is told us , ( which till your arguments are more convincing , undoubtedly this discourse of yours will not evidence us to be ) we are in full capacity of your charity , and therefore shall not follow you any further ; ( lest we provoke you againe ) in this point .

Especially since you are at last in so good humour , that you utterly disclaime this damning and firing men in another world . On occasion of this or the like speech of mine answer , the Apologist in his review thought fit to adde these words at the end of his 16 Chapter : [ Three propositions there are which we maintaine ; First , that none but true Christians can be saved . Secondly , none but true Catholiques can be saved , for true Catholiques and true Christians be all one . Thirdly , none be true Catholiques but such as live under the obedience of the See of Peter , and many doe so that through ignorance doe not seeme to doe . The Gentiles find fault with the first proposition , divers Sectaries with the second , and now the Protestants with the third . All these have beene pretended by some or other to be false , but how to be uncharitable is very hard to be understood . ] To all which being onely said not attempted to be proved , I shall onely say that I am sory to see him out of his good mood so soone , and desire he will not expect we shall be so tame as to thinke him charitable that saith none of any other See but Saint Peters can be saved . I beseech God to confirme you in this temper , and desire you may be taken at your word , and that witnesse may be called of this charity of yours , for sure there be others of your brethren that have not used to grant so much .

As for that of burning men here for religion , you seem unwilling to be tryed by antiquity in this point , because , say you , Antiquity did not all it might , but left somewhat to posterity to adde ; yet sure this was a little unlucky that your additions to antiquity should be of this bloudy complection ; Christ's addition to the Ancients was to love and blesse and pray for enemies , not to retaliate injuries upon any tearmes , and your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , your improvement of the ancient doctrine and practice , is of somewhat a distant making , your Sermon on the mount ( Ebal it seemes ) to your disciples , is persecuting and massacring of friends , which never provoked you but by not being entirely of your opinion .

But it seemes you meane to prove it too , that this bloudy doctrine is no stranger to antiquity , and your first proofe is from the Jewes , whose practice it was to punish impious people , and such as with new doctrine sought to infect others ; To which I answer , that those against whom those Jewish severities were in force , were Atheists , and Idolaters , and false Prophets , that would take men off from the acknowledgment of the one God to Gentilisme , which is sure somewhat a distant state from that of Protestants at this day .

Your second proofe is from the Canon , and your third from the Imperiall law , of which seeing you give us no tast in either , and yet because some men may have appetite to see what grounds you had for such affirmation , I conceived it a probable course to know your mind by looking into Bellarmine your great Champion ; from the view of whole Collections , l. 3. de laicis . c. 21. this will be the result .

That for the Canon law , the authorities are not fetcht from the ancient Canons of any of the first or generall Councels , but onely c. ad abolendam ; cap. excommunicamus . ext. de haeret . & cap. super eo , de haeret . in 6. ( all which is no more then if you had cited it from your Popes ( who must not looke to be so authenticall in this case ) and yet will hardly come home to the burning of your fellow Christians , onely because they will not submit to the Pope of Rome , the onely thing for which we were even now to be damned ) and from the Councell of Constance ; which besides that it is of a short standing about 200 yeares ago is made infamous in this matter , by that vile resolution of the [ no Faith to be kept with Heretiques ] the grossenesse of which position may make it reasonable to expect this bloudy doctrine from them , but withall to deprive it of all authority with others .

As for the Imperiall law , these places he produces ; First , L. Manichaeos , cod . de haeret . and to this I answer , that that law makes not heresy capitall , but at the utmost makes it capable of an action after death , such is the action of infamy , &c. and so they that have died Heretiques , may for the warning of others be proceeded against , ( as you know Traitors after death are infamous , i. e. their children deprived of their honour , though the Father dyed unpunished , because undiscerned ) but that comes not home to our present purpose of burning or killing . Then L. Arriani , Cod. eodem . where indeed death was the punishment of the Manichees , who you know were a high ranke of Heretiques , making two principles ( which is in effect two Gods ) the good and the evill , God and the Devil . But for others , viz. Arians and Macedonians , though those were Heretiques , condemned by the first generall Councels , and are expressely there named , there is yet no such punishment appointed them ; and Lastly , L. quicunque cod . eodem . in which saith Bellarmine , jubentur occidi omnes qui prava docere tentant , all are commanded to be put to death who attempt to teach wicked things . But you must observe that that law being against the Eutychians , many penalties are there assigned to the severall degrees of the guilt of that heresy ; poena exilii , si Episcopos & Sacerdotes constituerint , scripta eorum nemo habeat sub poena deportationis perpetuae , nemo eos audiat sub poena 10 librarum auri , ultimo supplicio coerceantur qui illicita docere tentaverint . Banishment if they constituted Bishops or Priests , perpetuall banishment upon having any of their books , 10 pounds or libres of gold to any that heard them , and capitall punishment to those that attempt to teach unlawfull things . Which last clause ( that cited by Bellarmine , and by him extended to all false doctrine ) belongs peculiarly to the Eutychians , for of them onely before the discourse was ; and beside the rule is , odiosa restringenda , lawes of punishments , &c. must alwaies be taken in the most restrained sence ; and so the utmost that any of these extends to , is onely in these two heresies of Manichaeisme and Eutychianisme , and that in case of teaching the contrary to law , and abusing the people , and that after faire warning and prohibition ; and all this , if it were granted ( as truly I know no obligation that lyes on all Christians to thinke themselves regulated by the lawes of the Emperours ) would amount to very little against Protestants , who may well passe for as moderate Heretiques , as Arians and Macedonians , who were not punished with death .

T is true indeed , there is somewhat of this nature to be found against the Donatists ( though Bellarmine mentions it not ( L. Si quis rebaptizare C. ne sanctum baptisma iteretur ; but this was not againe for opinion , but onely in taking upon them to rebaptize any , and peculiarly on the Circumcellions , which were a bloudy kinde of people , and their vilenesse of this nature , guilt enough to owne that severity : whereas on the other side we finde that Idacius and Ithacius were condemned by the Bishops of France for being authors of punishing some Pricillianists with the sword ; and in the East a whole Synod was condemned for consenting to the burning of Begomyle ; and so much for your authorities , or more whensoever you please to produce them . From whence will appeare the wide distance of your practices in these and other Kingdomes from that , that the most Popish Canons or Imperiall Constitutions were bloudy enough to determine ; there neither Arians , nor Macedonians , but that prodigy of Manichaisme , and the Eutychians teaching , and that ( as I conceive by prava & illicita ) things contrary not onely to wholsome doctrine , but to the lawes of the Empire ; This I say , because if the crime were onely their opinions , I cannnot imagine why the Arians and Macedonians should fare so much better then the Eutychians , nay why Apostates should onely be fined , and Jewes onely under some restraints ( as from Polygamy ) and payments , and not put to death , save onely in case of keeping there Purim ( which was for the great contumely done to Christ in that feast , the hanging Haman in effigie , and Christ next to him ) and I say , onely Eutychians put to death , unlesse there were somewhat else in it beside their doctrine . And then if you will make the comparison to goe no farther , then our selves , what sholes of poore persons ( farre enough from the docere illicita & prava , teaching illegall things , even from teaching at all ) were in Queene Maries daies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , whole hecatombes at once offered up to your fury .

So remarkable are your proceedings herein , that I feare it was not a jest of him that said at Geneva , Servetus occidendus est , ne apud exteros Ecclesiae nostrae malè audiant ; That Servetus was to be burnt that their Churches might not heare ill abroad , i. e. that the Papists might not be scandalized ; which if it were the consideration that mov'd in that matter , then have you more bloud lying at your doore , then what you have spilt , even that which in care and caution , those whom you recriminate , shed by your example , and that you might not be scandalized at their mercy and lenity .

This were I confesse an ill excuse to them that were so carefull to transcribe that bloudy lesson , ( and which is worse , if you will have mine opinion , they have no better ) but yet will be an argument that you are not overfit to accuse them for it . Erasmus among you , and Castellio among us were about the beginning of the reformation very bitter against such dealing : the former , you may see his notes upon Saint Jer. Ep. ad Laet. t. 1. p. 39. where he can hardly allow them the name of Christians that fight for religion ( kill for religion ) though against the Turke , as if warre were wont to make Christians , cum ipsi Turcam in pectore geramus , when the very using of this violence is a prime piece of Turcisme . The latter wrote a booke on purpose against that practice ; I wish the whole Christian world of both parties would suffer themselves to be represented by a couple of such meeke and honest proxies ; be you pleased to convert as many as you can to the doctrine of neither kiling nor damning , and I will promise you to doe the like , and that will be better imployment for us then this debate .

And because examples are the most popular arguments , I will helpe you to one of this nature , and leave you to apply it ; Nero went through Greece a contending in the Musica certamina with all that pretended to that skill , if he had the better of it he was crowned , if not , he tooke care that they that had the better of him were put to death . The issue of it was , that they that had skill did on purpose play as ill as they could ; he conquered wherever he came , was crowned when he was there , and when he was gone , was counted a mad-man .

I shall onely adde , what upon more exact enquiry upon that hint of the Canon law I finde , that the elder Canons or decrees of Gratian as they never mention the putting Heretiques to death ; so in many passages out of Saint Austin they doe disswade the Emperour from it , and onely mention some other mulcts and restraints for them . The new Canons or the Decretals of your Popes are generally for delivering to the secular arme , but name not poenam mortis neither ; but what that signifies the Christian world now knowes well enough ; onely one peice of hypocrisy I heard of ( and by request or proposall of Spalatensis . L. 6. c. 5. Sect. 171. doe guesse the truth of the report ) in your proceedings in this matter ; your Spirituall Courts when they so deliver up , are wont to interpose [ ita tamen ut non admittant poenam mortis ( or to that purpose ) but so that they proceed not to death , when yet they knew well enough that that is the meaning of your delivering . Nay the Canons that require that the secular hand must proceed with all rigour against Heretiques thus delivered to them , will soone excommunicate any that doe not thus understand their meaning .

Besides these arguments ab authoritate , you have another drawne , as you say , from Reason , and the common rules of equity and justice , ( but adde not one word to prove what you say so very improbably , but onely condemne all of high presumption and arrogance who should be so hardy as to impugne or question it ) one would thinke you an inchanted Knight that when you have never a weapon in your hand , nor second neare you , ( but onely the names of so many men , and armes to call for ) it should yet passe for arrogance , presumption , and hardynesse in any to combat with you .

That you did not fitly produce your testimonies to your purpose , 't is plaine enough by what followes , the limitations and restraints that this doctrine , you say , must be bounded with , whereas your citations were generall without any restraint .

Your restraint or exception is , that where a Kingdome is in a peaceable possession of Catholique religion , there 't is no cruelty to inflict these punishments on the Teachers of new doctrines . And for this you say there is reason , which cannot probably be contradicted , but are so very uncourteous and contemptuous to us , as not to thinke us worthy to partake of the least syllable of such reason , unlesse that must goe for one , that wicked men aime at temporall contents , and are consequently with-held by temporall punishments , which shall be acknowledged a reason , when difference in opinion appears to be an impiety of so much designe , & all whom you call Heretiques , are by you proved to be wormes of the earth , deepe worldly designers also .

For truly I confesse , to all those things which are committed by any , who may justly be presumed to commit them against conscience , for some worldly interest , I should give my willing suffrage that some temporall bitternesse should be opportioned ; that so seeing their Error , and finding temporall paines in stead of temporall advantages to be their portion , they may be disciplin'd to better and more honest thoughts ; nay if the doctrines tend to liberty , I meane either as Mahomets did to all kinde of voluptuous living , or that other liberty ( that some of your friends and some others that call themselves reformed , but in my opinion are very farre from it , have beene guilty of ) the shaking off the yoake of civill obedience to the Magistrate set over them by God , it is then lawfull to coerce such innovators , if the prudence of the State shall thinke fit . But difference in opinion ( though it be in a Kingdome never so peaceably possest of the Catholique Religion ) if it tend not to any of these dangers , nor be convincible of those impieties and designes , will by no reason or consequence be involved in that number .

This you seem to be content with , when you adde that this severity must not be extended to all that any where teach or professe erroneous doctrines ; but upon better consideration of your following words , 't is cleare that your restraint or exception lookes another way , viz. that against those that are not the first invaders , but another generation succeeding them , whose errour is contracted by the vice of education , &c. the Church doth not execute the severity of the lawes . In which words , though we of this , and all other Protestant Kingdomes at this day have so farre our parts , as that , if it were never so much in your power , you ought upon these grounds not to hurt us , because we are the progeny , and not the first invaders ; yet seeing all the restraint is for the execution onely of the severity of the lawes , and those lawes are supposed by you to be in force against Heretiques , and so against us , whom you call by that name ; we have great reason to thinke , there is little kindnesse in this present restraint of yours .

For to the utmost of my understanding of your words , it remaines still free to you after this concession , to be as severe to any , as your power will enable you . And if by us at any time any claime of favour should be put into your Consistory , your answer probably would be by this dilemma ; either you are invaders , ( and seeing beginnings are alwaies weakest , all that are not able to resist or defend themselves , shall goe for invaders ) and then you have no title to mercy by this tenure ; or else you are a numerous off-spring and progeny of them ( and so possibly able to resist ) and then you shall have mercy ; If we stand on these tearmes with you , and your order for restraint of severity hold no longer then our strength to resist you , then we shall scarce acknowledge the obligation , but thinke our enemies on the other extreame as kind as you ; for both of you are good at being mercifull , when you are on the weaker party , but both very tyrannicall when you begin to be strong .

If you were so constant to your articles of restraint , as that all the prosperities of warre , advantages of place , and auxiliaries , could not tempt you to a massacre of any , save onely some one ( single corrupter and invader ) or two in an age , I might then have reason to thinke I might have mistaken your meaning , but certainly you have beene as cruell on the cubs , as ever you were on the old foxes , and made as little scruple to put many thousands to death in one night ( whom you could not thinke to be all leaders in factions , or invaders ) ( as the stories of France will testifie , and the very words of the bull of Vrban the eighth , to encourage the King of France , to root out the quadrupedes in Galliâ stabulantes , &c. as any one John Husse alone by himselfe at another time . And that you will have this latitude to let loose your restraint again , when time serves , it may seeme probable by what you adde of Austria , Stiria , and Carinthia , whose priviledges it seemes lasted no longer then you thought fit ; For assoone as you thought it seasonable , they were presently pronounced seditious and conspiratours , and so put to the sword ; and for France and Poland , I wish the names of Massacres had never beene heard in either of them , or at least that the Pictures of them with words of papall approbation , were not to be seen at Rome to testifie what is the cause of your present kindnesse , ( viz. the difficulty of the worke ) that the Protestants there at this time are not molested .

As for your recrimination against Protestants , seeing it is very universall ( suffer Catholiques in no place ) and very sharpe , ( that they persecute Catholiques wheresoever they are stronger , after a very violent , mercylesse , desperate manner , slay , imprison , robbe , banish , defame , &c. ) I must beseech you either to prove it against this your Country , or else to make it reparations , and remember when time serves , that when Protestants are thought to persecute you , then presently 't is a proceeding much worse and more unreasonable then the Turkish .

As for the truth of your suggestion , certainly the number and strength of Protestants hath for many yeares surmounted that of Papists in this Kingdome ; and yet I shall be confident you will be posed to produce the example of any one since Queene Maries daies that in this Kingdome was put to death meerly for religion , without being guilty of something else , which by the knowne lawes of the Realme is lyable to the punishment of treason . And for the other penall lawes in this Kingdome , which are not Capitall , but pecuniary mulcts , &c. I shall say that 't is somewhat hard , that we must be thought worthy of all those bitter invectives , which you yet farther adde , because I conceive there was never any Kingdome , that own'd any religion , but there was some difference made betwixt that , and all other , in respect of temporall priviledges , and favours , and immunities , and any such difference reaches neare as high , and goes as deepe as pecuniary mulcts . And beside it is not irrationall to say , that the inflicting such mulcts may very probably tend to the quiet , and so to the advantage rather , then to the oppression of such sufferers ; it being not without example that the suspicions of the people , and jealousies that the established religion shall be discountenanced , ( having no deeper ground then an imagination that the Prince may have inclined to give toleration to the other party , or but immunity from these punishments ) hath brought such odium upon the present government , and sharpenesse on those thus thought to be favour'd , that in comparison with these ill accidents , a few pecuniary mulcts might passe for a priviledge , as the letting of bloud is to be esteem'd by those who are entring into a plurisie for want of it .

If upon these considerations , such mulcts as these may not be conceived supportable , I must confesse 't is an hard lot to be placed in a throne betwixt two contrary pretenders , and as unhappy for any ingenuous man , to make any confession to you , who from his Lordship's acknowledgment , that the Church of England is a little too blame in this point , conclude , that in confessing this he insinuates all . This 't is to deale with men who cannot imagine it possible , that a man's words and thoughts should be of the same latitude . Should I by the same Logicke conclude , that you , by confessing that all invaders for Religion must be put to death , doe intimate , that all kinde of Protestants must be executed , I hope you would say you had wrong done you . And yet to tell you truth , the subtlety of your next distinction would give any man that observed it , great temptation so to conclude of you . For after your citation of S. Th. of Aquine , and the Schoolemen , you are pleased to communicate to us a notable Mystery , [ that you doe use reasons to perswade , and plant your faith , ( and truly the telling us you cannot erre , and upon that bottome building all your most irrationall conclusions , is no speciall exercise of the reasonable faculty ) and onely fence it exteriourly , and afarre off , with statutes of temporall severity against invaders , which , say you , is another thing from defending it interiourly by that meanes , i. e. from justifying the right and truth of religion by them .

I should never have beene so uncivill as to have affixt such a sence to your distinction , had you not beene your owne interpreter . It is , as if you had said , you are not to be accused for planting religion by armes , because your swords doe onely force men to be of your minds , doe not give them any reasons why they should . And truly I have not heard any man say , that your armes did fence religion interiourly , ( being the unaptest thing in the world , to justifie the right , and truth of religion ; and therefore you need not disavow that so providently ) the great Turke could send a letter to your Pope , and answer and confute his bull of inciting the Princes of Christendome to take up armes against him , for crucifying their god , and tell him , that as 't was a great falsity to charge on him what was proper to the Jewes , the crucifying of Christ , ( the Turke being descended from the Trojans , and therefore desiring the Popes aide against the Grecians , to avenge their murther of the Trojan Hector , a kinde of god of theirs ) so if the Pope were truly a worshipper of Christ , he would never invade any nation upon quarrell of religion ; so farre is this kinde of fighting ( in the knowledge of all , even of Turkes themselves ) from justifying of the truth , that if is a very great argument of the falsenesse of any sect of Christian religion ; a plaine demonstration that they doe not obey the Christ whom they worship .

The using the sword as an exteriour meanes of propagating your religion , is all that is laid to your charge , and that it seemes you are content to yeild us . Though , within a page or two more , you have forgotten your selfe againe , and say , that for publique coaction or violence you doe not owne it . I wish you did not .

And that you may for the time to come deale clearely , and never have minde to sucke in your words , and owne it againe , I shall in passing mention to you a narration concerning an honest Philosopher in Valens his time ; It was Themistius , who before his death turn'd from Aristotelian to Christian , but I conceive was not yet converted , when this story is related of him . Valens in Antioch , saith the (a) (a) Hist. Trip. l. 8. ex Zozomen . Historian , had vehemently persecuted the Christians that were not of his opinion , had not a booke of Themistius the Philosopher recall'd him , in which he perswaded him , that he ought not to be cruell to any (b) (b) Propter discordiam Ecclosiasticorum dogmatum . for a difference of Ecclesiasticall opinions , seeing among the Pagans themselves there were more than 300 sects differing all from one another ; And perhaps this might be wore (c) (c) Forte hoc deo gratum magis esset . acceptable ( at least more pardonable ) before God , because God is not easily knowne , and is glorified in different manners , on purpose that every man may (d) (d) Magis timeat , i. e. be more humble , as fear by Saint Paul is opposed to high-mindednesse , and feare and trembling is by the Greek fathers rendred humility . feare the more , the more he wants of the integrity and perfection of that knowledge of him , either how he is , or how qualified , or how great he is . By the reasons of Themistius , saith he , mitior factus est Imperator , the Emperour became more mild . It may not be unfit for your friends to consider the example , and doe so too .

As for your challenge to us , that if we will restore all we have taken from Papists in Europe , you will restore what you have taken from us , it is a good safe boast ; you know that it is not in any replyers power to strike the bargaine . Yet , if all the pecuniary mulcts under the reigne of the three last Princes in this Kingdome be price enough to ransome and fetch backe the bloud shed by you in Queene Maries daies , I doubt not but I shall be as forward as you to accept that challenge .

Meane while for the justification of our severest lawes in this point , you cannot but confesse that in most Kingdomes strong presumptions have beene thought sufficient to make lyable to punishment . In the Canon law the proving of nudus cum nudâ , that such a man and woman were taken naked together , is presumption enough to bring the punishment of adultery on any . And when our Queene had run so many dangers by Priests , and thereupon Capitall lawes were made , that no such should come into the Kingdome , or if they did they should be presumed traiterously disposed , and punished accordingly ; and this Statute thus legally made , conveyed to the knowledge of all such , it hath been a very rationall presumption against any that should be so found ; Though as 't is possible that nudus cum nudâ may be no adulterer , so such a Priest may have no traiterous purpose . And yet if you marke it , ( unlesse since these times of troubles ) very few of you have suffered among us by this Statute .

Sir , you had great leasure , when you could enlarge so to triumph over us for acknowledging our Church fallible , and professe to discharge his Lordship from being your Advocate , if he speake so ill for his Client . This you might have done long since , and unlesse your favour may be had upon some other tearmes then undertaking the Infallibility of meere creatures , we must all be content to be discarded by you .

Yet after all your turning away , and slighting , we shall never be so provoked , as to punish you for the result of what we prescribe you . If your best use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture ( and not any prejudice , or passion , or fault of yours ) have sincerely brought you to your opinions , and no light that is offer'd , hath beene neglected , and yet all prove unsufficient to convince you , I shall never severely pronounce against you ; and if you will say , and make good as much to me , our affections may meet , though not our braines , and both of us have charity enough to cover in each other , a multitude of errours .

Your catalogue of Sects in this Kingdome , I shall not goe about to examine , but onely tell you , that your infallibility hath beene lyable to such misadventures also , and had not the charme or skill of keeping all within its circle ; if it had , there would then at this time have beene no body to dispute against you .

In the close of your long Chapter , I wonder you should be so covetous or ambitious of lengthning it one page farther , by charging on his Lordship , that he charges you , that because you pretend to be infallible , you have lesse reason to prescribe to others ; whereas his Lordship charges no such thing upon you , but onely saith , that she that confesses she may erre , is not so chargeable with any fault , as they that pretend they cannot ; which is quite another matter .

To conclude , when the businesse is thus laid by you , that your infallibility is not yet proved to be onely pretended , and yet you have no other ground of saying so , but because you say 't is not , ( though all his Lordship's arguments for so may Sections have driven all to that conclusion , and never an one of them is yet answered by you ) it will be a most unreasonable thing ( and a sound petitio principii againe ) to affirme without any one word of proofe , that that infallibility is a reality , and so will not keepe you from mending , whereas nothing can keepe you from mending , if this doe not ; this contemning of arguments against you , and affirming magisterially without any .

To the 29 Section , Chap. 17.

This opinion , saith he , of damning so many , and this custome of burning so many , this breeding up of those who know nothing else in any point of religion , yet to be in readinesse to cry , To the fire with him , To hell with him . All these be empty words , as we have shewed before . As for our breeding up of men , I thinke we doe it as well as any of our neighbours doe ; and by the way , must tell you that we doe not take children from their parents onely to breed them up in our religion ; we doe not offer that hard measure either to Turkes or Jewes , but hold it an act flatly against the law of nature , an impious violation of Parents right , which ought to be held sacred ; and lastly , away of propagation of religions wholy violent and Vn-Christian , so farre are we from propagating our religion by force ; and if all others with whom we have to doe , had beene of that mind , it had beene better with them ; for God hath not blessed that way , forasmuch as by sad experience we have found , that none have proved greater scourges to their King and Country , then such as have had that sort of breeding given them , and contrary to their parents will , beene violently seduced in their youth ; and this is no secret , but knowne to all the three Kingdomes to their cost . But enough of this , for it is a distastfull businesse .

C. 17. Answ. to C. 17.

To his Lordship's 29 paragraph you have no returne , but that these are empty words as you have formerly shewed ( and I feare we have shewed they are not , but should be very glad to be mistaken , and can truly say , that I wish vehemently that your judgment were right in this matter ) But upon occasion of his Lordship's mention of [ your breeding up those that know nothing else in religion , To cry to the fire , to hell with him ] you are pleased to take occasion of some liberty , in shewing what good breeding you bestow upon men in your Church , and so divert to a complaint against those that take children from their parents , &c. and are somewhat passionate and tragicall on that subject ; but this being nothing to his Lordship's words or argument , I desire to see that better answered by you , before I will enter any new combat about so extrinsecall an impertinency . And so enough of this also , for what ever 't is , 't is nothing to the matter of present handling .

To the 30 Section Chap 18.

If it were granted , saith the Enquirer , that because it agrees not with the goodnesse of God to let me want a guide infallible , and that the Church of Rome were that one ; yet if that teach any thing contrary to God's goodnesse , I am not to receive her doctrine , for the same cause they would have me receive it , it being as good an argument . This guide teaches things contrary to God's goodnesse , therefore it is not appointed , by God ; as to say , it is agreeable to God's goodnesse there should be a guide , therefore there is one . So he .

The Enquirer seekes to delude us with a fallacy , by altering his tearmes ; for in the first place , he speakes of a thing contrary to God's goodnesse , not absolutely , but according to his understanding . In the second place he speakes of it , not as it is in his understanding , but as it is simply in it selfe , which is a thing quite different from the former ; for many things may be in his understanding thus or thus , or as he saith , contrary to God's goodnesse , which in themselves are not so , but rather , quite otherwise , for indeed it is no good consequence to argue on this sort . This in my understanding is contrary to God's goodnesse , therefore it is so , because your understanding is subject to errour , and therefore some things may seeme to it to be , which are not . Chillingworth who followeth this Author's footsteps , argues after the selfe same manner , and hath beene answered elsewhere by himselfe . I grant then the consequence when as he saith , this guide teaches somewhat contrary to God's goodnesse , therefore it is not appointed for a guide . But I deny the Antecedent ; and afterwards when he proves it , saying , it seemes so to my understanding , therefore it is so , I deny the consequence , and admit the Antecedent .

At least , saith he , if it seeme so to my understanding , whether in the meane time it be so or not , I am not to receive it , because I am to be guided by my owne reason and understanding . If it seeme so to your understanding after such time as you have weighed all things as rightly as you can , I grant it ; But if it seeme so onely before you have done that , then I deny it , for then it is not to be followed but forsaken , or reformed if it be found erroneous , as in this case of yours it is . For in this case your understanding is to consult other understandings wiser then your owne , if you can finde any such ; and according to that is to determine of the matter , and not to rely wholly upon your owne single understanding . But if you doe so , you will finde your owne single understanding was deceived , and that the guide of which we treate , teacheth nothing that is against the goodnesse of God . For it is to be supposed her understanding is brighter and more capacious then yours , and therefore is to be thought knowes much better what doctrines be agreeable to the goodnesse of God , then yours can doe what is against it ; and therefore your owne reason and understanding teaches you , that the Churches understanding is to be preferred , and that yours must submit ; and againe , that this is the rationall way , and not the other : this the way of understanding , and that of errour . And so much in answer to this fallacy , wherein I perceive , both he and Master Chillingworth confide very much .

As for particular doctrines , it is true , as you say , you may examine whether they agree with the Principle , that is foundation , yet neverthelesse cannot you from thence conclude any thing against the doctrines or Infallibility of the Church , but rather for it , and this for the reason before specified . Neither doe we , therefore , send you to a witnesse , and bid you not believe it , but rather , to believe it as farre as in right reason you are to believe it , and not farther , that is to say , you are to trust to your owne particular discourses , as to particular discourses , and no farther , but to the resolves of the Church as to the dictamens of a higher understanding , by the light of which you are to judge and censure of the rest , and by doing thus , you are sure you doe wisely and safely , and , in fine , so , as although you should chance to erre , you might answer the businesse at the latter day , by saying , I did in this case what I ought to doe , for I followed what my reason taught me , and more then this was not required at my hands . But if I follow my owne judgement , and in confidence of that doe adventure to condemne the Church , In that I offend against my reason and true judgement , and should not be able to make a good apology for my selfe , or any way make it good that I followed my reason , which faculty is the rule that God hath set mee .

For a conclusion of this dispute , I answer in briefe , that putting the Inquirers argument as he ought to have put it , namely , thus as followeth . This guide , to my understanding ; or , to my seeming , teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse , therefore it is not appointed by him for a guide , putting I say , the argument on this manner , it is nothing so good , or so concluding an argument , as this other is , videlicet ; This guide teaches such and such doctrines , therefore they are not against the goodnesse of God , and therefore againe , my understanding was deceived in holding them to be so ; and therefore lastly notwithstanding all this , she may be an infallible guide and appointed by God for such : Note , that we inferre hence she may be , but not that she is , as the Inquirer would impose upon us : for , we doe not say that the Church is appointed a guide therefore , because it is agreeable with God's goodnesse to make her so , but because we for other reasons know he hath so made her : because we are not now to learne but that many things are agreeable to Gods goodnesse to be done , which yet are not done , nor peradventure ever will be . Wherefore , when we are to judge what is , or will be , we are to consider , not what his goodnesse may admit , but what his will determines shall have a being , for of that lastly depends the existence of things , and not of the other .

C. 18. Answ. to C. 18.

In your report of his Lordship's argument , Section 30. you leave out those words [ therefore there is one ] and so make nonsence of that period , which in his Lordship's setting of it is excellent reason . But I can believe that this was but a slip , As for your answer to the parrallel cases , wherein , saith his Lordship , Gods goodnesse is equally concerned ; doe you thinke you can ever satisfie any reasonable man in saying , [ that the first thing he speaks of is onely contrary to Gods goodnesse in his Lordships understanding , not absolutely ; but of the second , he speaks , not as it is in his understanding , but as it is simply in it selfe ] from whence you conclude , that he changes the tearmes ] Certainly , Sir , in despight of your exception , argument is good , Thus ;

If it be sufficient to conclude an infallible guide because it agrees not with Gods goodnesse to let men want one , then any man that conceives that Church to teach any thing which he conceives against Gods goodnesse , by the same reason is not to receive her doctrine ; The case is cleare , because nothing concludes to any man any farther , then it is conceived by him ; and that is not a proofe to me , which I doe not conceive to be so ; which makes his Lordships arguing to be farre from fallacious ; For the matter of this paragraph is not whether it be really true , that it agrees not with Gods goodnesse to let men want an infallible guide , but ( supposing it to be so ) whether it will follow the Church is infallible , or whether he whose understanding is convinced and perswaded of that truth , [ that it is not agreeable to Gods goodnesse to let us want such a guide ] be enforced to confesse it infallible .

This also his Lordship disputes not against ( but will willingly acknowledge the consequence , supposing that the Antecedent were true ) onely by the same argument proves another thing , that he that conceives the Church to teach any doctrine contrary to Gods goodnesse , or that , which is such to his understanding , or he that supposes the Church to teach so , must not believe that Churches doctrine . So that if you marke , the supposition is equall on both sides , not taken for true one side , and onely pretended on tother , but one taken to be true by you , ( that , not to provide an Infallible guide is contrary to Gods goodnesse ) and tother taken to be true by his Lordship ( that Gods damning those that erre without either negligence or prejudication , is contrary to his goodnesse also ) and if the Argument be of force on one side , it must be so also on tother , and for you to say that what you suppose , is true , but what his Lordship supposes , is not so , is a terrible petitio principii againe , and no ground of a confutation against his Lordship ; The ridiculous arguments that you put in his Lordships paper , without his privity , will be matter of reproach to you , ( who if you understood ( as I suppose you did ) were willing to deprave his discourses ) and not unto his Lordship .

As for your way of satisfying his Lordships understanding , that what the Church teaches is not contrary to the goodnesse of God , [ because the Church knowes what is so , better than he ] 't will sure prevaile little with any , that is a disputing whether the Church is infallible or no , ( as you see his Lordship now is ) for if she be fallible , she may mistake in that judgment , and that she doth not mistake , there will be no assurance from her saying it , as long as the controversy depends about her Infallibility , which to affirme not to depend , or to be no controversy , is petitio principii againe .

As for your Conclusion of this dispute , wherein you set the comparison betwixt two Arguments , and say yours is much the better ; I shall not need debate that with you , because they are not the two Arguments betwixt which his Lordship makes the comparison . The first I confesse you have rightly set downe , [ This Guide to my understanding teaches things contrary to Gods goodnesse , therefore it is not the Guide ] and this will be as good an argument , as this other , [ 'T is to my understanding contrary to the goodnesse of God , that the Roman Church should not be an infallible Guide , or that there should be no infallible Guide , where there is none but the Roman Church , therefore the Roman Church is so ] In this comparison the consequences are equally true , and built upon the same ground , that that which is against Gods goodnesse cannot be ; and the Antecedents equally affirmed according to severall understandings , and then whether the other Argument which you bring , be comparable to either , it matters not .

But when at last you give us a note , that the argument from God's goodnesse doth not conclude that your Church is infallible , but onely that it may be so ; I confesse you make me repent of all this unprofitable attendance I have paid you , in following your argument thus farre , when your selfe have given me directions to a shorter cut of answering , viz: by granting that it may be infallible , that is , that nothing in nature resists , but that , if God's pleasure were so , it might be infallible , but say we , we have no evidence from God that it is his pleasure it should , and therefore we conclude it may be deceived , or may be fallible ; betwixt which two , though there may be some difference , ( as there is betwixt falli and fallibilem esse ) yet unlesse some evidence can be brought against one , which cannot against the other , they will be both equally true , as farre as respects our knowledge or debate of them .

And when you adde , that 't is from other reasons that you conclude she is infallible , and not from this of Gods goodnesse , I answer , that 't is cleare that his Lordship was now disputing onely against that reason taken from Gods goodnesse , which it seemes you confesse was no reason ; and for your other reasons , they are either confuted in other paragraphs of his Lordships Treatise , or when you produce them , shall be .

To the 31. Sect. Chap. 19.

This Section is spent in the enquiring whether a man shall be damned for making a diligent and impartiall enquiry after the true religion , of which he finds the infallibility of the Church to be a part , supposing that his reason , when all is done , will not assent . This is his Quaere , and the same may be made concerning any other verity , or point of doctrine ; as namely , of the holy Scripture , whether or no it be the word of God ; and what shall become of that man whose reason , after an impartiall search made , will not assent ; or againe , about the truth of Christian Religion , unto which , after such a search made , his reason will not condescend .

I answer first , that it is a mockery to aske whether or no any Man shall be damned for making a good enquiry without successe ; and in effect it is the same as to enquire whether a Man shall be damned for doing a deed that 's commendable and good . For this Question supposes that either the Enquirer , or we were very simple Creatures , and did not understand our selves , or else that the Gentleman-demander was not in earnest , but propounded it only for his recreation , though at a time ill chosen and unseasonable , and also in a matter about which there ought to be no jeasting .

I answer secondly , that in a place where instruction and information may be had , the case he puts is morally impossible to happen out ; for we deny that where the search is diligent , impartiall , and without prejudice , and where againe information sufficient is to be had , that there the reason shall not be able to assent , and that wheresoever it cannot , that same happens , either through weaknesse , or inhability of judgment and capacity , or else by reason of some disordinate passion of the will , by which the understanding is misled and darkened , as in those , who are refractary , it for the most part falls out . Which passion and prejudices arise , sometimes from custome and education , sometimes from vitious inclinations , sometimes from a crookednesse and perversity of nature , which doth refuse instruction . Wherefore as it is no sufficient excuse for an Infidel to say , I have searched diligently whether or no Christ be the true Messias , or whether the Scripture be the word of God or no , and after all endeavours used , my reason will not assent ; so in like manner it is as little sufficient to alleage , that after enquiry made about the true Church and her Infallibility , your reason would not assent , for in these cases , we cannot grant any ignorance invincible ; or free that errour which possesses them from guilt . Now what shall become of others who want instruction sufficient , and have no crookednesse or backwardnesse in their will , and die in ignorance , is another point , and different from this of ours , and is to be resolved in the Question about the efficacy of Implicite faith , to which I referre my Reader .

Chap. 19. Answ. to Ch. 19.

In this Paragraph his Lordship askes a Question , Whether , supposing [ that he that never heard of the Church of Rome , shall not be damned for not believing it infallible ] it can be thought , that he that hath made diligent search , and used honestly all meanes afforded him , and yet doth not believe the Church infallible , shall be damned for that not-believing ( this is the Question , and to weigh it downe on one side [ that that latter shall not be damning when tother is not ] this reason is put in that in this matter all that that Man hath done in the second case more than in the former , is onely the having diligently enquired , which is presumed to be no damning sinne .

In stead of the Question thus put , you set another somewhat distant , but I will suppose tending to the same effect , whether a Man shall be damned for making a good enquiry without successe ; which you say is a mockery , and so , as I conceive , ridiculous to affirme it ; and so , Sir , after all your descanting on his Lordship for asking this question , it is apparent by our explication of it , that upon the denying of that which you say , 't is ridiculous not to deny , it inevitably followes , that that Man shal not be damned for denying the infallibility of your Church .

And though you take paines to perswade that this case is morally impossible , yet you must give us leave from your stating of the case , wherein you say it is so , ( viz: when information sufficient is to be had ) to conclude your proofe a petitio principii againe ; for when wee deny your Church to be infallible , and moreover affirme , that if it be , it cannot be infallibly knowne to be so , how can you thinke that we shall ever yeild ( without any offer of proofe ) that there is sufficient instruction to be had for any man in this point ? besides , for you to say that every Mans not acknowledging this , proceeds either from Weaknesse or Passion , what is that but uncharitablenesse first , and then shortnesse of discourse , ( when the case was on supposition that there was no fault of which his search was guilty ) and Petitio principii againe ?

To the 32. Section , Chap. 20.

Whosoever admits of truth upon no better grounds than others doe admit of falshood , doth not receive it rightly , solidly , and as he ought , but after a way defective and infirme . Againe , whosoever searches and is loath to finde , and would not see it when he might , this Man refuseth truth as badly and weakly as the other doth receive it ; and as the truth will not benefit the one , so the enquiry will not advantage or excuse the other . As for such as are bred up in a true Religion , and which , without particular examination , they accept , it were rash judgement to say all these received truths upon no better grounds , then others did falshood ; for first , according to this account , the greatest portion of Christian men on all sides would be in a hard condition : amongst whom the simple and illiterate , who are not able to read Evagrius either in Greeke or Latine , nor yet the Bible either in Hebrew or Greeke , or otherwise to make any strict search into antiquity , for their making discoveries which faith was the Antient and Apostolique . But though they be unable to doe this , yet doe they not therefore take up their Religion at randome and by chance , or consult passion about it , and not reason , but contrariwise , doe finde their reason satisfied each one according to their severall models , or measure of capacity , by the present view of the majesty and divine perfections of the Catholique Church and faith therein professed , together with the assurances from publique fame and creditable relations . By meanes of which the divine providence and veracity shewes them infallibly what wayes they are to take , and what doctrines to receive as revealed from above . And thus , regularly speaking amongst orthodox Believers , where Religion may appeare like it selfe , every Man of capacity , though illiterate , may see sufficient to resolve him , which satisfaction from any false Religion he could not receive ; for though to a heedlesse eye , and before a diligent exquiry made , some grand falshoods may seeme more probable than truths , and that as Aristotle teacheth , multa falsa sunt probabiliora veris , many falshoods are more probable than truths ; yet , not to a diligent Enquirer after the search is made , and especially , in businesses of great concernment , because God and nature have laid these kinde of truths more open to our view , and set markes upon them by which they might be knowne and discerned from falshood . Wherefore , in the law of nature , it was more credible , even to the illiterate , that there was a God , then that there was none ; and now Judaisme is not so probable as Christianity is , though sometimes it hath been , nor Mahumetisme at any time so perswasible as Christian Religion , or Heresy so credible and satisfactory as orthodoxall Christianity , or the Greeke schisme as the Greeke unity ; wherefore though the Parents beliefe , and the Religion prevalent in the Countrey have great influence into the minds of Man , and are great and powerfull Perswaders , yea oftentimes Seducers also , and those very dangerous ; yet neverthelesse in those places where truth is taught , they doe not hinder Men from the right apprehension of it , and from making true judgements about it , but rather like a prosperous gale of winde to Vessels under sayle , cause them to move towards the Port desired more swiftly than otherwise they would . And thus much may suffice for taking off the slander and scandall which this Enquirer , and after him Chillingworth , with great acerbity , have almost in the very same tearmes , labour'd to cast upon right believing Christians , therewith to disparage their faith , as if forsooth , they beleived truths invalidly and upon no better reasons then others beleive falshood . Thus have both these conspired against the truth , for both indeed are but one Author in effect , one the Text , and the other the Commentary ; wherefore the Publisher of this small worke hath shewed us all the well head to which Chillingworth went to draw , which Well before was unknowne to the most part of Men , and so might have still remained , had it not been for this Publishers unseasonable diligence .

Chap. 20. Answ. to Ch. 20.

Your mistake is very remarkable in this Paragraph , and your paines very prodigally mispent in disproving of that which is by his Lordship mentioned onely on supposition of somewhat else affirmed by you , and by that meanes demonstrated to be infirme .

His Lordship's present reasoning is , that supposing your infallibility true , yet he that denies it , and withall uses his best reason to seeke if it be true , will sure be in as safe a condition , as he that believes it , and searches not . And this he proves , because the one believes that supposed falshood on as good grounds , as the other doth that supposed truth . Which is so fully concluded from those premises , ( and so needs no farther proofe ) that indeed these premises are able to conclude more ; viz: that in that case that Man believes that supposed falshood on better grounds ( viz : upon impartiall search ) then the other believes that supposed truth ; and then 't were unreasonable to thinke , that God that rewards mens actions , and not their fates , their choices , and not their starres , should condemne the one , more ingenuous and guiltlesse , and reward the other meaner and more criminall part of the parallel .

All this you in a manner confirme , by saying , that he that thus admits of truth , admits it not solidly , rightly , and as he ought , but after a defective and infirme way . Which being borrowed from you out of this Chapter , the rest will appeare to belong very nothing to his Lordship's argument , and therefore I choose not to insist on any reply to it . For of those which doe finde their reason satisfied in your infallibillity , of which you speake a while , his Lordship speakes not ; and for the truths that God and nature have laid so open to our view , of which you speake againe , sure this of infallibillity is none .

As for your displeasure expressed againe ( without any new occasion ) against the unseasonable Publisher ( which if you and some others of your Friends were meere Students and Votaries , to pray for , and study the peace of Hierusalem , and not too active Infusers and Enterprizers in these troubled waters , might indeed be acknowledged lesse seasonable ) it is the very thing you said before , and then was sufficiently proved to be unseasonable .

To the 33 , & 34. Sections , Chap. 21.

That the Enquirer did not deny with obstinacy the infallibility of the Church of Christ , or any other Article , we are willing to beleive , yet neverthelesse how safe he was we know not . For a man may be obstinate and yet not thinke so , though he may peradventure have just reason to suspect it . It is not likely that Arius for example , or any other Arch-heretique did thinke themselves to be obstinate , although it is not to be doubted but they were , for in the heart of Man there be many darke corners in which obstinacy may lurke and be unseen ; many passions that doe corrupt the intention , which without great diligence are not espied , especially in Men that are Lovers of the world , or be possessed with prejudices hefore hand . For which the wise Man wisely said , Verebar omnia opera mea , I distrusted all my workes . And so hath every Man reason to doe in this universall corruption of nature and manners . The 34 Sect. hath no difficulty in it which may require an Answer .

Chap. 21. Answ. to Chap. 21.

Your Answer to the 33 Sect. is very strange ; you first grant very freely , that you beleive that his Lordship did not deny with obstinacy the infallibility of your Church ; and yet in your next words you interpose against him , that a man may be obstinate , and yet not thinke so ; and on that , ground your Answer to that Section . But sure , Sir , whosoever else maybe obstinate , or what grounds soever he may have to suspect he is , yet this cannot by you be said of him at the same time when you acknowledge he is not obstinate .

I beseech you compare your Answer with that Paragraph of his Lordships again , and tell me whether this would not be very strange dealing . Suppose a Friend should make this Syllogisme for you ; an honest Catholique ought not to be denied the liberty of this Towne , but this Gentleman is an honest Catholique , ergo : and to the major I should answer by silence , ( i. e. consent ) and to the minor , [ that you are an honest Catholique I am willing to believe : ] Neverthelesse whether you ought to have the liberty of this Towne , I know not , for you may be a dishonest Catholique , and yet not thinke so .

I pray how would you like this way of discourse ? would you not first tell me that I did in effect deny the conclusion , i. e. make scruple how you should be dealt with , after I had acknowledged both that all honest Catholiques ought to be used as you desire , and that you are an honest Catholique ? And Secondly , that I did suck in my concession of your being an honest Catholique , assoone as I had made it ; for if that Reply belong to me , then is it doubted , whether I am such or no. Be pleased to compare the cases , and this is directly your answer .

What you meane by the no-difficulty in the 34 Sect. ( which you confesse , and which therefore requires no Answer ) I doe not perfectly know , but shall suppose you meane , that there is nothing of doubt or question in it , and then I am sure I have nothing to reply , but that by the same reason the 33 Section must be granted also , for the medium is the same to inferre both those conclusions .

To the 35 , & 36 , Sections , Chap. 22.

To beleive , saith he , implicitly what God would have believed , is also to beleive implicitly what the Church teacheth , if this doctrine be one of those which God commands , to be believed . My Answer to this is negative , and my reason of deniall is , because one implicite faith doth not containe another , but it is an explicite assent and no other that containes within it an implicite . To the point then I answer , that if that same generall beliefe , which he falsly calls Implicite , be sincere and cordiall , we then grant that it may , as he saith , implicitly containe the other . But what will he deduce from thence ? what ? that all who pretend to believe on that manner doe it sincerely ? It is improbable , for if it were sincere , it would in knowing Men , not stay within the narrow compasse of an implicite assent , but quickly dilate it selfe , and become explicite . Indeed this great profession of believing in a preparation of minde all which God would have believed , and goes no farther , seemes in most Men to be but feigned and delusory , and so no great trust can be reposed in it .

Chap. 22. Answ. to Chap. 22.

The force of the argument , Sect. 35. you deny upon a shew of some subtlety , because , say you , one implicite faith doth not containe another . This you affirme , but afford us not the least offer of proof for the affirmation . I must therefore beseech you to looke over your principle againe . Suppose me to believe by an implicite faith , that you are an honest Man , may not that beliefe containe in it an implicite beliefe to every proposition by you asserted ? Nay , what need this circumlocution ? is not his Lordships argument most cleare being put into a Syllogisme ?

If God commands the Church to be believed , then he that implicitly believes all the commands of God , implicitly believes that the Church is to be believed : but God commands the Church to be believed , ergo . See now which Proposition you will deny , the major is evident , the minor I presume you will not deny , whosoever else doth , and then I beseech you be good to the conclusion .

But that it seemes you will grant too , but suspect that that generall beliefe is not sincere and cordiall ; But that I am sure is not for us to dispute of , or discerne , and I am as sure 't is nothing to the case where 't is supposed to be sincere , and if it be not , no Man ever thinkes it can be relyed on .

To the 37 , 38 , & 39. Sections , Chap. 23.

Admitting the formost of these Sections as probable . To the 38 , I answer , that as some are made obstinate by pride , so againe othersome lazinesse detaines in ignorance . But what of that ? I grant you that it is not pride in you or any Man never to assent , till you find good reason for it , but rather wisdome . Neverthelesse it may be pride which blinds a Man and hinders him from the seeing a just reason of assenting , yea even then when it is not onely perceptible , but also easie to be perceived ; for the eye of the proud sees not the truth , but overlooks it . The 39 Paragraph containeth in it no businesse considerable in the matter of controversie between us .

Chap. 23. Answ. to Chap. 23.

The 38 Sect. you admit as probable , and now methinks I understand your Dialect somewhat better then before I did ; Doth not [ admitting as probable ] signifie [ not understanding ? ] Truly it had been more ingenuously done to have used that other phrase ; for the truth is , it might have been done at this time without any disparagement to your understanding ; for in the beginning of this Section there was at the first Edition clearly an errour in the print . It should be thus as 't is now mended ; To the Greeke that concludes the former Section should be adjoyned in the same period , If I could , &c. and no new Section be there made ; and as the sence , by that mistake of the Printer , lyes broken in the first Impression , it is non-sence .

Now this being said , It is a little odde that there should be but one piece of non-sence in the Booke , and that should have the lucke to be in your favour , and by you be confestly admitted as probable . But this was but a misfortune . Your Answer to the 38 is not so excusable , being not one syllable to the matter in hand , [ that sluggishnesse may as probably bring a Papist to grant your infallibility , as pride a Protestant to deny it ] In stead of denying or answering of which , you onely reply , that pride may possibly blind a man . Sure this paragraph you might have admitted also , ( as well as the other two that encompasse it ) much better then to have said nothing to the purpose .

The 39. I would not discourage you from granting ( it had beene much for my ease if you had granted the whole treatise ) otherwise I could shew you , that it conteines an argument perfectly concludent against your cause , in satisfying one maine objection of yours against us .

To the 40 Section Chap. 24.

We Catholiques doe not disagree in points of faith , neither where there is fire to keepe us in awe , nor where there is none , and therefore this exception against our unity is frivolous . It is the clearenesse and perfection of our rule that drawes us all to unity , and not any of the foure Elements . If we follow this rule we are at peace , and we doe well know how to follow it : contrarywise , follow your rule as well as you can , and yet you are at variance ; wherefore you assigne a rule , which though it in it selfe be not uncertaine , yet which is as bad , you are uncertaine of it . Now as in Logicke a maxime , or axiome , if unknowne , or uncertaine , is no good principle of argumentation ; so in matter of beliefe , a rule not certainly discernible and understood , is no good rule of faith , though never so perfect in it selfe : and this is just your case .

The differences amongst those of our Church are not differences in matters of faith or religion , as it is evident ; but on the other side it is manifest and confessed , that yours are . Our differences are in Philosophy onely , or in some Scholastique and undefined point , and such in particular is , that now some yeares agitated betweene the Dominicans , and sundry of their party on the one side , and the Jesuits , and Sorbon Doctours , and many more , on the other . For these contend not as we doe , with the Calvinists , namely , whether we have free will or no : all of them agreeing in that verity of faith , but they contend about a question onely Philosophicall , which hath some relation to it , namely whether with this freedome of will acknowledged by both sides , Physicall predeterminations or praemotions can consist : which question is no question of faith . Now admitting as many thinke , that these predeterminations could not stand with the doctrine of free will , yet the said doctrine of faith is not hurt thereby : for the opposition betweene them and free will , is either discovered by the Dominicans , or not . If not , then is it dormant , and so , though never so ill , it cannot doe hurt to faith , or worke it any prejudice . If it be discovered , then it can worke nothing , forasmuch as thereupon it will be relinquisht and abandon'd presently : because the doctrine of free will is received by an assent of faith , and the other but by a philosophicall or opinative ; the former being the stronger , must needs command and expell the latter , assoone as they begin to fall at variance . Wherefore it would in that case be a good consequence with them , viz. Man hath free will , therefore there is no predetermination and not contrarywise , ( as it is with the Calvinists ) there is predetermination , therefore no free will . Therefore in the holding of predeterminations there is a vast difference betweene a Calvinist and a Dominican , even as much as betweene an obedient Catholique , and a perverse and obstinate Heretique , and that is difference enough . And since you would needs know , this is the reason why these arguments make you Heretiques , and not the Dominicans . That the Church ought to have resolved the point in difference , betweene those two orders , is more then the inquirer can prove , for neither of their doctrines doe hinder conformity with the ancients in any one thing , wherein conformity was requisite ; for men are not bound to conforme with the ancients in the reasons of their beliefe , but in their belief onely . The 42. Section we grant as making nothing against our doctrine . And thus Chillingworth is also answered who insists upon this same point , and also in the same fashion with this Inquirer , so that all things considered , both these make but one Author and require but one answer to what they have objected . And by this the 41 , and 42. Sections be also answered .

C. 24. Answer to C. 24.

His Lordship saith that the consent is little thank-worthy , because that may be an effect of feare , when there is fire for them that disagree . To this you answer , that you disagree not in matters of faith , neither where there is fire to awe , nor where there is none .

Sir , is not that a strange answer in you , that know there is fire to awe disagrees in all matters of faith , and consequently no matter of faith , where there is no fire to awe ? By this it appeares that that exception of his Lordships against your unity in matters of faith is farre from frivolous , and to get quit of it , you are faine to make a distribution , of which onely one species belongs to the Genus , which being put into forme betraies it selfe presently : It must be thus , of matters of faith , some are required of us sub poenâ ignis , some are not . Can you stand to it , that this shall hold ? are there any things de fide , which a Man may safely disbelieve ? if not , all the rest you say in that Section is nothing to the purpose . But then you adde , that all the differences are in matters not of faith , to which the answer will be very obvious ( if I troubled you with no other ) that ours are so too , and then you have little matter of triumph over us in that excellence .

But if you please , I shall be a little more large with you in this point , and first I beseech you to consider , that it is you that bring this Argument against us , taken from Dissentions amongst us , and not we against you ( though we might with as good reason ) and therefore that it lies on you to prove it a concluding Argument , and to us 't is abundantly sufficient , if we be but able to retort it , for then 't will be an Argument ad homines , though in it selfe it be no Argument .

This being premised , I pray observe , in the second place , the no force of this Argument against us , unlesse it may also appeare that our departing from you , is the cause of these Dissentions . For if they be but onely consequent to it accidentally , this ought not in all reason to be laid to our charge , any farther then thus , that this accidentall consequent , is a probable argument of one of these two things , either that you have better rules for the restraining of such Dissentions than we , or else that you are more carefull in executing the rules you have ; and if either of these be said by you , I shall then tell you : 1. That it seemes this Argument concludes but probably , though the proposition were granted , and I believe I could urge as probably on the other side , and conclude the excellency of our Reformation from that old saying of Clemens ( by way of Answer to your Objection , both of Jewes and Heathens against Christianity , taken from the Dissentions of Christians in the Primitive Church ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , The cause of them is , because all things , that are excellent , are subject to the envy of Men , and Devils , and from thence to the sowing of seeds of Dissentions amongst them ; agreeably to that of our Saviour , that as soon as the wheat was in the ground , the envious sowed his tares .

But then secondly , for the preventing of such Dissentions , I shall adde , that though we have not pretence of infallibility , and threats of fire to restraine Men from them , yet we have other rules more agreeable to antient Church practice , than either of these ; and though the weapon of our warfare are not carnall in your sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to the taking away of life , yet are they if they were executed , mighty to bring downe or shut out Heresies . For , if you know it not , I can tell you , that Excommunication ( that soveraigne receipt of Christ and his Apostles , the most perfect designe of charity , to save and recover that which is lost , to shame Men to reformation ) and upon contempt of that , that secular rougher hand interposing , the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo , and the Statute of Abjuration are very strong restraints ; and if they have not been so diligently executed as they ought to be , though I hope you will pardon this fault , yet he that will not , must charge it onely on the Persons of our Magistrates , and not on our Religion , or the state of our Reformation . And then let me adde that even these lawes , and this execution of them , or the like , whether among you or us can extend no farther then to outward restraints , and that onely of those that will be so terrified , or to punishment of them that will not ; but not to preventing of Heresies in the inward rise or growth , or sometimes in the breaking out , whensoever ambition of being Leader of a Sect , &c. are more prevailing than feare of punishments , which cases must be lookt for in every Church .

To which purpose you may please to reflect upon your selves , and tell me , whether there were not good store of Hereticks before the times of the Reformation , If not , I am sure Irenaeus , & Epiphanius , and Saint Augustine , and Philastrius have abused us in their Catalogues ; and I beseech you , but to remember the ridiculous Heresies of Galatia ( which Saint Jerome mentions on occasion of Gal. 3.1 . in respect of which he conceives the Apostle calls them such fooles , and thinks they were bewitcht ) particularly those of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that would have Cheese mixt with the Bread in the Sacrament , which with two others of the like stamp , there mentioned , came from Ancyra the Metropolis of Galatia . And yet I believe you would not thinke the Argument of much force , if it should ( from your example against us ) be made use of by us either against those Apostolicall Churches , or against the Roman Church ever since , that so many Heresies are gone out of it ; and yet that would be as reasonable in us , as in you it is to charge all the Heresies which have been in the World since Luther , upon the Reformation .

For , let me aske you , is the fault that you object to us in this matter , that Hereticks are gone out from us ? That which wee have said will satisfie you that that is no argument , that we are not a true Church , for if it be , it will be of force against the Catholique Orthodox Church in all Ages . Or is it , that they that thus dissent from us are suffered to continue among us ? if that be it , then first there are also Dissenters among you , continuing with you . Secondly , our Lawes and Canons are for the casting them out , if their dissentings be Hereticall , and that is all that you can pretend of these , and if we have been more indulgent than you would have us , that is but an errour of tendernesse first , and then that onely the fault of Persons .

Having said thus much ( which I conceive full ground of satisfaction to what you have or can say in this matter ) I might now adde , that if you looke no farther then the Church of England even in these ( which I suppose you will count the ) worst times of it , you cannot finde any greater or more dangerous Heresies avowed by any considerable Party than are owned by some of the Jesuits among you .

I shall first mention that popular doctrine ( you know what I meane ) of Bellarmine , resumed and confirmed not long before his death , with his most advised care in his Recognitions . Secondly , the doctrine and practice of resisting and deposing lawfull Magistrates under colour of religion ( that I set it no higher , even to killing of Kings . ) Thirdly , the opposing the Order of Bishops , as expresly contrary to the sole-power enstated by Christ on S. Peter . And also Fourthly , the affirming it lawfull that evill may be done , so it be in order to a publique good ; and that I trouble you with no more ( and yet give you reason to thinke that it is in my power ) I beseech you to believe that I have read Watson's Quodlibets , ( and I could without much difficulty make a parallel betwixt these whom you so much charge , and those whom you defend , your hatedst Enemies , and your dearest Friends , that Booke being so richly able to furnish me with hints ) & that I have surveyed the Writings betwixt the Seculars and the Regulars ( with the late controversie among you about the Bishop of Calcedons being appointed Ordinary in this Kingdome , produced ) and in them the difference about the necessity of Confirmation , and the [ non ] ( even now mentioned ) in the Canon of the Councell , as also the Symbolum Jesuiticum , &c. and if we have any greater divisions among us yet , than these , I beseech you to let me know it from you ( for I believe 't will be no easie discovery ) and I shall promise to doe and pray my utmost , that they may be avoided .

This being thus set betwixt us , I shall not need to descend to a particular survey of the truth of what you say , that these differences among you are in matters not de fide ; though in that there would be a large field to amplifie in also .

To his Lordships argument , [ That the Church ought to have resolved these questions if they desired conformity with the antient Church ] you answer , that neither of these Doctrines hinder Conformity with the Antients in any thing wherein Conformity is required ; and confirme that by an implicite Assertion , which you will never be able to prove , viz: that the Fathers did not deliver doctrines ( as well as reasons ) directly contrary to the Dominicans ; Whereas 't is cleare they did , viz: to that , that physicall predeterminations can consist with freedome of will . Which even now you thought good ( not to deny but ) to excuse by a dilemma , that if this opposition were not discovered to the Dominicans , it would doe no hurt , if it were , it would be relinquisht . It seemes by this , that if they are discovered , and not relinquisht , the danger would then be great , and so that if they knew this conformity , this conformity would be requisite also , and so is requisite in it selfe , though by the excuse of blamelesse ignorance it be capable of mercy .

To the 42 Sect. you answer by granting againe , and thus you say also Master Ch. is answered , and truly so any Man will be content to be answered ; I would all his Lordships Treatise had been so answered , it had been more ease to your selfe , and advantage to somebody else .

To the 43 Sect. Chap. 25.

We doe not formally inferre , that because our rule breeds unity , therefore all dissenting Parties ought to yeild to that ; but that dissenting Parties have no rule on which it is fit , or safe to rely ; and againe , that in place of it , we ought to seeke out one which causes unity , because no rule can be good without that quality . Neverthelesse it followes also , ours is the true rule , because , de facto , none but ours either doth it , or is apt to doe it , and one such rule there must be , we are sure . Ours then is not therefore to be accepted , because it breeds unity , but because it alone doth breed it . As for Nilus , he is a pratling Greeke , and besides that in his severall sayings he overthrowes himselfe , and confirmes our Doctrines ; in this point no heed is to be taken to what he saith .

Chap. 25. Answ. to Chap. 25.

In this Chapter you disclaime an Assertion by affirming it ; disclaime it in these words , [ That you doe not inferre , because your rule breeds Vnity , therefore all dissenting Parties ought to yeild to it ] and affirme it in these [ That dissenting Parties have no rule , that they ought to seeke out one that causes unity , that yours is the true rule , and none but yours : ] your meaning is , it seemes , that you doe inferre it , but you doe it not formally ; and sure it matters little for formality , when the thing is so granted by you .

For that you put in the word [ onely ] it matters little ; because any other company that should deny that infallibility , and usurp it themselves , would soone get the monopoly of it also , especially from any that differed from them in any particular . As for Nilus , 't is farre cheaper and easier to call him pratling Greeke , than to confute his saying , which yet , if you please to marke his words in this place , is no more than you say in the very undertaking to answer this Treatise , that your Church must by all be lookt on as infallible .

To the 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , Sections , Chap. 26.

In these foure Sections the Enquirer busily endeavours to perswade that errours might secretly creep into the Church by degrees , as a Child waxes bigger , and as the index of a Clock moves about . Be it so as the Enquirer saith , yet neverthelesse , might all such creeping errours , if there were any , be espied , at least , when they had once got in , if not while they were stealing thither . Thus the growth of a Child is seene plainly , though not the growing , and the hand , or shadow of a Diall is seene at what houre it is , though the slow pace thither was not perceptible ; and Men may give a judgement whether it goe false or true . Why then could not errours be espied as easily after they were once stolne in , though by never so small degrees , they made their approaches thither ? Thus were the errours of Arius , Pelagius , Wicliffe , Socinus , and others , presently discovered , notwithstanding all their Authours counterfeiting and slie manner of divulging them ; even as tares , which were sown while Men slept : as soon as grown up were seen and noted . What then should hinder all other pretended errours of the Church from being seen and registred , although crept in never so insensibly ?

What matter is it that sundry Bookes are lost ? Are they more lost for those errours , then for others ? or were these more invisible then all the rest ? It is strange with what improbable conjectures this Enquirer deludes himselfe .

He tells us afterwards of another slie way of breaking in , that is to say , under old names and titles , altering the signification , but not the words . But I would know how the errours of the Church could by this art be concealed , more than the errours of Calvin , who sought with old appellations to palliate his new Doctrines .

But , in conclusion , his principall device is , that if no precedent opposition were a note of the being taught from the beginning , that then the doctrine of the Chiliasts would passe for right and Apostolicall , because , as he affirmeth , it was not contradicted till two hundred yeares after the coming in . But my answer is , it is more than any Man can prove , that it was contradicted no sooner : nay , it is more than probable , that it was contradicted in the time of S. Justin , as we have shewed before , and also highly probable , that it was opposed and rejected in the time of Dionysius the Arcopagite , as also hath been noted before .

Besides , it is no way necessary that every casuall or innocent opinion should be forthwith contradicted , or noted as an errour against faith ; and of this sort was the errour of the Chiliasts during the time it was held but as an opinion , without censuring or condemning others , to which height , assoone as it arrived , it was cryed downe presently and rejected .

The 48 Sect. containes but a recapitulation of what was before propounded , and therefore requires no new answer to it .

The last Sect. containes nothing that deserves not commendation , or is unworthy of the Author , but is rather to be extolled and imitated by all that make Enquiries after truth , and his resolves there be such , that if they be truly and sincerily put in execution by any , no man can have reason to be offended with him in this world , nor is it likely that God will be displeased with him in the next . But whether the Enquirer was not very unhappy in his searches after truth , or no , I leave it by the searcher of all hearts to be determined .

C. 26. Answ. to C. 26.

To your answer to the undiscernablenesse of errours , that though they are not seene at the time , they may be seene after . I reply , that I confesse it possible they may be seene after , and that some are so , very soone after , but yet sure not all presently after , at least not publiquely and vulgarly seene ; As they are seene , so they may be made knowne to the world , some a long time after others ; and this is sufficient to shew , that the Authours of the errours may possibly not be seene & discovered at all , though the errour in processe of time chance to be so , which will be most evidently true , if it be farther considered ( what his Lordship affirmed ) that errours came in by degrees , and not at once .

To your question what it matters that sundry bookes are lost ? I answer , that thus much it matters , that from thence it followes infallibly , that 't is possible there might be opposition against any doctrine , though in the writings we have , there be none mentioned , and as you disprove not that , so his Lordship desires not to have more acknowledged .

Your next answer by retortion against Calvin will be of no force , unlesse Calvin undertooke to be infallible .

For the matter about the Chiliasts as you referre to your answer before , so doe I to my reply , onely from your favour or indulgence to that opinion , during the time that it was held but as an opinion , without censuring or condemning others ; but then withdrawing that favour when it arrived to that height ; I am very glad and joyfull to joine issue with you , and charitably to suppose ( though I affirme it not ) that till you tooke upon you to condemne and censure others , any opinion you held , meerely as an opinion , might doe you no irreparable hurt ; but now that you proceed to that insolent unmercifull height , what mercy can you expect from your owne principles , by which yet we that censure not , condemne not , are confident to hope for some kindnesse from you , though not from other men .

To the 48 Sect. I shall take your example likewise , and to the last commend your ingenuity for commending that , that deserved it so much ; and onely demand with what conscience you could thinke him very unhappy in those searches , which you confesse to be so happy in proposing ; for sure if unhappinesse signifie the ill successe of his searches , there can be ( according to your Principles ) no feare that they should by God be permitted to be unhappy ; or if it signifie any fault in them , you cannot without uncharitablenesse , and judging of hearts pronounce him guilty of it .

The Conclusion .

The generall result of all that which hath beene debated hitherto betwixt the Enquirer and me , is , in effect , no other but that , First , the Catholique Churches infallibility is a soveraigne preservative against errour ; and against all dissention or dis-union in believing , unto all those who doe acknowledge it , and yeild submission thereunto . Secondly , that each new verity defin'd by that Church is to them a new path to heaven , though on the other side , to all such other as refuse to be directed by her , it may prove just as the Enquirer is pleased to expresse himselfe , a new path to walke in towards the Devill , or one steppe more unto damnation . And in this he was in the right , and spoke truer then he was aware . Now it is well knowne that all we Catholiques are guided by that same infallibility ; and againe , that on the contrary all Anti-Catholiques doe resist it , and what will follow out of this , is no hard matter to collect . Moreover , this same infallibility , a quality so unpleasing to the Enquirer , cannot , as he surmises , make us sure , if we be in errour , never to mend , for we all doe offer freely that if either he , or any of his side be sure to disprove soundly and clearly the infallibility , we will be as sure to mend and forthwith to relinquish it ; by which expected act of theirs we shall be reduced unto such good tearmes , in which all Anti-Catholiques continually are , that is to say , to believe at randome , reele wildly up and downe unconstantly , and fall at variance amongst our selves , as they doe ; and then I hope the Enquirer will be contented with us .

But the want on their behalfe of such an efficacious proofe as this , hath beene the true reason why we have not hitherto thought of any alteration , or comming towards them . Certainly it is much better to be perswaded though falsly , of an infallibility , then to be sure to have none , as you now are , but to be wrangling perpetually , falling out and fighting amongst your selves ; whereas , before you were , when as our Religion prevailed , this inconvenience happened not . So that , in fine , all the goodly fruits you have reaped from your impugning Church and Councels , and in bringing in instead thereof a new invention of your owne , is but the making of your selves and your Country miserable , which daily , by deare experience we finde . And so much for the Enquirer's unadvised impugnation of the infallibility of the Catholique Church .

Chap. 27. Answ. to the Conclusion .

In your Conclusion which recapitulates the summe of these debates betwixt his Lordship and you , your first result is acknowledged perfectly , upon supposition that your Church were infallible ; but then whether it be or no , that is the question still , and its being taken by you for a Principle , when 't is so farre from being supposed one , is the cleare ground of the Irreconcileablenesse betwixt You and Us. For , upon supposition that we were your Proselites in all manner of doubts besides , yet your requiring us to believe you not onely in the right , but infallible , equally obligeth us to believe all that your Church can possibly ever affirme , as what you doe already , and then we must have a strong faith indeed to be able to beare such a burthen . Whereas if you could but be brought to thinke it possible , you might be deceived , we could then finde place in you for Scripture and reason to make impression : but till then , you have that terrible prejudice against them , whensoever they are produced against you ( and whensoever they are urged for you , they are to little purpose , onely to confirme you in the beliefe of that which you are already infallibly perswaded to be infallible ) that they are but temptations and shafts of Satan , which , the stronger they come , and the more irresistibly , the more is your faith obliged to resist them all ; and to that this one fortification is sufficient , that you know that whosoever doubts of your infallibility , is not fit to be heeded in any thing else ; Reason must cease to be Reason , Scripture to be Scripture , when it appeares on that Argument .

And that sure is the reason that this Treatise of his Lordships , which consists not of more Paragraphs , than convincing Reasons , against your Infallibility , is so easily rejected , or forgotten by you , that now you cannot acknowledge ever to have heard any such on that Theme . And then I shall not attempt to hope to have so much , either Logicke or Rhetorick , as to make that impression on you .

Onely let me desire you to consider the ground of your last period but one , that certainly it is better to be perswaded , though falsely , of an Infallibility , then to be sure to have none .

Where first you must , if you speake intelligibly , intimate that your errour is better ( not onely than another errour , but ) than truth , for the Infallibility you suppose to be an errour , when you so speake , but the no-infallibility you doe not suppose to be no-truth .

But then Secondly , I am so farre from this opinion of yours , that I conceive it hard to imagine any errour , that could doe so much harme , as this of the pretended Infallibility , supposing it as now you doe , to be an errour ; for that which brings a certaine possibility ( if no more ) of all errours after it , and leaves no one falsity out of the Creed ; that 't is possible for all temptations to perswade your Church , is certainly a complicated errour , and may well be called Legion , for nothing else can be so numerous as this ; I 'me sure not the believing you fallible , though you were not so ; For , that would be but one errour , and no other necessarily consequent to it , it being very possible for him that hath that opinion of you ▪ to thinke every thing else that you thinke , to thinke you actually in the truth , although it be possible you may be in the wrong . Not to mention the great injury that that Infallibility , if it did belong to you , would in one respect be apt to doe you , I meane to deprive your Church of all reward for any truths you preach , there being no matter of reward where there is no possibility of doing otherwise , nor capacity of a crown , where , for want of a p●ssibility of being overcome , there is also an impossibility of obtaining victory .

Thus have I given you an impartiall account how much , or rather how little , your Papers have wrought upon my understanding ; and truly as the end of my writing any thing was , that I might satisfie your judgment , so the maine end of my enlarging to so many particulars , and , ( as you may see by the expressions of my then-present-intentions at the end of the first Chapter ) to a length which I had resolved against , by examining almost every period in your seven sh●ets , was to satisfie your desire , signifi●d in putting your Papers into so many hands , that , to tell you tru● , after I had read them over , and declined the having any thing to doe with them once , then within few daies after found another way to come to my hands againe ; so that it had not beene civility toward you to have put you to any more trouble , or farther to have tempted you to thinke your selfe victorious . To fortifie you the better against that temptation , I have beene perhaps more plaine and punctuall sometimes then would otherwise have beene necessary ; and if when you have read it over , you finde any such plainnesse to have beene without cause , upon your signification of your se●ce of any such my offence , I will promise to aske your pardon ; meane while I shall not trouble you with any farther thoughts of continuing this Controversie , ( peace and unity and ami●y of pennes and hearts being much a more lovely thing ) but desire that if any thing in your Paper ( as farre as it presses his Lordship ) be in your opinion unsatisfied , it may in few words , without such a large trouble as this , be mentioned by you ▪ and then friendly debated betwixt us at any time of meeting ; of which whensoever by the meanes that this came to my hands , you shall signifie to me your pleasure , I shall not faile to serve you , being indeed resolved never to be thus injurious to my Reader againe in civility to any man .

From my Study Sept. 23. 1645.
An Appendix , or Answer to what was returned by the Apologist .

TO this Reply of mine what was by the Apologist returned in the Margent of my Paper , shall be now distinctly set downe , as the Preface promised , with a direction ( by some Letter of the Alphabet ) to that part of any Chapter of the discourse , to which each of his Annotations were applied , and affixed . And for Answer to them I shall not need enlarging .

In the Introduction , at the letter [ A ] this Annotation was set in the Margent . [ I know of neither Scoffes nor Triumphs . ]

Answ. That there are such , the Reader will give credit to his owne eyes , if he review the latter part of your first Chapter , as also the close of the 8 and of the 15 Chapter ; And that you ought to know them , i. e. acknowledge and reform them , as being contrary , the former to that Charity , the latter to that Meeknesse , which our Saviour left in charge with those that would be called by his name , I hope you will discerne , and confesse with me .

C. 2. B. the Annotation is [ I doe not treat here what is done by some , but what in propriety of speech ought to have beene done . ]

To this I answer , first , That it being true ( as this Reply confesses ) that some Romanists used that stile of Catholique Roman Church , ( though this Apologist did not ) This is fully sufficient to justifie his Lordships title , because he was not bound to foresee that this Apologist would reforme the stile of others ; And secondly , though it be not propriety of speech , yet was that no argument neither , because his Lordship that holds that Church fallible in greater matters , might conceive it possible for them to be so in matter of propriety of speech , nay was confident that so they were , being not able to disbelieve his eyes and eares , that of this they were guilty , as improper as it is . But then thirdly , the matter is yet more cleare against the Apologist , for though his Lordships title did not presage , yet I which had read that Answer , could see that he himselfe said that the Church Catholique was the Roman , and the Roman the Catholique , and that is the thing which I affirm'd from his owne words in that place to which that Annotation is prefixt . And therefore for him to say , that in propriety of speech this ought not to be done ] as it is an accusation of himselfe , who was guilty of that impropriety , so is it not a confutation of me , who onely said he was so .

Ib. C. [ We speak here according to the rules of formall predication , not for reprehension of the Enquirer , but for rectifying the manner of speaking , and stating the Question rightly . ]

Answ. 'T is not imaginable how this note could advantage the Writers cause . In the very place to which this note is affixt , I am a proving by rules of formall predication , that , by what is said by the Romanists , and particularly by your self , it is apparent , that you affirme the Roman Church to be Infallible , though not quatenus Roman . this conclusion you deny not to follow from those rules , but say [ you speak according to those rules . ] And truly I have as yet no necessity to d●ny that you doe so , nor shall I , untill having affirm'd the Roman Church to be the Catholique , you proceed to deny the Roman to be Infallible , though the Cathol●que be . This you doe not yet distinctly deny , ( though the whole controversie about the title of his Lordships booke shews that you are not very willing to stand to the affirmative . ) When you doe so , I shall make bold to put you in mind of those rules , and in the meane onely to take notice of your owne confession , that what you said was not for reprehension of the Enquirer : which I must affirm to be a retrataction of your former writing , which pretended to prove that in truth it was not so , as in the Enquirer's title it is called . This was then surely a reprehension of the Enquirer , and if now you say you meant not to reprehend him , this is to say you did not meane to doe what you did , which being a ●●ile of humility I shall never repro●ch or find fault with in you ; ●ut yet tell you , that what you call in the next words of your Annotation , your [ rectifying the manner of speaking , and stating the Question aright ] is in my Answer proved to be contra●y to your owne manner of speaking ; and a cleare mis stating To which proofes as here you reply nothing , ( nor is it imaginable how you should , the matter being so evident , viz: that they that affirme the Roman Church , to be the Catholique , and the Cathol●que to be infallible , must needs affirme the Roman to be infall●bl● ) so doe you in effect confesse that you had nothing to reply to the remainder of that whole Chapter , which as it is the longest in the Book , so by vindicating the fitnesse of his Lordships title , and stating of the Question against your exceptions , doth l●y very usefull grounds for the voyding your pretensions to infall●bility : For if it be cleared by my first Chapter ( as I conceive it is , and your Ann●tations do not deny it to be ) that the Question is of the infallibility of the Roman Church , then we that deny the Roman to be the Catholique must never be charged of denying the Catholique to be infallible , nor be liable to the arguments that are brought against us upon that head , ( which without question are the b●st you have ) though we deny it never so confidently of the Roman .

Id. D. Surely the meaning is very obvious . ]

Answ. If it be , I am sure the words doe not clearly expresse it , for how should the editor of his Lordships tract ( to whom the former part of that period belongs , in these words [ though no notice hath been taken of any answer given already ] ) take notice of giving licence for any other answer ? Give notice he might , but that in my judgment is not to take ; and take notice you might , but that I conceive would not cohere with the antecedents , and any third way of rendring , I confesse I imagin not ; and therefore still if the meaning be obvious , it must be met with somewhere else , then in the sound , and contexture of the words , but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall not be imputed to you , it was onely an officiousnesse in me then , to shew you it was such .

Id. E. These are bitter scoffes , and no way grounded upon my words .

Answ. That the phrase [ sad newes ] was grounded on your words there recited by me , I must still affirme , for they are most evidently a forme of complaining , and that is all I meant by [ sad newes : ] yet if to you it seeme to be a scoffe , or bitter , and both those in the plurall , ( more scoffes than one in that single expression ) though my conscience doth not accuse me of any such intention , yet I will fall at your judgement , and beseech you to pardon me for it , and to make you reparations , promise to endeavour to offend no more against you , or any other Adversary by any kind of bitternesse ; and for once be you pleased to imitate my resolution , and remember , that when another man spake it [ sad newes ] was a bitter scoffe , and then perhaps your reprehension of me may worke a double cure , and heale you also of some excesses .

Chap. 2. Answ. to Ch. 2. A. I doe not beg the Question , but deny what the Enquirer assumed as true and granted , namely that our proofes of the Church are no other nor better than those by which you impugne it : which assumpt of his we deny , and whether justly or no , must depend upon the triall and the examination of his proofes to follow after ; and therefore this deniall of mine is no petitio principii , but a right and Logicall deniall , which either the Enquirer or you were bound to disprove , and not to tell us as you doe that we are bound to prove against the Enquirer , who here chargeth us , and susteineth the Person of the Opponent , or one that argues against our Infallibility .

I am the Defendent , and no Defendent can begge the Question , my discourse is Apologeticall as the Title tells you .

Answ. I did not venture to tell you that you were guilty of a petitio principii , untill I had , as I conceived , made an ocular demonstration to you that it was such , which you may please to review in the place ; or to save you that trouble , I shall tell you the summe of it ; you deny a proposition , which in that place 't is cleare that his Lordship proves , and having not answered one word to his proofes ( which is in effect to deny the conclusion ) you then give a proofe or reason of your deniall [ for we affirme that our Churches infallibility is proved by reasons which are reall and true , &c. ] this reason of yours being as much denied by his Lordship , as your maine conclusion against which he disputes , ought in any reason to have beene backt with some firme proofe , and of that kind you give none but your owne affirmation ; and because you doe not , this I there call a petitio principii , agreeably both to Aristotles notion of that Sophisme , and to the notation of the phrase . For principium , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , being acknowledged to signifie the question , for that or any part of it to be brought in to prove any thing that in that disputation is denied , is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to begge the question , or take it for granted , and in effect , to prove a thing by it selfe , ( which is the most irrationall proceeding that can be . ) If you are not yet convinced of this , I shall yet farther give you a proofe of it from those antient Authours , which can best judge of this matter , the Interpreters of Aristotle ; Take one for all , † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . fol. 28. Magentius , in his definition of this Sophisme . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , A begging of the question is , when any thing is proved by it selfe , which ought to be proved by something else . Or againe , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , when that which is proposed to be proved , is used as a medium , to prove it selfe . Or again , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , when we use a medium which seemes to differ from the question ( or the thing to be proved ) but is all one with it . As if to prove that pleasure is good , I should assume , that pleasure is to be chosen , whereas , saith he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that which is good , and that which is to be chosen are all one : and therefore unlesse that be farther proved , that pleasure is to be chosen , there is nothing done toward the proving it to be good . That this is your very manner of proceeding , I need not farther prove , having done it so newly by laying your whole processe before you ; I shall onely adde the note of that Scholiast , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , The not demonstrating of what wee undertake , is the genus of this begging the Question ; or Begging the Question is a speciall species of not demonstrating ; and unlesse you will discerne first , and then labour to repaire this infirmity in your discourses , all your mentions of the Philosopher in his Analytickes , will not perswade us that you are likely to demonstrate .

Thus much I had briefly said to you before , but now have been forced to lay downe more largely ; and let me tell you , that when I had not onely affirmed , but proved you guilty of this Sophisme , you ought either by denying my premises , or by some other way to have answered my proof .

And in stead of so doing , To say onely [ you are not guilty ] is a denying my conclusion , and petitio principii againe . And from this you cannot be cleared by what you adde [ that you deny what the Enquirer assumed as true and granted ; ] For First , I say you were to have answered or denied my premises , and you onely assay to prove your owne conclusion ; Secondly , your way or medium of proving that , is not concluding neither ; For the thing assumed ( by his Lordship ) being this , [ That the meanes brought to prove your Infallibility were fallible meanes , and so granted by you ] his Lordship did not assume this as granted or true in it selfe immediately or without proofe , but proceeded to prove it to be true and granted by you , and that by this medium , because with you nothing was conceived infallible , but the Church : That conclusion then ( being not set downe as a premise or principle of probation , but as a conclusion proved by that medium ) you againe professe to deny , ( remember I say you deny the conclusion ) and then sure we want no tryall to discover the justnesse of so doing ; and whereas you say his proofes follow after , I answer , that some other proofes follow after , but one sufficient proofe is brought in that place ; and the denying the conclusion without answering of that one proofe , is it which brought all this charge and inconvenience upon you , and therefore you now see I doe not require of you ( as you say I doe ) to prove against the Enquirer , but onely to answer his proofs ; But if in stead of doing so , you will take upon you to prove the conclusion which the Enquirer hath disproved , and doe that onely by a bare saying somewhat which you know he denies , this is a petitio principii still . And your second Argument that it is not , taken from your being Defender , or Answerer , or Apologist , will no more quit you from that charge ; for though an Answerer as long as he doth no more but either deny the major or minor , or answer to either of them by distinguishing , limiting , &c. cannot be guilty of that fault , yet if he deny none but the conclusion , he doth in effect , and interpretativè begge the Question , and if instead of denying of , or answering to the premises , he go about to prove the Question in hand , or any part of it , he doth by so doing , take the place of an Opponent upon him . Now because 't is possible for an Answerer to doe one of these , though he ought to doe neither , it followes , that by either of those waies the Answerer may begge the Question , and both those are your case at this time , as hath , I conceive , already been manifested , and therefore I must be excused , if I still conceive my conclusion is regular , the Apologist is guilty of that Sophisme .

C. 5. Answ. to C. 5. A. An Answerer is not bound to prove but to defend ; This Arguer and the Replyer , which is your selfe , are bound to prove .

Answ. He that keeps himselfe strictly to the Respondents taske , i. e. either to deny , or limit , or distinguish of either of the premises in the Objection , is not , I confesse , bound to prove , because he is not supposed to affirme any thing , his repelling the Enemies weapons , or avoiding of them , is enough to defend himselfe . And if this were your case , I should be unjust to require any proofes from you . But you must be a very great Despiser of my Papers , if you did not take notice in that place , that I was forced to be plaine with you , and tell you that you had not answered ( either by denying or distinguishing , &c. ) any one word to his Lordship in your whole fifth Chapter , but fell into other discourses of your owne , which course as it is not the part of an Answerer strictly taken , so if it be permitted him at all , it must oblige him to give proof for all such assertions as he shall bring in thus casually , or else never to expect , or require to be heeded by his Adversary .

And of such assertions as these , ( which were casuall and extrinsecall to your discourse , and by me conceived false ) it was , that I required proofe from you , and you are still my Debtour for it .

Chap. 6. Answ. to the 6. Chap. A. If we affirme our principles be certaine , contrary to the Enquirers surmise , you , if you can , are to prove they are not , or else leave off contending .

Answ. Certainly this is very strange usage , when that which you call the Enquirers surmise , is a conclusion induced by the Enquirer by many strong proofes . This you know is there evidenced by me , and if I had been mistaken , you should have said so .

This being supposed , I must tell you , that it is farre from being sufficient for you , to affirme your principles to be certaine ; for when the Enquirer hath proposed many Arguments to prove they are not certaine , and among the rest this convincing one , [ That your Church ( which is your infallible ) is offered to be proved by such markes as the ignorant cannot seeke it by , and the learned , though never so honest , may chance not to finde it by ] for you still to affirme they are certaine , and to adde no more , is but to deny the conclusion ; and against such an one 't is to little purpose for me to bring farther proofes , when those that are already brought are so dealt with ; and truely unlesse you please to give over this course of denying conclusions , and not considering premises , I will soone obey your advise , and resolve to leave off contending .

Ibid. B. Our Authours have proved all that we in defending doe affirme , and if the Enquirer had impugned their proofes , we then would have tryed to defend ; wherefore that which we affirme and declare , doth not rest upon a bare affirmation , although I prove them not in this place , as being here a meere Defendant , and not an Arguer .

Answ. This annotation being upon the same occasion , and in substance the same with the former , is already answered . Onely I shall adde , that if you affirme ought which your Authours in other Bookes bring proofe for , this will not excuse you from a necessity of answering his Lordships arguments against that conclusion of your Authors ; or if it doe , you must not passe for a Defendant . His part it is to ward the Adversaries blowes , and if he make a thrust himselfe , he then turnes Offendent or Arguer , and when he doth so , he must take care his weapon have some edge ( I meane , his affirmations some proofes annext ) or else they will wound no body . As for the Enquirer , i. e. his Lordship , it was not his present taske to descend to an enumeration and impugning of all your Authours arguments ( though yet those which he could thinke of as your chiefe , he hath insisted on ; and were he alive , he would from your dealing here have little encouragement to seek out for others ) his intention was to frame arguments against your conclusion , and if you had denied or answered them , you needed not to have troubled your self to affirme any thing ; or if out of designe , or ex abundanti , you will , you must be content to be call'd upon to prove it ; For call your selfe what you please , you must be an Arguer when you so affirme .

Ibid. C. Yes sure by consequence it is .

Answ. I am forced to aske your pardon , if I know not certainly to what part of my discourse this Annotation belongs , whether to the end of one period , or the beginning of the other . Yet it falls out luckily , that which soever it is , it is againe the denying the conclusion ( which you are very subject to ) for the end of the former period is the mention of a conclusion deduced from grounds immediately before specified . And the beginning of the second period is a negation of mine , with proofe immediately following it , and before I come to the proofe , [ For though , &c. ] you presently interpose your [ Yes sure by consequence it is ] but will not consider me so much , as after my example to give the least proofe for what you say , or take notice of that proof of mine .

C. 7. Answ. to C. 7. A. I make no distinction here , but suppose it made and also manifest .

Answ. I only said you had given a distinction ( not made it ) and that supposed it made also ; and I then conteined my selfe from taking any exceptions to it ; onely I told you the applying of it to that place would have afforded some game if I had been so sportingly disposed . And to that I pray consider how pertinent your Annotation hath proved . I will not be provoked to adde more .

Ibid. B. Your part was to have confuted what I say , and not so often , and to no purpose repeat this Petitio Principii .

Answ. If it be a sufficient confutation of any Sophister to finde out , and tell him of his sophisme ( which ipso facto is worth nothing when 't is discovered , as the title of Aristotles Booke of Elenchs supposes , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being defined by Varinus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a discovery of that which was hid ; and 't is manifest by comparing 1 Cor. 14.24 . with v. 25. & Eph. 5.13 . ) then have I obeyed you in confuting what you say , though I take not your advice for the way of it . And indeed if it should be in any Duellers power to prescribe to his Adversary ( when he is in his danger ) that he shall not wound him this way , but some other , or if it were regular for you to forbid me to tell you of a Petitio principii , ( when you are clearly guilty of it , and when to evidence that against you , is not onely the shortest , but most logicall , most expedite and most clear way of redargution ) your Adversary might be weary of playing out the prize , though he were sure to conquer in it . I shewed you that an Answerer might so carry the matter ; as to be guilty of Petitio principii , and 't was but passion in you to check or tell me , 't was to no purpose , that I said you were so .

C. 8. Answ. to C. 8. A. We have done it , and doe it continually when occasion requires .

Answ. I beseech you read over those lines of mine to which your Annotation is affixt , and speak your conscience , whether you think 't was fitly noted , If you can be so partiall to your own creature , I will not contend with you , but onely tell you , that as I conceive it impertinent , so I see apparently , that 't is contrary to that other speech of yours , which within three lines I there recited from you . For if you doe it continually ( i. e. prove the Roman Church to be the true by its agreement with Scripture , &c. ) as here your Annotation saith you doe , how could you say his Lordship was mistaken in supposing you did so ? I wish you had first read out to the end of the period , and then I suppose you would have fitted your Annotation to it the better .

Ibid. B. I doe not disclaime Scripture , though I doe not hold it to be the first or formost proof either of the Church or of Christian Religion , and would know how you your selfe would convert an Infidell or Atheist by Scripture , beginning with that proof .

Answ. You must againe remember ( what my last Answer mentions ) that in that place when his Lordship had supposed you to prove the Roman Church to be the true Church by its agreement with Scriptures and antiquity , which is in effect by holding the truth , you plainly tell him he is mistaken in you . On this ground I must conclude ( and thinke it proved by that confession ) that you doe disclaime Scripture , as farre as I said you did , i. e. not to all purposes , but to that of which the discourse was , viz: to prove your Church to be the true Church . And 't is not enough to say that you doe not hold it to be the first or formost proofe , &c. For if it be used by you as any proofe at all , that will also be a very probable meanes , ( besides that it makes it evident , that his Lordship was not mistaken in supposing it so ) to bring you into the circle which you were so carefull to avoid . You see I am cleare from your Animadversion , and so have no occasion to enter into that new controversie , whether the Scripture be the formost proof either of the Church , or of the Christian Religion , ( though sure it may be one without being the other , it may be the formost proofe of evidencing which is the true Church to them that are supposed Believers ( and none else will be fit for that enquiry ) yet not be the first meanes to prove Christian Religion to Unbelievers : ) And yet I shall not be over-coy , nor make much scruple to tell you my opinion of this also , that I would not begin with an Infidel , with that proofe to either purpose , as supposing he did believe it , or that it would of its owne accord attract his beliefe infallibly ; but for Christianity it selfe , I should first labour to win somewhat upon his affections by converse , and by shewing him the excellency of the Christian precepts , ( and the power of them in my life ) bring him to thinke my discourse worth heeding , then when I had gotten that advantage , I would relate the rem gestam of Christianity , where all the acts , and miracles , and passages of Christs life would come in ; then , if he doubted of the truth of it , tell him the authority , by which it comes downe to us in a continued , undistributed , undenied tradition ; from those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , oculate Witnesses of Christ , and the whole matter ; and to as good an advantage as I could , compound the severall motives of Faith together , which if you please you may view at leisure in Grotius de verit . Chr. Rel. and when by these meanes I had converted him , I should then by Scripture and antiquity , ( which would now be of some authority with him ) and not by miracles , attempt to manifest to him which were the true Church . To which end it may be worth your remembring , that your Apostle of the Indies Xaverius ▪ thought fit for their use to compile a double Gospel , one of Christ , another of S. Peter , by the authority of one of them to teach them Christianity , of the other , the supremacy and infallibility of S. Peters chaire . But I shall not give my self liberty to enlarge on this .

Ib. C. I deliver the method , and how it may be , I also affirme or declare that it is , I was not in this place to prove , but to defend against the Enquirers arguments , and no other , and therefore those two quarrels needed not .

Answ. The designe of most of your Notes is to save your selfe from the necessity of proving any thing that you affirme , whereas it might be but an act of a little supererogating charity if you would sometimes prove your assertions , even when by strict law you were not bound to it . But , Sir , I will not require your almes , but onely your justice , and though that will not oblige you to prove , when you onely defend , i. e. when you onely deny the premises of his Lordships arguments , &c. or when you are strictly an Answerer ; yet when instead of that , you confront any affirmation of yours to his Lordships conclusion ( as here you doe , and in all places when we charge petitio principii upon you ) I must then be pardoned to put you in mind of your duty ( which is that of Arguers then , and not of Respondents ) either to prove what you so say , or not to think you have convinced any man . They that cannot answer one argument produced against them , may yet think fit to make use of some argument for them , hoping that may prove as convincing on their sides , as that against them : and so by divertisement put off the heat of the impression ; and this you have been proved to be often guilty of , and 't will satisfie no man to say , that you neither are , nor ( because Defendant ) can be guilty of so doing .

Ibid. D. Sure he hath not , for Turnbull hath vindicated himselfe .

Answ. If every reply were a Vindication , then you may have affirmed truth , and then these few marginall notes of yours ( such as they are ) would be your Vindication also ; and then I suppose you will give your free consent that they be printed . But the task would be too long to disprove what you have now said , ( for it would require the examination of all those writings betwixt the two Combatants , and when that were done , you would think perhaps , that Turnbull were vindicated , and I that he were not ) I shall onely tell you that you had beene so concluded in a circle infallibly , if you had asserted that method , which his Lordship there disproves ; which is enough to vindicate his Lordship against those that doe assert that method , ( as sure some Romanists doe ) and against them he there argues and not against you , or any in that place which renounce that method .

Ibid. E. If our Church be the true Church , it must be proved firstly , as Christianity is first proved ; that is to say , by motives of credibility , and supernaturall ostensions , or acts not of naturall and ordinary , but supernaturall and extraordinary providence ; and he that will not prove Christianity by this way , will not prove it at all . After this done , Scriptures and Fathers doe come , but not before , and this way is not new , but the way of the Antients .

Answ. I have here no necessity of re-examining of the means of proving Christianity to an Infidell , it will suffice to remember that those meanes which are necessary to that , may be unnecessary to prove , which is the true Church , because now to him that is converted ( as he that will judge betwixt true and hereticall is supposed to be ) other meanes may suffiently supply the place ; such are Scripture and Antiquity , which to an Heathen are of no authority , but to a Christian , or suppositâ fide , are , and being so ( as I conceive you will not think fit to deny ) may well be made the umpire betwixt us , who are , I hope , allowed to be Christians still by the consent of parties , or if we are not , our pretensions to miracles wil hardly gain any credit with them that have that prejudice against us .

Mean while I must remember you that motives of credibility , as you call them , are but weake premises to induce a conclusion of such weight , as the choice of religion is . I will tell you what I should have said instead of it . Motives of excessive probability , of the same , or greater force then those , on which I ground and build the most considerable actions of my life , and which ( as * * Answ. to C. 14. formerly I told you ) if I will dis-believe , I have as good reason to mistrust the wholesomenesse of every dish of meat I taste on , ( which 't is physically possible may poison me , but yet none but Hypocondriackes think it will , or phansie it so strongly , as to abst●ine ) the security of any title of estate I purchase or possesse , the truth of any matter of fact in the most acknowledged history or tradition among men , that I daily talk of .

All which though they produce not ( nor are apta nata to doe so ) a science or infallible certainty , cui non potest subesse falsum , yet doe they ( or are very sufficient to doe so ) a Faith , or fiduciall assent , cui non subest dubium ; of which I doubt no more , then of the demonstrated probleme before me , a certainty of adherence , of which the believer is as fully possest , and from it receives as strong motives to doe any thing proportionable to that belief , as if the certitude of evidence were allowed him . And this I conceive is a degree prettily advanced above motives of credibility , for such is every the lowest probability ▪ nay almost possibility , and non-repugnance , whatsoever is possible to be , being ( in it self , and in case the opposite ballance be not otherwise weighed down ) credible , i. e. possible to be believed also . But this by the way , and ex abundanti .

C. 9. Answ. to C. 9. A. Why cannot the simple know this ( viz. that the Greek Church doth not pretend from Saint Peter ) as surely as they know the whole Christian Church pretends from Christ , and from no other ?

Answ. Sir , you are a little too hasty in your annotation , for if you had but read on to the next lines , you had received the answer to your question , so far as my discourse is concerned in it , viz. a specifying of divers wayes , by which 't is possible the Greek Church might ( and one , whereby one part of it doth ) pretend succession to S. Peter . And then that which so manifestly may be , and is , will not I hope be so easie for ignorant men to know surely that it is not , or so surely as that the Christian Church pretends from Christ , and from no other . Which yet if it have any difficulty in it not intelligible to some ignorant men , I take no pleasure in frighting any with an apprehension that God wil ever damne those ignorants for not being sure of what is so difficult , so their lives be believing and Christian , and agreeable to what they doe know of Christ .

C. 10. Answ. to C. 10. A. No sure , not against the ordinary necessity .

Answ. The thing I say in that place is , that his Lordships argument might be ( I shall adde , is ) of force against the necessity of a guide , ( meaning thereby an infallible one , for such only is to our purpose ) and that that will serve his Lordships turne , and destroy you , I there farther prove by a full explication of the whole matter . And therefore you must give me favour to leave out your epithete of [ Ordinary ] which you would have me interpose , when my discourse in order to its end , hath no need of it . And if you tell me you put it in in your answer to his Lordship , and that therefore I have not vindicated his Lordship from that answer , unlesse I take it in also ; I must then confesse to you , that ▪ I did not so understand your words , [ all this is nothing against the ordinary provision and necessity of a guide ] that the word [ ordinary ] was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be repeated to the word [ necessity ] but onely that it belonged to [ provision ] And now that I know your pleasure , I shall more clearly returne my answer , that his Lordship supposes some men ( and I confesse my selfe to be one of them ) to believe , that to all who follow their reason in the interpretation of Scripture , and search for tradition ( i. e. the constant interpretation of the Catholique Church concerning any difficulty ) God will either give his grace of assistance to find the truth , or his pardon if they misse it . To which purpose you may please to compare Justin . Mart. quest . ● . ad Orthod . and , to omit many more , Facundus Hermian . in def. 3. capit . ad Just. l. 11. p. 491. & p. 496. & l. 12. pag. 513.

Now to them that so believe , the argument which you fetch from Gods providence to conclude an infallible guide , will not , saith his Lordship , be sufficient to prove it ; because he still will be able to say , that where imperfection is accepted , meanes of perfection are not necessary ; if God will pardon weaknesses , he need not give such a measure of strength , as excludes all weaknesses ; if sincerity , though with some mixture of sinne , will serve turne here in viâ , we need not expect from God that integrity of faculties , which either was bestowed in paradise , or will be in heaven , to give us an unsinning innocence . And if you will still interpose , that this is nothing against the ordinary necessity , because these are cases extraordinary . I answer , that this is a great mistake ; For under the Gospell or Evangelicall State ( under which all men have beene since the promise of Christ upon Adams fall ) there is no ordinary necessity of never missing or mistaking ; our naturall state being an estate of weaknesse , is advanced by Christ into such a condition , not wherein all weaknesse is excluded , but wherein sincerity with mixtures of slips and errours shall be accepted , and this as infallibly as innocence had beene rewarded under the first covenant made with Adam in the first state . To the first Covenant , which is stricti juris , such pardon for slips might be extraordinary ; but to this second ( whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or gentlenesse , is as much apart , as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or strict justice , was before ) this pardon for invincible infirmities is as ordinary , as obligation to punishment for every slip had beene before , this being a prime ingredient in that Covenant , and not extraordinarii , but ordinarii juris , that under it such slips shall not be remembred . In like manner as in this Kingdome Chancery , though it be opposed to Common Law ( in one sence , as that signifies strict law ) yet it is a part of our common law , as that signifies the Municipall law , or totall body of lawes by which this Kingdome is ruled ; Equity ( though perhaps it came in later , and to repaire defects or excesses in the strict law ) being now as much every Subjects right , and Writs out of that Court as legally required and granted , and the whole processe in Chancery , as clearely sec. jura & consuetudines Angliae , and so as much Ordinary , or secundum Ordinem , as any thing that passes in the Common Pleas. And so much for your nice interposition of the word [ Ordinary ] to your pretended necessity of a guide ; where yet I might farther tell you , that infallibility is not essentiall to , or inseparable from a guide ; and therefore though the Guide were granted to be ordinarily necessary to the finding out of truth , yet this would not come home to infallibility . The antecedent I could make good at large , if it were now seasonable .

Ibid. B. They ( i. e. misses and mistakings ) are called extraordinary , because happening accidentally besides the provision of the law , and not because they happen seldome .

Answ. That misses and mistakings , infirmities and ignorances , doe happen besides the provision of the second , or the Evangelicall Covenant , is a mistake , as was intimated then ( within few lines after those , whereon your annotation was fastened ) and now at large proved in my last answer to your former annotation , and I shall not need repeate it , but onely tell you there is a law of Faith ( aswell as of workes ) and that in that law there is provision for errours , aswell as sinnes , and that I hope belongs to all Christians , for we are not under the Law , but under grace .

Ib. C. And why so ?

Answ. I had before given you the reason , viz: because your discourse hath tended to inferre the one , and not the other .

C. 14. Answ. to C. 14. A. No man can binde another under paine of Anathema to beleive as he defines , unlesse his definition be certaine .

Answ. There was here very little occasion for this note . For the businesse of Anathema's , I had sufficiently restrained ; First , by limiting them onely to excommunications , as an act of Ecclesiasticall discipline upon the refractary ; and therefore Secondly , not for matter of simple beleiving or disbeleiving ; but Thirdly , for matter of disobedience to our lawfull Superiours , and that disobedience againe not in refusing to submit our understandings , but our wils , and our consequent actions : and Fourthly , all this with stubbornenesse and perversenesse , after the using of all milder courses . And with these and the like limitations there will be no more difficulty to say an Ecclesiasticall Magistrate may excommunicate a disobedient refractary perverse Gain-sayer , without undertaking to be infallible , then to say a civill Magistrate may punish a Malefactour without being inerrable . And therefore when you talke of binding to believe under paine of Anathema ; there is some mistake in that , or if there were not , yet Truth ( if it were on grounds of Scripture believed to be so ) would be as sufficient a foundation of so doing , as the infallib●lity of the Judge . For not onely every truth is in it selfe as certaine , as that which is infallible , ( every matter of fact that is so , is as certainly true , as any demonstration in Euclide , and he that speakes it , speakes as certainly true , as if he did demonstrate , yet is not in other things infallible for all that ) but he that beleives it with a full assent , hath as little doubt of that truth , as if it were before his eyes ; yet doth it not fide cui non potest subesse falsum , on any supposition of its infallibility ; by which meanes ( though he pretends not to infallibility , yet ) having no degree of doubt , he hath that , on which he will confidently build any action , and even lay downe his life for such truths , if they be of weight : which if it be not ground enough to proceed on to an Ecclesiasticall censure against the stubborn and perverse you are very mercifully disposed , and I will not provoke you out of it , but rather give you my suffrage , that no man be thus censured for matter of opinion but upon that light which is clearely deducible from the Scripture , or universall tradition ; and then I shall confesse my sense , that to anathematize men for any matter of doctrine , of any lower alloy , is though not formally , yet interpretativè a kinde of pretending to infallibility , usurping as much , as if men were infallible , which they that have the spirit but by measure , should have so much humility in themselves , and charity toward others , as not to be guiltie of .

Ibid : B. The sword preserves not inward unity , nor satisfies the minde .

Answ. I had no occasion to say it did . I was speaking ( as your answer called me to it ) of discipline , and unity , or such unity as discipline produced , which is outward unity , as opposed to division and Shisme ; and yet let me tell you , it were not unpossible to extend my speech to inward unity , and satisfying of the minde . For suppose a particular Church to have sufficient meanes to worke in the hearts of her sonnes this inward unity , viz. by setting up the authority of Scripture , as it is interpreted by the Fathers , and receiving with due respect , and obedience all Apostolicall Traditions ; These , if duely revered by all Sonnes and Subjects , would be able to keepe all of one minde in all matters of Faith ( and for lower points some kinde of liberty being allowed , would preserve Charity as well ) and then while that Church were in this happie temper , you may farther suppose the sword of violence to come in , and disturbe all , wresting out of her hands the use and exercise of those meanes , and beating downe the authoritie , and taking away the reputation of them . And then in the case thus set , you will surely grant that the rightfull sword , if it might be so prosperous as to vanquish the disturber , and restore what was thus violently taken away , may prove no improbable meanes of preserving even inward unity in this sence ; and if you marke it , we spake it not in any other . And yet once more , if we had , we might have beene justified perhaps in our saying . For Heresie being a piece of carnality in the Apostles judgement , 't is possible that the outward smart , that comes from the exercise of the power of the sword , i. e. from temporall punishments , may cure that disease , and perswade them , who instead of pleasure from their heresie , reap nothing but paine , and sorrow , to make better provision for their owne flesh and blood , and thinke of hearing that reason , to which other honest mens eares are open , and then that may produce inward unity also , and these mens minds may be sufficiently satisfied with that truth coming thus to them tempore congruo , at a fit season of working , which at another time had beene rejected . You see how little reason you had for that annotation .

C. 15. Answ. to C. 15. A. Chillingworth saith it in termes , and him also I desired to answer .

Answ. Can you thinke this faire dealing ? His Lordship , I made appeare from his words , said it not . And you cannot say he did . But I hil : say you did say it . What is that to his Lordship , or to me who undertake onely to vindicate his Lordship , and had not that rich harvest of leasure to thinke fit to be retained any more in other mens causes on such joylesse termes as these ? in which rather then I would adventure to be engaged , I should be content to be thought to have no degree of kindnesse to him , especially hearing that you had three great volumes prepared against Master Chill : But then I pray what is the meaning of [ him also I desired to answer ? ] Can you thinke fit to impose a thing on his Lordship , which was said onely by Master Chillingworth , and when you were disproved , thinke you had still confuted Master Chillingworth also , when you had only falsified , not confuted his Lordship ? Sure , Sir , this is not faire .

Ib. B. I know very well this was objected by both of them , and this I desired to answer , whether it were in their bookes or no.

Answ. Here is more of the same streine . But I did conceive by your title , that you had confuted his Lordships tract that was published , not any unwritten discourses , which we have no way of knowing , whether they past or no , I am sure were not undertaken by me to be vindicated . I never resolved to justifie all that you could say either of them said , and I might be forced to be uncivill with you , if I should enter any such debate with you .

Ib. C. Neither Arius , Nestorius , nor others could peep out for saying any thing against the doctrine received . How then could this Dionysius have escaped , if he had adventured any thing against all the Orthodox ?

Answ. You are very much given , in stead of answering Reasons , to deny Conclusions , and if that were backt with Reason , 't were yet very improper for a Respondent , which you told us was your office at this time . But then secondly , in this matter you know , that neither I , nor his Lordship have said that all the Orthodox were for the Millennium . And yet thirdly , if they had , yet the denying the Millennium being a more tolerable opinion than those other of Arius , and Nestorius , Dionysius's opposition of the Chiliasts might passe more unresisted , than Arius , or Nestorius could doe .

Ib. D. Photius tells us there were Answers given , though he recites them not , and Schottus in his Notes hath resolved them .

Answ. I will not take the paines to see or examine whether Photius say there were Answers . If he recites them not , I shall not be much moved with such blanke Papers . The truth is , this hath been the way to satisfie the hardest Arguments that ever were brought , and confuting whole Books at once , by having it given out , that they are confuted , or that Answers are made to them , when what those answers are , is not so much as intimated ; this is a very cheap way of confutations ; As for Schottus's Solutions , if he have any , they prevaile little with us , I am sure they will not conclude that Photius foresaw , or would have counted them of any moment to alter his opinion , which was the onely thing I there had occasion to take notice of .

Ib. E. Though Philoponus cite but one Epistle , yet elswhere he numbers him among the famous Doctors . Basil , Gregory , &c. thereby insinuating he had left workes as they had , and not one single Epistle to Polycarpus . This is but a conjecture , but such both we and all must use in matters of fact , and when we are to walke through darke passages of Antiquity .

Answ. Sir , you cited three places out of Philoponus , to prove that Dionysius Arcopagita wrote those workes now extant bearing his name : This testimony I told you would be nothing to your purpose , unlesse it testified ( if not all those Bookes , yet ) of some one wherein he wrote against the Chiliasts . But this I shewed you was not done , because those places mention nothing of his , but an Epistle of Polycarpus , and in that I advertized you there was nothing against the Chiliasts . This it seems you cannot deny , but being willing to say something , say that elswhere Philoponus numbers him amongst the famous Doctours , &c. I have not now leasure to read over all Philoponus , for that [ elswhere ] ( though I have reason to thinke that you that before cited the Chapters in Philoponus so punctually , would have had the same charity to me again , if it had suted with your interests ) considering how little can be concluded from what you now cite out of him . Dionys. was numbred among the famous Doctors , Basil , Gregory , &c. doth it follow thence , that all the workes now extant under his name were his ▪ or particularly that wherein he opposes the Chiliasts ? Nay , would not a man rather conclude from that pretended testimony of Philoponus that the Authour under the name of Dionysius Ar●op . was some Writer about S. Basils or S. Gregories time , with whom he is there consorted , and that is somewhat later then Dionysius in the Scripture . Nay , if Philoponus really meant him , would he not rather have given him the title of an Apostolicall Person , than of a famous Doctor , such as S. Basil , &c. As for the insinuation which you mention from this of Philoponus , if it did conclude as you would have it , that he left Workes as they did , and not onely one single Epistle , yet sure 't will not so much as once insinuate that they were the Works , that we have under his name , much lesse that peculiarly , which opposes the Chiliasts , least of all , that 't was the Apostolicall Dionysius that really wrote all these . But you confesse these but a conjecture , and therefore sure 't will be a very weake prop to hold up infallibility , especially when the conjecture if it should be supposed true , would tell us that which we had not before been told from you , that the Chiliasts doctrine was taught , ( and so capable of being confuted ) so early as the Apostles times , for with them this Dionysius lived .

You conclude that such conjectures as this , you and all must use in matters of fact , &c. To which I answer that 't is possible you may be forced to it , on supposition that you think your self obliged to vindicate your Churches Infallibility , for 't is very possible , there may be no better , then such conjectures to sustaine it . But believe me , Sir , I will never maintaine cause , as long as God keeps me in my right wits , which hath no better conjectures , than these to sustaine it . And for matters of fact so long agoe , they are of all things in the World the unfittest to be believed upon such conjectures . Because nothing but an authentick expresse witnesse can be ground of faith for such . There is no matter of fact done yesterday , but may if we will goe by conjectures ( I am sure as good and as probable as yours here ) be related 10000 waies , for whatsoever may be , some bold Affirmer may conjecture was , and the more antient , and more darke the passage was , the more liberty there will be for such Conjecturers , because the lesse possibility to confute any of them .

Ib. F. Salvian doth not refuse to condemne the Arian heresie , but some of the Gothick Arians for it , as men not guilty of the malice of it .

Answ. If you looke againe you will find that both his Lordship , and I say that Salvian refused to condemne the Arian Hereticks ( not heresie ) and this it seems , you confesse with the restraint of [ Gothick Arians ] and this will serve our turnes perfectly , and so we shall not quarrell about that , but hope from your owne confession , that he that is not willing to condemne all Protestants , may escape as well as Salvian even in your censure .

C. 16. Answ. to C. 16. A. The Councell of Constance doth not teach this [ viz: that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks ] neither our Doctors hold it , as Molanus , Becanus , Tannerus , Layman , Coeffecteau , Coquaeus , and others doe shew us .

Answ. To teach is an equivocall word , and may signifie to define by way of position or doctrine in universum ; In this sense I said it not , nor doe now meane it of that Synod , that they made any such determination , that it should be unlawfull to keep faith with Hereticks , or lawfull for any man in any case not to keep it . But then to teach may signifie also , to teach by example , & to lay grounds of doctrine for the justifying of such example . And thus the Councell of Constance did teach it ; The Emperour had given safe conduct to John Hus ▪ &c. and the Synod declared that that safe conduct should be no prejudice to any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction , and that non obstante any such concession , any competent Ecclesiasticall Judge might enquire , and proceed against any such Persons , and punish them as much as justice should perswade , if they would not retract their errours . And this cost those poore men their lives , whose presumption on the Emperours safe conduct , made them venture themselves in that snare , never suspecting , that such a distinction as that could have proved so fatall to them . That you may not hereafter say I charge you unjustly , I shall set you downe the very words in the Councell in Binius Sess. 19.

Praesens sancta Synodus ex quovis salvo conductu per Imperatorem , Reges , & alios saeculi principes haereticis vel de haeresi diffamatis , putantes eosdem sic à suis erroribus revocare , quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint , concesso , nullum fidei Catholicae vel jurisdictioni Ecclesiasticae praejudicium generari vel impedimentum praestari posse seu deb●re declarat , quo minus dicto salvo conductu non obstante liceat judici competenti & Ecclesiastico de ejusmodi personarum erroribus inquirere , & aliâs contra eos debitè procedere , eosdemque punire , quantum justitia suadebit , si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint , etiamsi de salvo conductu confisi ad locum venerint judicii , alias non venturi : nec sic promittentem , cum fecerit quod in ipso est , ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum . I shall not trouble you with the English , but onely aske what this differs from teaching that Faith is not to be kept ( i. e. not necessarily , but in some case may be broken ) with Hereticks ? They that shall after safe conduct given , proceed to judgment ( be it Ecclesiasticall ) against any man , and condemning him for heresie , deliver him up to that secular hand to punish him with death , who had given him the safe conduct , and tell him , that he , having done what in him lies , remaines not obliged by his promise , but may and must put him to death , who came to that judicature , onely on confidence of that his promise and safe conduct , have sure proceeded upon other notions of justice than those with which my education hath embued me , and I must professe to appeale from their judgements , as in my Reply to that citation of them , I was bold to doe ; and whatever your friends Molanus , &c. have thought fit to say for the saving the reputation of that Councell , the matter is too grosse to be palliated , and I shall not trouble my self or you to examine their excuses .

Ibid. B. Heresie is punished not for the accidentall grievousnesse of it , but for the essentiall .

Answ. This is againe a denying the conclusion , ( and not so much as endeavouring to prove the contrary ) for this was the thing in this place cleerly proved by the citation of those Lawes , that all Hereticks , viz: Arians and Macedonians by name ) were not to be so punisht , when onely Eutychians were , the former of these acknowledged by you as much Hereticks in respect of the essentiall grievousnes of their doctrine , as the latter ▪ From whence it followes , that either there was great partiality , or else the difference arose from the accidentalls . And truly , Sir , your saying in generall that it is not so , will little perswade any , when here is such evidence in the particular , that it is .

Ib. C. The title of defence is the Argument .

Answ. There is not in that place any one word of this Title of defence , or of any other argument ; And that was all I affirmed . If you please to survey the place , that will judge it betwixt us .

Ib. D. This is a hard censure , and hardly to be proved .

Answ. I confesse 't is hard in some sence , i. e. to them that suffer under you for being Heretiques ( as you call those that depart from your deformations ) and for being invaders ( which all may at pleasure be called that are not able to resist ) As for the censure it is but that for which the grounds are gathered from your owne words . Which till you disprove , 't is but your bare saying that 't is an hard censure ; or when it is proved , it matters little what difficulty there was in doing it .

Ibid. E. These were not setled violences , but tumultuous , and outrages not for religion , but for other quarrels occasioned by religions .

Answ. The passage to which this annotation was affixt , was about the pictures of Papall approbation of Massacres , to be seen at Rome . Which if they were , as you now say , tumultuous and outrages , then it seemes there is papall approbation for such ; and then either that or you are fallible . But since you see it necessary to adde another limitation , that the Massacres so approved were not for religion , I would faine perswade my selfe that you disclaime massacres for religion ( the lawfulnesse of which you were so long defending . ) And if you be now in that good mood of mercy , I shall not goe about to confute or provoke you out of it , but rather pray that God confirme you and all your friends in it for a longer space , then your charitable not damning us did last in the former part of the Chapter .

Ibid. F. Those of Queene Maries dayes had spoiled and stript the Catholiques of all they had , and therefore no marvaile they did seeke to punish them severely , and to suppresse them as men would doe wilde Boares broken into a parke or garden .

Answ. He that should compare this annotation with the text would wonder how it came in , so without all temptation or occasion . I was there a challenging him to name one , that since Queene Maries dayes was in this kingdome put to death for religion . And to the mention of Queene Mary , the annotation is affixed . But I shall excuse the impertinence ; that very hint might well put him in minde of that sea of bloud in Queene Maries dayes . Which if it were by way of punishment for spoiling and stripping Catholiques , and nor for religion ; I beseech you produce one such bill of indictment brought in against the sufferers . Our stories have told us otherwise , If you have any authenticke records in your Archives , I pray make us partakers of the truth ; In the meane , I feare a Protestant sonne of a Romanist father , may when opportunity serves , passe for such a wild boare and a spoiler .

Ib. G. My sence is that religion may not be planted by armes , but being once planted and in quiet possession it may . And this I suppose no learned man will deny .

Answ. I may believe you that this is now your sence , but that it is the sence of those words of yours , which I was then confuting , I shall be confident to deny , not only because the words bear no such sence , but because you did there your self interpret them thus , that the thing which you disclaimed the designing by armes , was onely the justifying the right and truth of religion by them . Which I then conceived to signifie , that your swords doe onely force men to be of your minds , doe not give them reasons why they should . Yet if after all this , you tell me in earnest , that this was not your meaning , I shall cry you mercy for the mistake , but not now enter into a dispute with you of that new question now proposed by you , [ Whether religion ( that must signifie your doctrines as they are distinguisht from , or opposed to ours , or else 't will not be pertinent to our purpose ) being planted and in quiet possession , may ] because I cannot imagine what verbe that syllable [ may ] is the moode of . [ Plant ] it cannot be , for that which is in possession , is already planted : But what it should be , I must not divine for you . Only at an adventure I shall make a plaine state . If your doctrines were in quiet possession here , and you should know of any man that taught the contrary to them , must your sword be drawne against him , or no ? I beseech you answer out of the sence of your brethren , that we may know what to expect from you . For my own part , I shall make no scruple to tell you , that though the defender of the Faith have the power of the sword given him by God to that end , to governe in godlinesse and quiet , and may therefore draw it effectually against any that raise sedition to bring in some other religion against that which is by law establisht , or that vent doctrines that are in themselves seditious , yet ought he not , onely in case of any single doctrine or difference in religion ( where none of the civill interests are concerned , no violent assault made , or feared from the dissenters ) to unsheath his slaughtering sword against any such dissenter , provided alwayes that that doctrine be not blasphemous . ( And they that consenting to this truth , will yet tyrannize over mens soules in ordine ad temporalia , as you and some others have done over mens bodies and estates in ordine ad spiritualia , shall never be excused by me ) and of this opinion I conceive there might be vouched as learned , and as primitive-tempered Christians as any that are more zealously , and so more bloudily minded .

Ibid. H. Aspersions be easily cast , but should not be admitted , when there are strong presumptions to the contrary , without evident proofe ; The Catholiques were knowne good Patriots under our former Kings , and under this our most gracious Prince we have good testimony , greater then which cannot be given .

Answ. The case is not here of aspersions , but of matters of fact , or attempts of Priests , whereby Queen Elizabeth was known to have beene in danger . On which provocation the lawes forbidding all such to come into the Kingdome , made it such a legall presumption , that if they did , they should incurre that suspicion , and sentence of the law . And so every man knowing what measure to expect from the lawes , were farther to be presumed either traiterous or madde , if on those tearmes he would adventure on such a forbidden journey . As for evident proofe , which you require , it belongs little to this matter , because the very being in the Kingdome was a demonstration of contemning the law , and an evidence that they were the men that were under that legall presumption ; which is farre more then a prooflesse aspersion , with evidence to the contrary . As for the fidelity of your Patriots under our formost Kings , when they were of their opinions , I shall not question it ; neither in like manner your behaviour to our present Soveraigne , but onely tell you , that the Queen Elizabeth lawes might be just for all that ; ( which was all we had now in hand ) and for the execution of them in latter times , I before gave you an account .

Ibid. I. We doe professe our best reason hath brought us to our religion , not our passion , and we have as much reason to be believed as any others can .

Answ. 'T is possible you may not ; for if mens actions give in any testimony against their words , there will not be so much reason to believe such , as when there is a concordance of them ; But if upon serious shrift you are able to professe this sincerity , I shall be so charitable to believe you and allow you any hope of mercy for your errours , which you can wish ; but yet tell you , that by making this profession in the plurall number , you doe somewhat prejudge it ; no man being so privy to the hearts of his fellow professours , as to be a fit voucher for them , every man must stand or fall to his owne Master .

Ibid. K. I was to answer and not to prove , and therefore might in right deny what the Enquirer falsely supposes without proofe . It is the respondents right to affirme the very point in question , or to deny it , without caring whether it be granted or no , so he himselfe be ready to defend it ; and so he that can exact this as his owne , shall not need to begge any thing , and if he doe , he cannot begge more then what he hath , and what he affirmes or denies already . For example , I deny against Copernicus that the earth moves , or I affirme that it is quiet , and I stand to maintaine my saying . Certainly this is no begging , but yet to say that it is so , may be a begging , or if I should say it stood still , because it doth not move , were a frivolous speech , but yet for all that no begging of the question .

Answ. This vindication of your beloved petitio principii , ( that stands you in such stead , and returnes so frequently upon you ) I have already examined , and discovered the mistakings of it ; and must now tell you againe , that when the question is by the opponent proved by any medium , it must never be lawfull for the respondent to deny it againe any farther then by denying the proofe on which it was inferred ; for this would be the denying the conclusion , and petitio principii againe . The respondent in this case cannot exact the question as his own , nor any otherwise defend it , then by repelling the weapons brought against him . As for your great simile of denying the motion of the earth , and your standing to maintaine your saying ; if you doe this by any other meanes then by denying or answering the proofes produced against you , this is not the respondents part , but will , when you have done what you can , appeare to be that vulgar Sophisme . It being certaine that when a thing is questioned betwixt two , the affirming without proofe is begging it , and it being not the respondents part to prove ( or if he doe , he becomes opponent ) it followes necessarily , that the respondent that in time of disputation affirmes , must either cease to be respondent , or else begge the question .

C. 18. Answ. to C. 18. A. We are to consider here not what is conceived but what is to be conceived . Now what is to be conceived I have shewed , namely that the Church understands better then he doth , for right reason will tell him this .

Answ. This is the very thing which is disproved in that place , and then the bare repeating it over againe , will be but a meane kinde of vindication . Be pleased to looke over the place againe , and if you will still thinke that there was any place for this annotation , I shall be sorry I have beene thus troublesome to you .

Ibid. B. I have shewed the reason why .

Answ. When an argument is framed on a double supposition ; without disputing the truth of either , 't is not to be allowed the respondent to answer , by denying the truth of either of the things supposed , for they are supposed in that dispute , but not disputed of . As for example , if the question were , [ Whether supposing Adam were not falne , and Christ were come , the coming of Christ could be for the sinne of Adam . ] doe you thinke 't would be tolerable for the respondent to avoid some argument brought against him , by saying that it was absolutely false to say that Adam was not falne , whereas 't was true that Christ was come ? This would certainly be so grosse and impossible to be justified , that I should suspect any mans fidelity , that should tell me , he had rendred a satisfying reason why this should be . And this is your case at this time .

Ibid. C. Whether she be infallible or no , she is like to be wiser than any private man . And this point cannot be in controversie with a wise man , and therefore here is no petitio principii .

Answ. This is a rare way of replying , when a discourse hath been proved guilty of a petitio principii , to say 't is impossible it should , and when a thing is denied , to say it cannot be in controversie .

But , Sir , I shall yeild you the Church may be wiser than any private man , yet not conceive it to follow ( unlesse she be also infallible ) that when a private man and the Church differ , she must alwaies be in the right . He that is much wiser than another , may yet in some particular be mistaken , when that other is in the right , yea and may be advised and reformed in such a particular , by one that is not so wise as he . This you may apply to the matter in hand , not so farre as to preferre the authority of any one man before the Church in generall , but onely so , as not to pronounce it infallible . I might tell you farther , that a member of the Church of England assenting fully to the doctrine of that Church , and so discharging the duty of a private man in preferring the judgement of the Church ( whereof he is a member ) before his owne judgement , may yet doubt of some things affirmed by the Church of Rome , and not make the comparison between a private mans judgement , and the judgement of the Church , but onely betwixt one particular Church and another . But after all this , I might have spared any , or all these Answers , and doe now onely desire you to looke back upon the place , and you will soone see what no ground is to be found there of your Annotation .

Ibid. D. If you have no evidence ( that 't is Gods pleasure that your Church should be infallible ) nor can have , you say true , but this latter is denied .

Answ. 'T is easie to deny conclusions still . But if you will either answer the arguments , which have proved there is none , or produce any such evidence that it is infallible , you shall be victorious indeed .

Ib. E. This argument which the Inquirer impugnes , is an argument of his owne making , and none of ours , yet for all that , the argument is not like a Ballad as good backward as forward , as M. Chillingworth , putting it a little differently from the Inquirer , would have it .

Answ. If you had pleased to disclaime and not defend this argument at the first , you might have saved us some paines , and if you will yet promise me that no man shall out of M. Knots Book make use of this argument any more , I will be very well content that argument shall be no longer insisted on , yet must tell you my opinion from my owne expresse knowledge , that they which read that Book before 't was confuted by M. Chillingworth did verily believe that that argument to prove an infallible judge , taken from the topick of Gods goodnesse , was M. Knots master-piece , and the founation on which the maine weight of his structure was supported .

C. 19. Answ. to C. 19. A. In a Respondent there can be no such thing as Petitio principii .

Answ. We have shewed you that a Respondent may so ill behave himself that there may . As for example , when a man hath used Arguments to prove that you have been guilty of begging the Question , For you to despise and not take notice of the arguments , and to say onely that there can be no such thing , is the very thing called Petitio principii .

Ib. B. But we againe deny it is [ Petitio principii ] and the contrary ought to be proved .

Answ. It is clearly proved in the place , and not to consider the proofs , but to deny the conclusion is another guilt of that sophism .

C. 20. Answ. to C. 20. A. If the Enquirers meaning be as you put it , it makes nothing at all against us , nor needs any Answer . But Chillingworth goes farther , and saies that many of the simpler sort amongst us believe Truth upon no better grounds , than others believe Falshood , and yet our simpler sort believe Truths , upon all the motives that yours doe , and somewhat more .

Answ. That that is his Lordships meaning is plaine , viz: That he that denies your infallibility , and yet uses his best reason to seeke if it be true , will be in as safe a condition , as he that believes it , and searches not . And if this be nothing against you , I shall hope this quarrell is nearer an end then ever I had thought to see it . And then sure many of us shall be capable of that charity , which you bestow upon your owne , for I am confident what we doe , we doe upon search , and use of our best reason ; and yet that we deny your infallibility , you are sufficiently assured .

C. 21. Answ. to C. 21. A. He might be secretly obstinate , and yet both he and we conceive the contrary .

Answ. 'T is true he might . But yet sure you that believe he was not obstinate , cannot believe that the punishment of obstinacy should belong to him , but must either thinke God unjust , or else believe him safe in the same degree that you think him not obstinate . And this is all I required from you .

C. 22. Answ. to C. 22. A. Every implicite assent must be resolved lastly into an explicite , or else there will be an infinite regression , for every implicite presupposes something in which it is involved or implicite .

Answ. I beseech you observe the nature of this Annotation of yours . You say in your Apology , that one implicite Faith doth not containe another . I proved that false by this instance , that supposing I believed by an implicite Faith , that you were an honest man , this might containe in it an implicite beliefe of every Proposition by you asserted , and farther by putting his Lordships affirmation by you denied into a downe right Syllogisme : you after your wont answer no proofs , but prove against the conclusion . And truely your proof is a strange one , every implicite assent must be resolved lastly into an explicite : Ergo , One implicite faith doth not containe another . As if you should say , Every subordinate cause must be resolved lastly into a first cause ; Ergò , One subordinate cause doth not containe another , the Genealogie of Abraham must at last be reduced to God , therefore Abraham's Grandfather was not Father to Abraham's Father : what sound of reason is there in this arguing ? The antecedent is the onely thing which you goe about to prove , and the consequence that which we deny , and therefore I shall need say no more to this Annotation .

C. 24. Answ. to C. 24. A. We meane the fire of this world , and that fire we are sure is not in all Countries appointed to burne such as doe dissent from us .

Answ. What ? not to burne such as dissent in matters of faith ? Is there any matter of faith which is not required sub poenâ ignis ? ( I meane also with you , the fire of this world ) If there be , speake out . But you have by your next Annotation in effect confest there is not , and so by that confuted this , for so you adde .

Ib. B. I make no such distinction .

Answ. i. e. No such distinction , that of matters of faith some are required sub periculo ignis , some not ; which is in effect that in respect of that penalty all matters of faith are of the same nature . Which is absolutely contrary to that former , unlesse in that your meaning were , that fire was not in all Countries appointed to burne Dissenters from you , i. e. not in those Countries , where you had not the power . And that wil be but a slender obligation from you , if it be acknowledged .

Ib. C. If you could make that appeare we were satisfied .

Answ. It is made appeare as much , as your like Assertion of your selves , i. e. by our affirming it . But if you will have patience to read on in that place , you shall see the point stated , and as much of it proved , as we have need to assert in this matter .

Ib. D. In some places we doe ( make use of the Argument from Mutuall Dissentions ) but in this it is brought against us .

Answ. This is clearly false , for in the 40. Sect. his Lordship there mentions it as an Argument of yours , and in that place becomes Respondent , gives an Answer to that Argument , and that is the ground of the present debate .

Ib. E. Our Criterion or rule of Faith keeps off dissentions when it is followed , yours does not . Lutherans and Calvinists follow the same rule , and yet dissent and condemne one another , ours doe not so , but remit the differences to be decided to one and the same judge both exterior , and interior .

Answ. I was a proving by the antient Catalogues of Hereticks , that there were good store of Hereticks in the world before the Reformation , ( from which it followes that either your infallible Judge was not then in fashion , or else that it is not such a soveraigne meanes or antidote against Hereticks ) you seem to distinguish that your rule keeps off dissentions , not alwaies , but when it is followed ; and prove that farther , because you remit the differences to be decided to one and the same Judge . I might answer , that our rule , the word of God doth so too , at least in matters of faith , and that any such dissention , at least uncharitable censuring of Dissenters , is absolutely against that rule . But I conceive that is not the thing that commends a rule as a means to prevent dissentions , that they that follow it dissent not , ( for the rule if it be but one rule , what ever it is , will doe that ) but that it is able & apt to keep men obedient , and to restrain them from excesses & not following of it . Now this is an excellence that these many Catalogues of Heresies proved , that you had no right to pretend to , and if we have not so neither , we are but Partners in this piece of humane infelicity , to which , as long as we carry flesh about us , it will be incident , for there must be Heresies among you . As for your instance of the Lutherans and Calvinists dissentions , and condemning one the other , I must tell you that this little concernes the Church of England , which alwayes disclaimed the being called by the names , or owning the dissentions of Lutheran and Calvinist , and professeth only the maintaining of the Primitive Catholike faith , and to have no father on earth , to impute their faith to . I might adde more even for those Lutherans and Calvinists , that if they did really follow ( I say not only professe , but follow ) the same rule , they would certainly agree also .

Ibid. F. I doe not excuse all ( the Jesuits from the doctrine of resisting Magistrats under colour of Religion , killing Kings , opposing the Order of Bishops &c. ) nor ought you to have accused all ; For neither all the Jesuites , nor neare all be of that mind , but of the quite contrary . Bellarmine , Valentia , Petavius , and other Jesuits have written for the Order of Bishops against Salmasius and others , but none at all have written against it . Neither was the controversie between the Saeculars about that point , as it is most evident .

Answ. I have already obeyed your commands ; and indeed had no necessity to accuse all of that Order in all places . It was sufficient to prove the point in hand , ( dissentions among your selves ) that any considerable number were of those opinions , which are the worst that are to be found among our S●ctaries , And it seems you cannot in your owne heart excuse all , as kinde as you are to them . If others in a matter of such moment are of a contrary mind , this is an argument not against , but for the truth of what is laid to you , dissentions after all your infallible judgements . For the Jesuites opinion of Bishops I appeale no farther then the disputations in the Councell of Trent , and the generall pretensions of that Order to an Independency , and absolutenesse from any but their owne superiour , and the Pope , and this , though it allow Bishops over other men , yet is sufficiently contrary to the Apostolick institution , and practice of having all the Churches and Presbyters in them , subjected to them . You adde , that the controversie of the Saeculars ( I suppose you mean and Regulars ) was not about that point , i. e. of Episcopacy , I did not say it was , any farther then thus , as the necessity of Confirmation is all one with the necessity of Episcopacy , ( which truely to me seemes to be very neare it ▪ and I am sure the businesse was whether the Catholicks in England should have an Ordinary here resident or no , and that Ordinary was a Bishop ; so that though it was not of Episcopacy , in universum , yet it came to a debate , whether the having Bishops was necessary , or no ) On which soever it is , it is enough to prove dissentions .

C. 26. Answ. to C. 26. A. At least they might have been discerned , as well as other errours were , and the Authors of them also .

Answ. This note being reduced to intelligible sence , will I conceive be , that the now Romish errours might have been discerned , &c. To which I answer , that though they might , yet First , 't is possible that they might not ; Secondly , very possible that being favoured , if not brought in by those in authority among them , they would not be branded or recorded for errours , and then all that we their posterity can see , may be onely , that the tares are sowne , but not punctually at what point of the night , or who the man was that sowed them .

Ibid. B. No more for these then for other errours .

Answ. His Lordship had occasion onely to speake of these , but will say the like of all others whose originall is not discernible .

Ibid. C. In all ages errours were censured and condemned .

Answ. All kinde of errours were not thought to be of such weight , as that such heavy censures and condemnations which you lay on us , should be fastened on them . And therefore in case ours be not errours , or but in materia non gravi , in disputable parts , ( as if you please to descend to particulars , we will undertake to prove them ) those severe censures of yours , being more contrary to charity , may prove more dangerous to you , then we shall otherwise affirme your opinions to be .

Ibid. D. I judge one of these two by the event , and the other by the semblance of his making a search in manner as he ought .

Answ. This is a darke speech which I doe not clearly understand : if the meaning be , that you judge the ill successe of his Lordships searches by the event , and the fault of them by the semblance , &c. I must then tell you , that the first is a very ill grounded judgement , for no event hath proved the ilnesse of that successe , ( unlesse like those in the Gospel , you count them the greatest Sinners on whom the Tower of Siloah fell ; or like him of late , that being willing to passe his opinion on a learned mans choice of a side in the differences in the Low Countries , said onely this , Illud notum est , partes quas secutus non est praevaluisse ; si quis infelicitati hoc tribuat , ego prudentiam non probo minus felicem ; and Busbequius tels us somewhat like of the Turkes judgments of good and bad enterprizes ) but rather on your owne principles I have already proved , that they must be good in the successe , which were so happy in proposing .

But then what you meane by the semblance of his making a search in manner as he ought , by which you judge the fault in his searches ; I must confesse I doe not at all understand , and therefore must be faine to confesse my selfe overcome and mastered , though not by the reason , yet by the obscurity of your writing ; and if that be a victory , I wish you much good of it .

To the Conclusion . A. I here contend no more , but that our Church may be infallible , notwithstanding any thing the Enquirer hath objected . That she is so , hath in due place been proved by others .

Answ. If you had performed the former , I meane satisfied all his Lordships arguments , I should not require at this time the latter from you , i. e. proving your Church to be Infallible . I must then onely aske you in earnest , whether you doe believe that no one of his Lordships arguments against your Infallibility ( for any one will serve our turne ) remaines unanswered by your Apology ; and then whether all that I have said to vindicate his Lordship , be effectually answered in your marginall Notes , and whether you can justifie all them against his last Reply . If you are of this opinion in each , I am to crave your pardon for this so gainlesse trouble , but referre the matter to God and impartiall men to judge between us .

Ibid. B. If you would doe it , we then would thinke it more than possible .

Answ. The meaning of this annotation if it be sence , must be this , that if we Protestants could or would finde place in you for Scripture and Reason to make impression , you Papists would then thinke it more then possible you might be deceived . Which if it be the meaning , I must then onely reply by prayer , that God would so soften your hearts , that they might be capable of that impression . But if the words be indeed no sence , but yet mistaken for some other words , which would be sence , then the likeliest thing that I can imagine , is , that you would have said somewhat to this purpose . [ If you Protestants could by Scripture or Reason disprove our Doctrines , we then would thinke it more than possible for us to be deceived ] Which though it were no huge Concession , yet I should be glad to have it from you , for then in effect your grounding of Faith on your Infallibility would be laid aside , and then there would be no more truth in any individuall Doctrine of your Church , than Scripture or Reason would inferre , abstracted from the Authority of your Church , which is all that at this time we demand from you .

And in that we are a little importunate ( seeing we have you now in a seeming good humour : ) First , because there is so much danger in insisting on that priviledge of Infallibility , even in any particular , wherein men are in the right , because he that really doth stand , yet may ( and therefore ought to take heed lest he ) fall , but most eminently , when a man chances to be in the wrong . He that mistakes first in a piece of Divinity , and after in a perswasion that he cannot mistake , sealeth up that errour , obstructs all entrance , all approach , all possibility of Reformation , is fortified impregnable against all assaults either of reason , or even the spirit of truth ; and by that one errour hath a kind of propriety in all other that can by the same hand be represented to him . Secondly , because we cannot but observe the prudence of your fellow-Champions , Master Knot &c. now of late , who have chosen to vary the method from insisting on the severall points of difference betwixt us , and them ( proving themselves to be the onely true Church from the particular truths profest by them , and by no others ) to this other more commodious way of putting off all together by whole-sale , of concluding the truth of all their assertions from the unerrablenesse of the Asserter , manifesting that they are in the right , because 't is impossible they should be in the wrong , using all skill to perswade this one point , and then confident on good grounds , that no other can be resisted . These two things put together , will advertise you , how seasonable an admonition it is to you , that you will bestow a little paines on your Brethren , to perswade them they are mortall or fallible ; and then againe Reason and Scripture may finde reception , and be agreed on the umpire betwixt us and we shall promise sincerely , that whatever that shall , sententiâ latâ , award to you , we will most gladly yeild , and never breake with you , till you breake from that umpirage .

Ibid. C. The words are applicable against our belief of Christianity , as well as against our belief of our Churches doctrine .

Answ. The words are applied by me onely against your infallibility , and if that be as infallible as Christianity it self , I beseech you either shew as plaine testimonies from the consent of all Ages , that the Church of Rome is infallible , as there are for the Canon of the Scripture , or as plaine places out of the Scripture for it , as we can for the severall parts of Christianity , and then I will give you leave so to apply the words ; In the meane , you may spare your labour of applying my words , or else prove demonstratively that they are so applicable .

Ibid. D. A possibility perhaps of more errours , but a probability of fewer , for if she were fallible , yet she would not be fallible , as a private man ; so that with these fewer errours we should have quiet and unity , you with more errours should have disturbances and dissentions .

Answ. In this place , whereto your Annotation was affixt , the discourse was upon a supposition , that your Infallibility were an errour , ( which I in that case affirm'd , would be the most dangerous , because most prolificall complicated errour imaginable ) and will you say that upon that supposition , there would be a probability of fewer errours ? Will the thinking I cannot fall make me stand the longer ? is there no advantage to be made of care , and caution , and feare ? or is there a disadvantage in them ? This is brave fiduciary doctrine , I must thinke infallibly I shall be saved , and that I cannot fall away , and the thinking that , will make it more probable that I shall be saved , and shall not fall . I confesse I had thought that humility were a readier way both to truth and Heaven , then either of these presumptions . What you meane by adding ( by way of proofe of that saying ) that if your Church were fallible , she would not be fallible as a private man , I confesse I cannot guesse . If she would not , I conceive , this would be but little advantage on her side , for her fallibility would be a greater snare and scandall , and more apt to draw into errour those that conceived her infallible , than any private mans fallibility would doe . For that which you adde of quiet and unity , if it were supposed to be joyn'd with fewer errours , I grant it would be an advantage , but at a time , when that infallibility was supposed to be one errour , and that prov'd most apt to produce a multitude ; surely this ought not to have been supposed , any more , than that we should have more errours still , though 't were not at the same time supposed that we have .

Ibid. E. It was never put into more hands than two , but what those hands might doe , I know not ; and to those on purpose to make triall what exceptions might be made against it , that so upon a review , I might know better what to alter in it , what to adde , and what to take away .

Answ. I conceive one man hath two hands , and therefore 't is possible you may meane , it was never communicated to above one man . If you doe , 't is certainly false ; But if you meane two men by two hands , you acknowledged what I said , for I said no more . As for your affirmation that 't was put into those hands only for triall , &c. This cannot be said of one of them , for to him it was delivered by one of your friends , as an unanswerable piece , but yet if it were , as you pretend , that you might know better what to alter in it ; I am then glad I have given you occasion to doe so , but must tell you , that now you have altered it , and delivered it from some infirmities , which appear'd to be in it , there be yet enough behind , to be reformed by any body else , and when that is done , there will remaine somewhat else perhaps , but I am sure no answer to my Lord of Falkland .

Ibid. F. Sir , your noble courtesie is gratefully acknowledged , and I desire with all due respects and services to correspond .

Answ. This I conceive to be a civility , and I shall never go about to confute that , or answer it , but by the returne of the like , and my prayers also , that the Lord give you a right judgement in all things .

HEre it seemes was once an end of those annotations , and it had been for the readers ease and mine , that you had continued in that minde . But upon better thoughts , either that which had beene here noted , was thought not quite sufficient , or else , ex abundanti , this superfoetation is bestowed on us . The closing sheet which I mentioned in the Preface , and promised to annex also . Which here in justice to the Apologist , I shall give you , though I conceive I had beene as kind to him , if I had forgotten it .

THis small treatise Apologeticall is no finisht worke , but only a first draught or inchoation , and was ventured abroad to explore the judgements or censures of one or two intelligent Adversaries , that so the Author by his second thoughts might be the better able to understand what was to be altered in it , what added , and what taken away , either as superfluous or offensive , and till that act was done , and withall an approbation and licence given by those to whom it belonged , neither the worke , nor any line of it is to be acknowledged , or vouched by the Author .

The drift is not to prove the Church which we call Catholique , and the Enquirer cals Roman , to be infallible , but to defend it against the Enquirers arguments ; for he Sect. 28. undertakes to give reasons why the Church of Rome is fallible . So that our drift is to make it good that this same Church may still be infallible , notwithstanding any thing that he hath said unto the contrary .

The pillars that support all his discourse be 1. Sect. videl. that with us both Reason , Scripture , and Antiquity , be fallible ; his proofe of this assertion is a supposed maxime of ours , namely , that nothing is infallible but the Church . The assertion is first denyed , and afterward the proofe , and against these denialls no reply can be made , because we know best our owne inward acts and judgements , and no man is able to tell us what we thinke , but we must tell them .

These three pillars of fallibility being broken and relinquisht as desperate , you are pleased to come with new ones in their places .

Reason , say you , cannot prove the infallibility of your Church , because it is not an evident verity ; Scripture cannot ; because not certainly expounded to that probation ; Fathers doe not , because it was not a doctrine held in their time .

It seems then , that the cause why none of these three can prove our Churches infallibility , is not any want of infallibility in them , as the Enquirer contended it was , but some other different ; such , namely , as you here assigne ; and so the Enquirers argument is at an end , even at the very beginning of it , and my taske is done , yet , in my respects , to you , I will goe on farther .

To your first , I answer , that though reason cannot it selfe alone prove our Churches infallibility , yet , as you acutely note , Sest. 3. reason can assure us , by shewing us some words of prophecie , or revelation from God , with sufficient evidence that it is a revelation , and thus reason can prove a verity be it never so inevident . After this manner it is that we say reason proves our Church , against which proof the inevidence of it , as we see , can be no impediment .

To your second , I answer , by denying that scripture hath not beene so certainly expounded to that purpose , for we say it hath been shewed by our authors at large , as for example , by Bellarmine , Valentia , Petavius , Veron and others .

To your 3. I answer , first , that 1. Irenaeus , 2. Augustinus , 3. Lactantius , 1. L. 5. c. 20. l. 3. c. 4.2 . L. 2. advers. Crescon . c. 33. item ep. 118. item l. de unitate Eccles. c. 22.3 . l. 4. c. 30.4 . L. 12. and 4 Facundus Hermanensis doe absolutely teach the Church to be infallible . Secondly , I deny that the Fathers teach not the Romane Church to be the true Church and contrary to your tenet , I affirme that they hold that Church to be the true Christian Church , as the forenamed authors have declared out of them , as also Card. Perone and Co●ffeteau have ex●ellently shewed . Also I my selfe have endeavoured it elsewhere out of the severall Testimonies of Antiquity not to be in this place repeated .

The businesse touching the motives of Faith which I , with Irenaeus , called Ostensions , their place , use and efficacity needs only explanation , and ought to be admitted by every Christian , and therefore , begging your patience , I will tarry longer upon it .

We doe not goe about to prove our Church to be the true , therefore because she holdeth with the truth , but because we conceive we have good solid reasons to perswade us that she hath the truth . These reasons have been often rendred by our Authors , to whom if the Inquirer had replyed , we also had endeavoured to defend them . Concordance with the Scriptures and fathers we doe marshall amongst them , not in the first place indeed in order of Doctrine but yet in the first in order of dignity . Neither doe we aime to prove our Church by the gallantry of Demonstration , or any other way then Christianity , sooner or later , is to be perswaded unto Infidels ; for we are now dealing , not about a parcell , but the whole frame of Christianity , from the top to the foundation , and the laying of the first stone ; which first stone we hold to be those actes of God which Psal. 104.27 . are called verba signotum , and fitly may be tearmed signa realia , that is to say , sings and ostensions , which be the acts of Gods omnipotence and soveraigne Government , and , by a morall certainty and rationall way are shewed for humane institution and instruction . This sort of signes is , by order of nature , to have the precedence before all artificiall signes , or vocall expressions of the divine will , and therefore as Raymund Sebund observeth , liber factorum is to be perused before liber dictorum ; By these signes , as , by the apparentiae , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Astronomy , we are to get the first notions of these celestiall revolutions , or resolutions of faith ; and though these be sure , yet are they not demonstrative , because no way intrinsecall , neither to the revelations which they assure , nor to the objects revealed , which are assured by the revelations , as being no causes , nor effects of either , nor signes inherent of those objects .

Seeing then , the true Catholique Religion is but the true Christianity , they both of them are to be learned by the same Apparences , or Ostensions , more or lesse expresly understood . Now , while we draw nearer unto these signes , and learne them more and more expresly , amongst other things we may discover as good characterismes and signatures of revealed truth , the Concordance of our Faith with holy Writ and venerable Antiquity , which two signes , without the preceding could have little force to perswade beliefe . For , say I were to convert an Indian , I would not seeke to doe it by telling him first of all of these two Concordances mentioned , which 't is like would move him but a little , for , though I could shew him the Bible was antient and Godly , and the Fathers wise , yet this would not be enough to perswade him , and therefore I should hold it fit , First to represent unto him , some other motives , as namely , Propheticall predictions authorized by event , miracles and miraculous operations and effects , creditably recorded from age to age , both in the Evangelists and other sequent Histories , of whose faith a man rationally cannot doubt , at least in the summe of them , or the chiefe bulke . I speake not here of fabulous Narrations , or suspected Histories , Et est plenissima haec ostensio unam & eandem vivificatricem fidem , &c. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. but Authours of credit and esteeme ; Secondly , the excellency of our Faith it selfe , and manner of propagation of it . Thirdly , the perfection of life and heroicke actions of such as doe professe it , and all this after a manner not interrupted , but continued from age to age , and conveyed downe to us by the prime Ecclesiasticall succession , not of persons onely , but of Pastours in the chiefe seate , and other inferiour , prized so highly by Irenaeus , and held a most sure note of truth , and a way to confound all that doe gainsay it . Lastly , a consonance with Reason , Scripture , and Antiquity . These and such like be our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , these our Ostensions ; these be the received notices and signatures of revealed truth ; by these God invites us and induces us to believe ; and by these , engages his owne veracity to warrant the act of our assent , it being repugnant to the high perfection of his truth , to lay upon man a rationall obligation , and then desert him , and to permit that the publique acts of his providence should be a snare , not a direction , not an introduction to truth , but a seduction from it . Though therefore these motives make our faith but credible in an eminent and a high degree , yet the veracity of God is at hand to supply , seale and confirme all , and with the authority thereof , to make the assurance absolute . This method of resolving and reducing faith , Iren. l. 3. c. 4. Augustin , ad Honoratum Manichaeum . was signified by Irenaeus , when as he said , Post tot Ostensiones factas non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere . This way designed by Saint Augustin , this is conformable to the Analytique principles delivered by Aristotle in his Organon ; this the beaten path of all Divines , and no new invention or exotique stuffe .

This method we are ready to maintaine as strong and solid , not permitting the believer to sit downe with a slender Socinian certainty liable to deceit , not enclosing him in any maze , circle , or semicircle , not enforcing him into endlesse and wearisome regresses , neither producing evidence , nor destroying liberty , but by these motives fortified with the divine veracity , leading him assuredly to the Church , and by the Church to the entire and determinate Canon of holy Scripture ; and so at length by both these joyned together , to the full discovery and distinct knowledge of the doctrines of our faith , after the manner following .

These motives or ostensions being once considered , we are forthwith to observe to what body of Christian professours they belong , and in what line of succession of Ecclesiasticall Magistrates they descend unto us , and in the passages of antiquity , diligently to note which ship it is which in the Christian fleet was counted the Praetorian , or Admirall , with which all the rest were to joyne company , and by the separation from which , we are to judge which vessels be fugitive , or pyraticall , and which not ; which assembly of Christians legitimate and approved , and by this association to be distinguished from the broken and dispersed troopes of Anti-Catholiques , and by the same the army of the living God in the Church militant , discerned from the stragling companies of divided and disagreeing Sectaries , how numerous soever they may seeme , when summed up all into one inconsistent body , or confused rout . This way and method we hold , which if it doe not satisfie any , let them set us downe a better , and not leave us without any ; but let them take heed , that while with the Enquirer , we receive and admit the fallibility of the Church of Rome , or of any other determinate Church , and of one denomination we fall not , with Master Chillingworth , to the fallibility of the Christian faith , and so presently to Infidelity . It is easie to impugne the Organon of faith , or Doctrinall principles , but not easie to compose it , easie to pull downe , but not to build . The Enquirers judgement uttered to me , was , that Baron , when he writ against us , was lusty and strong , but when he spake any thing for himselfe , he was weake and languishing ; and I believe this is the Enquirers owne case , and that he was able to say more against an infallibility then for it . In the one he hath shewed his strength , in the other not .

Now a word or two about lawes , and I have done . In which point I observe it as an uncontroverted doctrine , that unjust lawes , properply speaking , are not lawes ; first because Lex is the dictamen rectae rationis practicae in eo qui potestatem habet ; but an unjust law , is neither dictamen rectae rationis practicae , nor potestatem habentis , for no man is prescribed to doe wrong by reason , nor hath God the chiefe Legislatour given power to make them . Durandus concurres in terminis in Opusculo de legibus , saying , Injusta leges magis sunt violentiae quam leges , nam secundum quod dicit Augustinus , l. de libero arbitrio , Lex esse non videtur quae justa non fuerit . Et tales non obligant quantum ad Deum . So Durandus . To him Suarius subscribeth , l. 3. de legib. c. 19. n. 11. Lex injusta non est lex , praesertim quando ex parte materiae est injusta , quia rem iniquam praecipit ; tum enim ad acceptandum eam non obligat , verum etiam , neque si sit acceptata , And presently after , giving a reason hereof , he addeth , Quia excedit potestatem legislatoris .

Secondly , so much veneration is due to lawes , though never so unjust , that they are neverthelesse in conscience to be obeyed , unlesse they should be publiquely and knownely found contrary to a greater authority then that was by which they were enacted ; that is to say , to the law of God , or Nature , Therefore they are not to be judged or censured by any private man .

Thirdly , being discovered to be unjust , they derogate nothing at all from the authority of the rest , no more then the unjust lawes of some Emperours did from the body of the law Imperiall . For though all of them were made by the same Authors , yet not by the same authority ; because for the making of one sort , there was good authority derived from God ; but , for the making of the other , there was none at all , but such as could not make it .

Fourthly , in case of such lawes , no man is to take armes , or make resistance , but contrariwise , to suffer with humble patience , remitting the righting of his cause onely to God , per quem Reges regnant & legum conditores justa decernunt . And thus , Sir , I rest your humble servant .

The holy Scripture hath a threefold influence into faith . 1. Dispositive , as one of the motives , or inducements . 2. Negative , as a property , sine qua non . 3. Positive , as a foundation or principle . The 1. as an ancient and godly booke . The 2. as a rule , without concordance to which faith could not be acknowledged ; for every doctrine must be consonant to its rule , whether that rule be true , or false , certaine , or uncertaine . The 3. as a setled principle , and a booke knowne to be Canonicall .

TO all this I shall answer as briefly as I can .

First , to the 1 Sect. That for the matter of fact which concernes this treatise , I have already averred those truths , that will not permit any reasonable man to believe that this was so indeed , [ a first draught , &c. ] for it was confest by him , Chap. 1. to be a second draught . Secondly , it was not sent out onely to explore , &c. for it was , * * In Conclus . saith he , delivered but to two adversaries , and to one of them ( as I said before ) it was delivered as unanswerable . Thirdly , if there were any such designe of exploring and mending , &c. I must conceive that that work is now done ; for when it was sent home to me againe with these notes , many places which I had charged , were altered or taken away , and for additions , sure such were the marginall notes , and this appendage . Fourthly , For the license I can say nothing , ( but that I conceive it might as easily be gotten , as to what you have already made publique , if you had a minde to it ) nor indeed force you to acknowledge or vouch any line of this booke , but onely tell you , that those words in your first Chapter of complaint , [ That there was no notice given of license for it be published , and have the advantage to be dispersed abroad in many copies ] and that [ for want of the Printers helpe it shall lie concealed , and in much restraint , yea and be in danger to perish ] seemed to me to signifie your willingnesse then to make it publique ; and if you have since retracted that designe , I hope so weake an answer , as some of your friends boast this to be , did not discourage you . I shall rather thinke it was modesty , or else designe , that you chose rather to have disclaimed , then commended your owne , and thought it would appear more glorious for you to have it extorted from you , or ( if it should prove lesse splendid ) yet more tolerable , to have beene ravisht from you then prostituted .

To the second Sect. I answer , that you had said that before in annot. to the concl . A. And the answer there belongs to this Sect. and if you had made good what you say was your drift , you should be pronounced conquerour .

To the third Sect. You have taken a good course to defend infallibility , by setting up for it your selfe , and affirming that no reply can be made to you in that matter , because it depends onely upon your judgement , which none can know but whom you tell it ; But , good Sir , your Authors do tell us , that there is nothing infallible but the Church , and when they have done so , we may know your outward acts , for such are your writings , though your inward we pretend not to pry into .

To Sect. 4. I answer , that one argument of his Lordships , taken from your affirmed fallibility of Reason , Scripture , and Antiquity , is most prodigiously by you call'd three pillars . And how Sampson-like you have broken them downe , the Reader must judge ; if you are so confident , I have here exprest my selfe your servant , by helping you to a publique tryall .

To Sect. 5. I acknowledge that from your owne confession I make those three arguments , that neither Reason , Scripture , nor Antiquity , can infallibly prove your Church to be infallible . And

To the Sect. 6. I say that the want of infallibility in those three mentioned Sect. 6. and by you confest , is sufficient to prove his Lordships conclusion that they cannot infallibly prove your infallibility , and this is the same that was meant by his Lordship , though more explicated by me , and brought home against you by way of retortion , and Argument ad hominem , upon your own confession . And so your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was sung much too early , and you must to your taske again , if you will make an end of it .

To Sect. 7. I answer , that if you had shewed the revelation , on which reason inferres your infallibility , your section had stood good , but the totall want of that is your maine impediment .

To Sect. 8. Be you also pleased to produce your consent of Antiquity certainly expounding Scripture to inferre your infallibility ; and that shall be yielded you also , but I conceive those writers of yours have not done it , and whensoever you please , I shall be ready to examine their testimonies with you .

To Sect. 9. I answer . That we have allowed a sence , wherein the Church universall may be stiled infallible , and that to save my selfe the paines of examining your testimonies ( though some without examining I know to be ill cited ) I shall grant it in that sence to be so ; But then to your second proposition , ( be it either [ I deny that they teach not ] or [ I affirme that it holds ] it matters little ) that the Roman Church is the true Church , I answ. That if there be emphasis in the particle [ the ] in the praedicate , so that it signifie the [ Catholick ] Church in the former proposition , 't is then absolutely false , that the Fathers say any such thing . And you are prudent to cite none to that ridiculous purpose . But if you meane , that the Roman Church is a true Church , ( so you doe not meane that all it saith is true ) as we grant that , so we challenge you to prove , that ever the ancient Church thought any such particular Church of one denomination to be infallible , When you please to produce your testimonies , you shall receive answer to them .

To Sect. 10. Concerning the motives of Faith , You might have spared that paines , it being not at all concluded by you here or before , that that infallibility is built on the same grounds with Christanity .

To Sect. 11. If you had never such solid reasons to perswade you ; that your Church had the truth ( as I should not need to deny , were it not for your denying the cup to the Laity against Scripture , and your keeping the Scripture in an unknowne tongue , and some other such defects in faciendis , but rather charge you that you have more then the truth , viz. many errours mixt with the truth ) this would prove but a very weake probation , that your Church is [ the true Church ] in the exclusive notion , i. e. that no other is the Church , but that : for having the truth , doth not signifie a Monopoly , or inclosure of it , or that no body else can have it ; And if by [ the true Church ] you meane no more , but a true part , you know we doe not question it , nor affirme that your errors though many , have turn'd you in non Ecclesiam , into a no Church . As for your Concordance with the Fathers which you say you have , I answere , that in those things wherein you and we consent , we shall not be unwilling to grant it to you ( but yet must remember you , that you would not allow that to be a proofe of your being infallible ) but in those other which we call errors in you , we challenge you to produce an universall Concordance . You goe on ; that you proue your Church by no other way then Christianity is perswaded unto Infidels . I hope your meaning is , that you prove your Church to be a true Church , and that shall be granted you without your proofe : but that it is the only true one , or the infallible one , I hope you have not miracles for that , ( if you have , you have trifled away a great deale of time in not telling us of them ) nor revelation from Heaven , nor universall tradition to assure you , ( what you affirme so confidently ) that the Infallibility of your Church is the whole frame of Christianity . And therefore what you learnedly adde about the verba signorum , or signa realia , signes and ostensions , &c. by which you go about to prove Christianity , I must professe to edifie me but little in point of the infallibility of your Church , because that is so distant a thing from it .

To Sect. 12. Your affirmation , that the true Catholique Religion is the true Christianity , ( if that be the onely thing you aime at ) shall be willingly granted you , all the question will be , whether all your doctrines , that of denying the cup to the Laity &c. be that Catholique Religion . And sure to him that questions that , all the characterismes , &c. all your Propheticall predidictions will give but little satisfaction , and no more will the excellency of Faith , perfection of heroick actions of professors , nor the conveyance from age to age , by the Prime Ecclesiasticall succession of Pastors in the Sea of Rome , because that of the sub unicâ specie , &c. which we quarrell at in you , might as well be pretended to have testimonies out of the present Articles of our Church , as out of these . If there be any of these evidences , or moreover of Reason , Scripture , Antiquity , on your side for such controverted particulars , I beseech you let them be produced , or else you may be Christians , but yet corrupt in these particulars , your being a true Church will not pronounce you infallible , your Church of Rome Primitive may have the truth , and your Moderne Rome be filled with errors . And therefore you may spare the paines of proving ( what we have no occasion at this time to deny ) that God engages his veracity to make good those things , for which he gives us such rationall meanes of proofe to induce our assent , For what ever else is , your infallibility , or your other errours , for which we charge you , are none of these things . And if you mark it , that which ( according to your discourse ) gives us such assurance of the truth of Christianity , is the ostensions , miracles , publick acts of Gods providence , not the Infallibility naturally inherent either in your Church , or in any particular society of men , nor the promise of God that any such society shall be infallible , and visible to all that it is that infallible . As for that which you covertly cast into the heape of the motives of Faith , [ that 't was continued from age to age in the succession of Pastors in the chiefe seat ] that is no more a ground of the truth of Christanity , then its succession in all other seats , as I conceive you have your selfe let fall also . The truth is the Preaching the Gospel over all the world , and the reception in so great a part of it , is an argument of the truth of Christianity ( among many others ) because it is the fulfilling of a Prophecy of their sounds going out into all Lands , But this is farre from concluding the peculiar priviledge of infallibility of those , who are under the Roman subjection . By which 't is cleare , that what you cite out of Irenaeus , and Saint Aug. comes home no better to your point of infallibility , then Aristotles Analytick principles , which in the same place ( and elsewhere ) you cite also . And therefore if all you say in that long Section were yeelded , ( concerning the motives to Christianity , and your way by bringing to the Church , &c. ) yet would you be as farre to seek as ever , concerning your pretended infallibility .

To your 13. Sect. which is neerer indeed to your purpose , I answere , that being by your meanes brought to Christianity , there is no need that I should find out any particular body of professors ( or Church of one denomination ) to which those motives to Christianity should so belong , as to belong to no othey but that ; This sure I may better say without proofe , then you have affirmed the contrary , For doe you thinke it reasonable , that Christianity being planted all the world over , each man that is converted to it , must finde out the Roman Bishop , and those that are in subjection to him , or not be accounted a Christian ? If he be borne at Jerusalem , or converted there , will it not serve his turne to communicate with that Church , which hath given him Baptisme ? Was there any thing in his Creed could send him thither , till the holy Catholick Roman Church was ( by mockery I conceive ) put in thither ? As for the line of succession of Ecclesiasticall Magistrates , you must know , that is to be found in other Christian Churches , as well as in Rome , and the Scriptures and Apostolicall verities descend downe to us in them also . And what if in some passages of Antiquity the Sea of Rome should be found to be the Praetorian or Admirall , in your stile , i. e. the prime or principall Sea , would this prove her infallible , the Praetorian may spring a leake , as well as any other , and in case it should , I doe not conceive , that all other Ships of that fleet , were bound to doe so too , or else be counted fugitive , because they are unwilling to run that unhappy fate of sinne , or errour with her . Sure if the Praetorian should casually , or wilfully split upon a Rock , you would not censure all others for Pyraticall , that did not so too . The reasons are visible , why that Sea of Rome had the Primacy at some time ( and at other times other Seas put in their plea for it , and if they obtained not , yet was that an argument that it was never judged a matter of Faith , because the Pretenders were not condemned for Haereticks , even when it went not with them ) viz: from the Imperiall Seat being placed in that City , with which the Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , might proportionably goe along , just as your Praetorian is that ship , where the Admirall resides , or which peculiarly belongs to him . But what is that to infallibility ? That honour which comes by sympathy with the Civill State , is not like to be such a charme , or amulet , so to elevate above humane condition , that it must presently set up for perfection . Let your Church have all its due and customary respects , but doe not so linke inerrablenesse with Principality , unlesse you can bring some ground from Scripture , for the union , and because in all your Apology , Annotations , and Appendage you doe not so much as name any such , I shall conceive you are too wise to claime by [ Tu es Petrus ] or any other so unconcluding an argument . Believe me , your prescription for some kinde of Principality from the possession of it continued to that Sea so many yeares , is a better plea than any other , and against that I am not now a disputing , but onely adde that greatnesse saecular is no marke of infallibility . As for your rule of judging by the Association with Rome , which Assembly of Christians is legitimate , which not , that that is an infallible way of judging is not at all proved by your magnificent simile . For first , the fleet may be broken asunder by some tempest , and so without any fault of any ship , be divided from the Praetorian . 2. The Praetorian may quarrell with all , or any of the rest , and by threats or bullets drive them from her , and then if the cause be not just , if it be for example upon no other crime , but that the other ships judge it necessary to cast out some vessels or trumpery which they are resolved to be either uselesse , or perhaps dangerous to the vessell and all the Passengers , or againe because the rest of the ships are resolved to obey the commission that sent out the whole Fleet , when the Praetorian was resolved to disobey it , in this and the like cases , 't is cleare , that the Praetorian is the onely Schismatick ; Or if it be just , yet the ships though confest guilty of that other crime , or crimes , which made that severity of the Praetorian just , will yet not be guilty of a new crime of separation : the reason is cleare , because she is forced to that , driven away , and now ever since lies under it unwillingly , 't is her infelicity , not her crime ; her punishment , not her fault . Or if there be a fault in that , viz: That she doth not humbly confesse the fault , and desire to be reconciled , yet sure it will not be infinitely true , that that is a fault , when either she was guilty before of no fault , but a pretended one , for which that punishment was inflicted ( to which purpose the Chancellour of Paris will advise you ) or when the condition of her being received againe is such , as cannot with any honesty be entertained , be it the undertaking any Treasonable act against the King , whose Admirall he is , which denominates that Praetorian , and who is supreame Master of the whole fl●et , or be it , but swearing any thing to be true which is false , or subscribing to the belief , or practice of what we believe neither true nor practicable . And that this is the state of our Church in its separation from yours , I shall undertake to make good , whensoever you will yeild the point of Infallibility , or exchange it for the question of Schisme . You see I am not much edified by your way , and because you are not so importunate , that I should , but are modestly content that if I am not satisfied with it , I should set you downe a better , I shall humbly crave leave to doe it in very few words . The farre better way , more Christian , because more humble and more charitable , ( and beyond all , probably the most peacefull too ) Is , to make the Scripture , as 't is interpreted by the antient Fathers , the ground of our belief for all the substantiall , i. e. plaine parts of Faith ; to define as few of this nature , as the Primitive Christians may be discerned to have done , to command and require obedience , and assent to these from all our Inferiours under our authority , and to proceed to Ecclesiasticall admonitions , in case of errour , to censures , in case of contumacy , but to blood , never purely for Religion , nor too often for Religion in ordine ad temporalia ; To tolerate with meeknesse , those that are contrary minded , in all things that are not either of the number of these few , very few necessariò credenda , or that have not a necessary connexion and immediate influence on practice , and good life ; This as it is farre from either pretending to infallibility , or letting loose the reines to licentiousnesse , so is it the happiest , most lasting , durable temper of a Church , most agreeable to all those ends that Christ hath made most estimable to us in his Gospel , and so will be farre from that feare of yours , of betraying us to a deserting of the Christian faith ▪ or falling to Infidelity ; universall peace and charity and humility , being above all things most contrary to that . And so you see , 't is not so unpracticable a difficulty to compose an Organon of Faith so farre , as to preserve it among Christians ; And for the planting it among Infidels , that is not hujus considerationis , nor doe I much believe I shall have much reason to differ from any learned Romanist on that Subject , on condition he would agree with me in this . As for your judgement upon his Lordship , that he was able to say more against an infallibility then for it , and that in the one he hath shewed his strength , in the other not , I easily believe , and must thinke my selfe bound to confesse , because I have seen a Booke of his against Infallibility , but never any for it . If this must be thought a fault in him , I must be content to lie under your severest censure for the same crime also , and sic habes confitentes reos , patiently expecting what you will pronounce against us .

Sect. 14. You are resolved it seemes to have a word or two about Lawes , upon what temptation , or provocation from the precedent discourses , at least from the maine businesse in hand , I cannot readily satisfie my Reader . The most I can guesse is , that in our meeting we fell into some discourse and difference about the nature of unjust Lawes , whether they might be said to be Lawes , or no. And perchance your charity led you now out of your rode to informe me in this matter ; if 't were onely so , I must acknowledge it an obligation , and shall thanke you for that , though I chance to dissent from you .

And that matter I perceive will be soone stated : Thus : That Lawes , if ( considered in respect of the matter of them ) they be found to command me to doe ought , which by any superiour law , 't is unlawfull for me to doe , they are then unjust Lawes , be the Legislatour never so lawfully my Magistrate ; and in this case 't is true , that God hath not given him power to make them ; meaning thereby such a power , that he may make them without being unjust ; but yet another power he hath given him , to wit , such an one , as that , if he exercise it thus against God the Doners will , yet it shall not be lawfull for any man , or society of men on earth , to call him to account , and punish him , to resist violently , or reduce him in ordinem ; Onely God that hath given him potestatem in genere ( which is libera ad utrosque actus , power to make good or evill lawes , but withall restrained by a command from the law of nature , and God , and limited by that law onely to the lawfull exercise of it , or making the good lawes ) is to receive an account of the Talent given him to trade with as his Steward , and to enquire whet●er he hath used it well or no. Thus much , unlesse I am mistaken , your discourse gives me reason to thinke granted by you . And from thence I must conclude , that any such abuse of power in the Law-giver , though it be in him aberration from the rule in respect of God , yet still is an act that hath some effect on the man which is borne , or lives under that law , though not to oblige him to doe what is commanded him , yet to oblige him to non-resistance , and suffering patiently , if the Law-giver be so wicked to tyrannize over him . Which obligation to passive , though not active Obedience , is the result of a Law , if not properly so called in your notion of it , yet very lawfully and intelligibly so called , as I have interpreted it ; And for the propriety or impropriety of the word , I shall not much contend with you , so the substance be agreed on ; and yet 't were easie enough to repay you with the quotations of Schoole-men and Casuists , which make no scruple to use the word in my sence , and to answer the places you have produced , and shew that 't was onely in that sence which we yeild that they did deny it . But enough of this .

For your 15 Section . What it signifies , or whether it would , I cannot I confesse divine ; 't was I conceive in you an excessive act of liberality , that you thought might be for my turne ; and , though I know not how at this time I shall reap profit by it , yet I cannot but accept your good intentions . And so being extreamly weary of a very thanklesse taske , I bid you heartily farewell .

FINIS .
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A45471-e1010
Notes for div A45471-e9320
Notes for div A45471-e43990
Notes for div A45471-e55390