4. For as you say pag. 337. n. o. lin 23. A doubtfull and questionable guide is as good as none at all Is it then impious to thinke that men being in necessity of a guide to heauen and for want of one in termes of perishing eternally God hath commended and commanded vnto them for their guide a doubtfull questionable Church which men neyther know where to find nor being found how to trust 14. What you say of a penitent sinner that God will not damne him for the secret defect in his desired absolution because his Ghostly Father was perhaps an Atheist and could not or a villaine and would not giue him absolution First you are deceaued in thinking that a secret Atheist cannot giue absolution for he may if he haue intention to do what Christ instituted and this intention he may haue though he esteeme of that institution no better then of a foppery As for a Villaine it is not credible that any Christian Priest will be such a villaine as not to giue his Penitent absolution in which case if perhaps it fall out we thinke God of his goodnes will not permit such a Penitent to perish yet the case being rare extraordinary he hath appointed no ordinary meanes of succour but he will supply such defects as he many wayes may easily do by his speciall prouidence Now the necessity of Christians for the defect in their assurance of the true text of Scripture and vncorrupt translation is continuall ordinary and it implies incertainty in all matters of fayth in respect of all Christians For there be scarre any that can assure themselues of the true Text or of the truth of the Translation they vse by searching into the Originalls and ancient coppies Wherefore God hath prouided for them an ordinary meanes of assurance continually at hand and for the capacity of all to wit a Church infallible and so conspicuous as shee may be seene of all The fourth Conuiction 15. ANother Principle you deliuer c. 3. n. 33. li. 10. wherin you cōtradict your selfe depriue Scripture of being the only or the prime Christian rule of fayth I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cānot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a man as Christ that he taught such doctrine that he his disciples did such miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is the word of God vnlesse I be taught it So that the Church is though not a certain foundation and proofe of my Fayth yet a necessary introduction to it Thus you and in like manner you make the Creed contayning all Fundamental articles of simple beleefe independent of Scripture Cap. 4. n. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and contaynes the principles of fayth I ground it not vpon Scripture c. But the contrary to this in formall termes your affirme Cap. 3. n. 37. lin 9. saying of Protestants They ground their beleefe that such and such thinges only are Fundamental on Scripture only goe about to proue their assertion by Scripture only Behold contradiction vpon contradiction For to say you ground your beliefe of the Fundamental articles or Principles of fayth not vpon Scripture and you ground it on Scripture only is direct contradiction What you say that you belieue such and such thinges only to be fundamental proue it by Scripture is repugnant with what you contest more then in an hundred passages of your Booke that you neyther know nor can know exactly which points be Fundamental 16. But omitting your contradiction I conuince that Scripture cānot be the rule of our faith about Fūdamentalls Cap. 2. n. 48 circa finem which must of necessity be knowne and belieued before Scripture I proue by what you write Pag. 70. lin 29. If our vnderstanding did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed how is it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a sonne that he hath already or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can be made againe before it be vnmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of errour will easily perceaue that iam factum facere and factum infectum facere be equally impossible These be your wordes from which I thus argue The Scripture cannot be the rule and reason of belieuing such points of fayth which must of necessity be belieued before we can receaue Scripture But before we belieue Scripture we must belieue the fundamentall articles of Christianity that Christ was and taught such and such doctrine essential to the Gospell that he chose Apostles to preach it who confirmed it with new miracles and left it vs written in these bookes of Scripture These thinges and the like you confesse must of necessity be knowne vpon the Tradition and Authority of the Church before we can belieue Scripture Ergo the assent we yield vnto the truth of these articles is not by Scripture but by the Churches Tradition precedently to our beliefe of Scripture And so the Church teaching vs the Christian Tradition is the fundamentall and essentiall rule of fayth and the Scripture is requisite not to the being of Christian fayth nor for the begetting thereof but only ad melius esse to the wel being thereof to confirme vs more more in what we are taught by the Church The fifth Conuiction 17. CAp. 2. n. 19. (a) For so should it be though it be in the booke n. 9. lin 15. you write In all the Controuersies of Protestants betwixt themselues there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture reason with reason authority with authority which how it can subsist with manifest reuealing of the truth I cannot well vnderstand And cap. 1. n. 13. lin 25. The contrary beliefe may be concerning points wherin Scripture may with so great probability be alleadged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and vpright hrearts true louers of God and the truth such as desire aboue all thinges to know Gods will and to do it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another and some and those as good men as any of the former suspend their iudgment and expect some Elias to solue doubts and reconcile repugnances And Preface n. 30. There is no more certaine signe that a thing is not euident then that honest vnderstanding and indifferent men after a mature deliberation of the matter differ about it From this your confession that there be seeming contradictions and conflicts of one part of Scripture with another which set good and honest men of your stampe together by the eares I gather three arguments which conuince that Scripture by it selfe cannot
Tradition of Christian doctrine from age to age from Father to sonne cannot be a fit ground but of morall assurance Cap. 3. n. 44. lin 55. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall Thus you 9. This is your discourse to proue your Paradoxe that the assent of Christian fayth is fallible and only morally certaine But the foundation wheron you build your maine Principle Vniuersall Tradition is not infallible you your selfe ouer throw and establish the contrary ground that tradition vnwritten is as infallible as Scripture Cap. 4 n. 13. lin 19. Vniuersall and neuer-fayling Tradition giueth this testimony both to the Creed and Scripture that they both by the workes of God were sealed and testified to be the word of God Behold the Hypothesis that the articles of Christian Religion that is of the Christian Creed and Scripture are reuealed of God standes vpon a pillar firme and neuer failing If you say morally certaine and neuer failing not absolutely I reply obiecting vnto you another place where you expressely suppose your certainty of the Scripture to be absolute to wit of those bookes of which there was neuer doubt made Pag. 69. We do not professe our selues so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those bookes with haue been doubted as of those that neuer haue How cleerly and in expresse termes do you professe that your certainty of the Scriptures that were neuer questioned is not only probable and morall but absolute certainty vndoubted And how can it be otherwise seeing Tradition by liuely voyce conueyeth vnto vs what the Apostles deliuered about the Canon of the Scripture to wit which bookes were to be held as the word of God For no man can doubt but the Apostles deliuered what they had by diuine reuelation from Christ Iesns and the holy Ghost consequently that these bookes be the word of God is a diuine reuelation vnwritten as certaine as if it were written For as D. Field (b) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 238. sayth It is not the writing that giueth thinges their authority but the worth and credit of him that deliuereth though by word and liuely voice only 10. Perhaps you will tell me as you do Charity maintayn'd vpon another occasion cap. 2. n. 86. If D. Field were infallible and these wordes had not slipt vnaduisedly frō him this had been the best argument in your Booke Well then I must I see bring an Authour infallible in proofe that Tradition is equall in certainty vnto Scripture one so aduised as all Catholiques compared to his wisdome be but a company of blind vnconsidering men What if I find this Doctrine in your booke proued euen by the same argument D. Field vseth because being written giues not Authority to God's word then I hope you will say without any if that this is the best argument in my booke But where is this passage to be found Perchance if you were to find it your selfe you would be to seeke more to seeke if you goe about to reconcile your contradictions In which case you who vaunt your selfe for the witty Oedipus in soluing the Sophismes and Knots of Charity maintayned will perhaps be at a stop and be forced to say with Oedipus being to solue his owne riddle Ego ille victae spolia qui Sphyngis tuli Haerebo * Scripti fati tardus interpres mei 11. The place is Pag. 153. n. 45. where you speake thus to your Aduersary No lesse say you is S. Chrysostome for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to proue the Church infallible not in Traditions which we willingly grant if they be vniuersall as the Traditiō of the vndoubted bookes of Scripture is to be AS INFALLIBLE AS THE SCRIPTVRE is For neither doth being written make the word of God more infallible or being vnwritten make it lesse infallible In these words you affirme that Traditions vniuersall namely and principally that Tradition that the vndoubted bookes of the Scripture be the word of God are as infallible as Scripture You proue it because Neyther doth being written make the word of God more infallible or being vnwritten make it lesse infallible In which proofe you suppose that as Scripture is the written word of God so Tradition is the word of God vnwritten and therefore equall in certainty and infallibility to Scripture 12. Now the ground of your errour being by your contradiction thereof and by your confession yea by your demonstration of the contrary truth ouerthrowne I proue the assent of Christian fayth to be absolutely certaine in this manner Christian faith is an assent to this conclusion The doctrine of Christianity is true This conclusion is deduced from this Thesis Whatsoeuer God reueales for true is true and this Hypothesis The Christian Creed and Scripture be the word of God So that if both these propositions be absolutely certaine then the assent to the conclusion is infallible and absolutely certaine Now that both these Premises or Propositions be absolutely certaine I proue The Thesis Whatsoeuer God reueales is truth you grant to be absolutely and metaphysically certaine But the Hypothesis The Christian Creed and Scripture is diuine reuelation and the word of God is also absolutely certaine First because it is as you grant an vniuersall Traditiō as infallible as Scripture But Scripture is absolutely and metaphysically certaine truth because it is doctrine reuealed of God Secondly whatsoeuer God reueales whether it be deliuered in writing or by liuely voyce only is absolutely and metaphysically certaine But the Tradition That the Creed and Scripture is the word of God is diuine reuelation which the Apostles deliuered by liuely voyce sealing and confirming the truth thereof with workes of God as you confesse Ergo the Tradition that the Christian Creed and Scripture is of God is absolutely certaine and infallible Finally you say cap. 1. n. 8. in sine 2. edition cap. 2. n. 8. infine If a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit by a messenger that is not so my confidence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the relatour This you I subsume But the message of the Gospell is brought to me and to euery Christian from a man of absolute credit Christ Iesus the Eternall Sonne of God in whome are all the treasures of Diuine wisedome by a messenger of absolute credit to wit by the Church deliuering vniuersall Tradition which is as you confesse as infallible as Scripture Therefore our faith of the Creed and Scripture is not rebated or lessened by being deliuered by the perpetuall visible Church of Christ but is as infallible as if we had had the message immediatly from the mouth of our Lord and Sauiour 13. Iadde Tradition vniuersall is not only as infallible as Scripture but also more certaine in respect of vs. This I ground
Christians know not how to compose but must expect some Elias to reconcile them Ergo they hold and you professe to hold Tradition as a Principle aboue reason and so high in authority aboue it as it is able to command reason to belieue what to the seeming of reason cannot possibly be true Thus by your owne contradictions the resolution of faith that Scriptures be the word of God is conuinced to rest finally not on Reason but on Tradition a Principle superiour to all human Reason The second Conuiction AS the text of holy Scripture so likewise the sense thereof is proued to be Diuine and true not because congruous and conforme to the rule of natural Reason but because deliuered by Tradition vnwritten This truth I am to make good by your sayings wherein you contradict your selfe leauing the victory to that part of your contradiction which standes for the Catholique side 8. Cap. 2. n. 1. lin 24. you reprehend the Roman Church Because we settle in the minds of men that the sense of Scripture is not that which seemes to mens reason and vnderstanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome declares to be so by tradition vnwritten seeme it neuer so vnreasonable and incongruous Your saying contradictory of this and whereby this may be refuted you deliuer some three pages after to wit Cap. 2. n. 8. (k) Lon. Edit p. 55. in 8. Though a Writing could not be proued to vs to be a perfect rule of faith by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being sayd or written in a booke but only by tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe c. By this saying the former is proued to be false that the Scripture is to be vnderstood according to the seeming of mans reason and not according to Tradition or doctrine vnwriten If nothing be proued true by being writen in a booke but only by Tradition vnwritten then no doctrine or sentence is proued true because written in a booke of Scripture according to the iudgment of mans vnderstanding but only because deliuered by Tradition as diuine doctrine the true sense of Scripture Consequently not Scripture vnderstood according to human sense and reason but Scripture vnderstood in the sense of perpetual tradition from the Apostles is the rule of Christian truth and fayth 9. This you also suppose preface n. 12. Where you say That Discourse guiding it selfe only by the principles of Nature is by no meanes the guide of Christian faythin the vnderstanding of Scripture and drawing consequences from it but the rule is right Reason grounded on diuine Reuelation Now right Reason not guided by the principles of Nature but by the light of diuine Reuclation is not natural wit nor human vnderstanding but dunne fupernaturall sense and Reason Nor can our Reason precedently vnto Scripture be grounded on and guided by the light of Diuine Reuelation written as is cleere Frgo the rule to proue any doctrine to be Diuine truth is not Scripture vnderstood according to mans vnderstanding according to the light of natural Reason but Scripture vnderstood according to the wisedome of God knowne by the light of Diuine Reuelation vnwritten to wit by Tradition which is you say credible of it selfe 10. This resolution of Fayth finally and lastly not into natural Reason but into diuine Reuelation vnwritten is gathered from the saying of S. Peter 2. Pet 1.20 No prophesy of the Scripture is made by priuate interpretation for not by the 〈◊〉 of man Prophesy came in at any time but holy men of God spake inspired by the Holy Ghost This discourse of S. Peter is demonstratiue and may be redueed to this syllogisticall forme The Scripture cannot be interpreted by any spirit wit or mind inferiour to that from which it did originally proceed For an inferiour spirit as is the naturall wit and spirit of man 1 Cor. 2.14 is not able so much as to conceaue the thinges of God Yea that which is wisedome with God is folly with men But all holy Scripture proceedes originally from the spirit wit and mind of God Ergo it is not to be interpreted that is the sense therof is not to be iudged true or false by the seeming of naturall reason or wit but by the spirit and wisedome of God which spake in Christ Iesus and his Apostles the sound of whose voyce hath been by perpetual tradition continued and conueyed vnto the present Catholique Church 11. Nor do you pag. 95. lin 1. sufficiently excuse your course of Resolution frō being priuate interpretation condemned by S. Peter where you say Is there not a manifest difference between saying the spirit of God tels me that this is the meaning of such a text which no man can possibly know to be true it being a secret thing and between saying these and these reasons I haue to shew that this is the meaning of such a Scripture Reasōn being a publique and certaine thing and exposed to all mens trial examination But if by priuate spirit you vnderstand the particular reason of euery man your inconueniences against resoluing by the priuate spirit will be reduced to none at all Thus you vnderstāding by priuate a thing that is hidden secret insearchable not exposed to the sight and examination of all But this notion of priuate is against the meaning of S. Peter in this place because in this sense euen the Holy Ghost is priuate the true sense of Scripture is priuate because hidden and secret not to be discerned nor iudged by the naturall man S Peter then by priuate interpretation vnderstands interpretation made by priuate men who haue no publique authority nor power to command in the Church of God Now your particular reason I William Chillingworth haue this reason that this is the meaning of such a Scripture is priuate not endued with publique authority nor with any right to command priuate men to submit their priuate reason and iudgment vnto yours Ergo your rule of interpretation I william Chillingworth haue these reasons for this sense is priuate and cōsequently of no authority in Gods Church I adde that interpretation by the priuate spirit that is by the spirit of God speaking in priuate men is not so abhorrent and exorbitant from truth as yours by the naturall wit of euery man For extraordinarily it may fall out that that may be the true fense of Scripture which is taught by the Holy Ghost vnto some priuate and particular person but it is impossible that that should be the true sense of Scripture about the mysteries of fayth which seemes reasonable and congruous to human vnderstanding because the wisedome of God reuealed in Scripture seemes folly vnto the natural man So that of necessity in many texts of Scripture that must be the true sense which seemes vnreasonable incongruous to mans naturall vnderstanding 12. I must here finally note that in saying that
Scripture is not proued to be a perfect rule by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being said or written in a booke but only by Tradition you singe out of tune so high in the prayse of Tradition and so decry Holy Scripture as euen our Catholique eares will not endure it except the harsh sound thereof be allayed and tempered by some reasonable restriction to wit that nothing is proued by being written in a Booke as by the last principle or proofe whereon our persuasion doth rest I feare Protestants will be offended at this your speach and iudge your Booke in respect of this Blasphemy worthy of the fire For verily your wordes as they sound make Scripture no rule or principle of fayth at all but cleerely disannull and make voyd that so frequent Protestant argument Scriptumest it is written it is Scripture For how can this argument be of any force if nothing be proued true because written in a booke but only by tradition The best fauour I can do you is to shew Protestants a place of your Booke where you contradict your selfe about this assertion For this may perchance pacify them to wit cap 4. n. 53. lin 33. A man belieuing the Scripture to be the word of God must of necessity belieue it true and if he belieue it true he must belieue it contaynes all necessary directions vnto eternall happinesse because it affirmes it selfe to do so Behold Scripture proued a perfect rule by its owne saying so and not only by tradition The third Conuiction 13 YOur conceit of resoluing by reason discourse implyeth a double blasphemy first by your owne contrary sayings it is proued to imply that God requires of men impossibilities Preface nu 12. If by discourse you meane right reason grounded on diuine Reuelation and common notions written by God in the Hearts of all men and deducing according to the neuer-fayling rules of Logicke deductions from them if this be it you mean by discourse it is meete and reasonable and NECESSARY that men as in all their actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choyce of their way to Happinesse be left vnto it And in saying this I say no more then S. Iohn to all Christians Deerely beloued Belieue not euery spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God or not I say no more then S. Paul in exhorting all Christians to try all thinges and to hold fast that which is good then S. Peter in commanding all Christians to be ready to giue a reason of the hope that is in them then our Sauiour himselfe in forewarning all his followers that if they blindely followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the Ditch and againe in saying euen to the People Yea and why of your selues iudge ye not what is right 14. But are all men able to do this able to giue a reason of their fayth by the rules of logicke Experience sheweth and you confesse they cannot cap. 6. n. 10. l. 10. I could wish with all my part as Moyses did that all the Lords people could prophesy that all that belieue the true Religion were able according to S. Peters iniunction to giue a reason of the hope in them c. But should I affirme that all true belieuers CANDOSO I suppose it would be much against experience and modesty c. Thus you grant that all Christians are not able to giuea reason of their fayth and yet you say that this is commanded vnto all Christians vnder paine of falling into the ditch that is of being damned What is consequēt hereupon That your doctrine that true fayth is finally resolued into human reason that all men and women that will be saued must be able to be their owne iudges able of themselues to iudge of so many Religious and different pretended wayes to Heauen Oxf. edit pag. 18. n. 26. l. 29. Lond. edit cap. 2. n. 26. pag. 18. l. 11. which is the right This your doctrine is to vse your owne wordes against your selfe iniurioust God man robbing God of his goodnes and man of his comfort making God a Tyrant exacting of men what he knowes they cannot doe and causing man to be desperate seing he cannot be saued but by doing thinges which to him are impossible 15. Secondly your way of resoluing by reason by your contrary sayings is proued blasphemous against Iesus Christ making him O vild impiety a blind and false Prophet You say he foretold and forewarned all his followers that if they blindly followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch of damnation And yet else where you say that millions of his followers who blindely and imprudently belieue vpon the word of their father or Maister or Minister haue true faith are saued cap. 2. n. 49. lin 18. There ara millions amongst you and vs who belieue vpon no other reason then their education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers c. And will you proscribe from Heauen all those belieuers of your owne Creed who do indeed lay the foundation of their Faith no deeper then vpon the authority of their Father or Maister or Parish Priest c What if their motiue to belieue be not in reason sufficient Do they therefore not belieue what they do belieue They choose their Faith imprudently perhaps but yet they do choose it vnlesse you will haue vs belieue that is not done which is done because it is not done vpon good reason c. Wherefore you must for shame recant this fancy when you write againe suffer true faith to be many times where your Churches infallibility has no hād in the begetting of it Behold how earnest you are to proue many millions of Christs followers who belieue vpon no good reason but blindely follow their blind fallible leaders a father a maister a Minister haue true faith and are saued consequently that our Lords forewarning that if the blind follow the blind both shall fall into the ditch is not true 16. Thus you make our Lord which I haue horrour to think a blind prophet out of your owne damnable blindnes For our Lords saying is most true and infallibly certaine that if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch but your doctrine is blind and impious that the Catholique Church as a blind guide and many times they that follow it follow a company of beasts Nor is it true that many of ours haue true Christiā faith of the Creed who belieue vpon no better authority then the word of a Father or Master c. For how can they belieue the Creed whereof one article is the holy Catholique Church without apprehending better authority to belieue then the bare word of a Father If they want discretion to conceaue the notion of the holy Catholique Church they want vnderstanding to belieue actually and so are saued by Habituall faith but if they apprehend what is
you to do vs courtesies impossible which are I confesse troublesome things to be done and the doing of them requires time longer then Eternity only we will beseech you as you tender the good of your soule to do a courtesy to your selfe very possible to be done That you will reflect that you being a man witty and brought vp in learning it were not possible you should fall into such contradictions as these are were not the hand of diuine permission therin for the eure of your capital euil which is Confidence in your owne wit and contempt of the Whole Catholique Church as of a company of only blindmen and beasts It is not weaknesse of wit but dizzinesse of pride which makes you thus reele in your writing as euen here you do againe You auerre that to some more is fundamental to others lesse to others nothing at all Which is not only against D. Potter but your selfe haue in your booke contradicted it I am sure more then twenty times as Cap. 3. n. 20. lin 9. Points fundamental be those only which are reuealed by God and commanded to be prach't to all and to be belieued of all If fundamentall points be those only which are to be (b) D. Potter p. â—11 preacht vnto all and to be belieued of all how is it possible that there should be some points fundamental for some only and not for all The seauenth Conuiction 30. VVIth this Conuiction I meane to conclude this first Chapter and answere your chiefe argument against our grounding Fayth on the authority of the Church for say you the infallibility of the Church the Principle we build on is not euident of it selfe and therfore needeth proofe It cannot be proued by tradition because none can be shewed for it nor by Scripture because the Scripture is receaued vpon the authority of the Church and so the Church must be belieued infallible before we belieue Scripture wherefore it cannot be proued by Scripture except we will runne round in a circle saying We belieue the Scripture to be Canonical because the Church which is infallible sayth so and We belieue the Church to be infallible because the Scripture Canonicall sayth so To get out of this circle we must say that we belieue the Scripture to be the word of God because the Church infallible in all her proposalls doth so affirme and the Church to be infallible we belieue because our natural reason guided by the motiues of credibility and prudential motiues doth persuade vs that it is so This argument by the repetition whereof your booke is growne into a great bulk I could answere by retorsion and shew that you are forced to dance the round in a circle though many times you runne in and out by contradicting your selfe But I will not goe so far about I answere directly that the Church may be considered either as deliuering Traditions receaued from the Apostles or as defining Controuersies of fayth which for the present arise The infallibility of the Church as deliuering Traditions is not proued by Scripture nor by tradition but is euident of it selfe for the authority of the Church deliuering Traditions by liuely voyce is nothing else See conuict 1. n. 7. but the authority of vniuersall tradition which Authority you graunt to be euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on And on what principle can Christian Fayth rest but on that which is infallible by relying wheron we cannot be deceaued 31. You are a man so courteous and kind to the Church of Rome as for her sake you will deny your selfe you will destroy your owne writing you will grant this infallibility of the Church in plaine termes to do her a pleasure Cap. 2. n. 44. lin 6. There is no repugnance but we may be certaine inough of the vniuersal Tradition of the ancient Church c. and not certaine inough of the definitions of the present Church vnlesse you can shew which I am sure you neuer can do that the infallibility of the present Church was alwaies a Tradition of the ancient Church Now your maine businesse is to proue the present Church infallible not so much in consigning ancient traditions as in defining emergent controuersies Thus you In which words I note how you shuffle and imply in saying We cannot shew tradition for the infallibility of the present Church for tradition is a liuely voyce to be heard and belieued of such as haue eares to heare not a thing of sight to be shewed in books Do not you say nothing is proued true by being written in a booke but only by tradition of liuely voyce which is credible for it selfe Why then do you require proofe of that which you say nedeth (a) Cap. 4. n. 53. l. 24. Tradition is such a principle as may be rested on and which requires no other proofe no proofe And how can you deny the tradition for the infallibility of present Church against emergent Heresies seing it is consigned to her Children by the present Church which you do not deny to be infallible in consigning ancient traditions It is true you do not in this place make vs of this truth an absolute deed of gift you are afrayd it goes something against your heart but you will be presently more kind-hearted For in the next Cap. 3. n. 45. you speak thus to your aduersary You were to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as vniuersal as the tradition of the vndoubted bookes of Scripture c. not therfore in her vniuersall traditions were you to proue the Church infallible but in all her decrees and definitions of Controuersies Behold now you grant willingly and with all your heart that the present Church is infallible in her vniuersall Traditions but not in all her definitions With this your grant we remaine content for the present and for the grant of the second we shall expect your leasure for you will grant it in the end as shall be shewed in the 7. Chapter 32. This grant of the Churches infallibility in deliuering Traditions you confirme vnto vs by the authority of S. Austine cap. 3. n. 43. For to his testimony broght by Charity mantayned That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwais been kept is most rightly belieued to be deliuered by Apostolicall authority you answer Very right and what then therfore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controuersies Thus you and then you fall to skoffe at your learned Aduersary saying You are at your wits end to find some glue or soder or cement or chaine or thred or any thing to tye togeather the Autecedent and the Consequent of his Enthimemes and so wish him when he writes againe to write nothing but syllogismes I belieue what you say that in writing thus scornefully and crakingly you were at your wits end that is at that end of your wit you prefixed vnto it when
impossible to my reason therfore they are impossible ought to yield to this reason God sayth these mysteries are possible and certainly true Ergo they are possible and certainly true You wil say that though this consequence be most certaine this is the word of God Ergo it is most true yet you cannot be so certaine that this is the word of God as you are of that which you see with your eyes But this is refuted by what you say that the Scripture is proued by Tradition which is as certaine and infallible as Scripture and euidently true and credible of it selfe Ergo your beliefe of Scripture that it is the word of God is also resolued into this one reason vnto which all others must submit and yield themselues humbly subiect God sayth that these bookes are his word and infallible truth Ergo it is so these bookes are his word infallible truth so that Christian resolution of fayth euen by your own confession resteth finally vpon a reason vnto which all human reason and vnderstanding ought to submit and captiuate it selfe You see how by your contradicting your self your errours are ouer thrown and true Christianity established The ninth Conuiction 23. Lond. Edition pag. 340. lin 14. PAg. 357. lin 3. cap. 6. n. 28. thus you write I certaeinly know that I do belieue the Ghospel of Christ as it is deliuered in the vndoubted bookes of canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I belieue it vpon this motiue because I conceaue it sufficiently abundantly superabundantly proued to be diuine Reuelation And yet in this I do not depend vpon any succession of men that haue alwayes belieued it without any mixture of Errour Nay I am fully persuaded that there hath been no such succession and yet do not find ANY WEAKENESSE in my fayth but am so fully assured of the truth of it that though an Angel from heauen should gayn-say it or any part of it I persuade my selfe I should not be moued Thus you many wayes establishing the absolute certainty of Christian fayth and in direct termes contradicting what elswhere you most earnestly affirme 24. First you ouerthrow what you els where (m) Pag. 325. n. 3. say that the certainty of fayth is not equal to that of sense for now you say that you certainly know and that you are fully assured that you belieue the truth of the Ghospell as verily as that now it is day as that you see the light as that when you writ this you were writing which is most assured certainty of sense For you say you are fully assured that without depending on succession you belieue not that which you thinke to be the truth of the Gospell for euery Heretique doth so but the true Gospell consequently you are as sure that what you belieue is the true Gospell as you are sure that it is light which you see at noon-day as you are sure you write when you write And so you professe that the certainty of your fayth is equal to the greatest certainty which can be had by sense If you say you speake this not of ordinary Christian fayth which is rational grounded on reasons but of special fayth which you haue from God infused into your vnderstanding in reward of your holy life I answer this cannot be so because you speake expressely of your fayth which standes v. pon the proofes of Christianity and the motiues of credibility and of that assent which you conceaue because proued vnto you abundantly by the said reasons which is ordinary Christian fayth and so you say in this place that any man may belieue the foresayd truths vpon the foresayd motiues 24. Secondly here you affirme that Christian Religion or the Ghospel is proued to be diuine Reuelation sufficiently abundantly superabundantly to beare the weight of a most certayn and fully assured fayth wherein there is not ANY WEAKENESSE By which you ouerthrow what you say elswhere (n) Pag. 36. that Christian fayth stands vpon two legs vpon two pillars the one that whatsoeuer God reueales is true which is most strong firme immoueable the second that the Ghospel is reuealed of God which pillar you say is weake infirme and instable (o) Pag. 112. â— 154. moralty certayne but not able to beare the weight of an absolute certaine infallible essent free from all weakenesse 25. Thirdly you say that fayth built vpon the forsaid motiues is so firme and so strong so assured as you should not as you thinke be moued though an Angel from heauen should gain-say it which doth manifestly contradict and destroy what you so often contend that the assent built vpon the motiues of credibility cannot be absolutly certaine no not though it were infused into the vnderstanding from God What you say of your self you should not be moued from the fayth of the Ghospel though an Angel from heauen should gain-say it how stubborne and pertinacious in errour you may be against the light of your conscience I do not know but if your fayth of the Ghospell be not certaine and infallible if it be but a very probable seeming or a moral certainty in this case that you could stand against an Angel from heauen prudently and according to the right dictamen of conscience this I will belieue if you can make me belieue that a Shilling-worth is as much as an Angell-worth Otherwise what greater folly then for a meere mortall man of so weake memory and miserable discourse as he cannot write three pages together in good sense without contradicting himself to preferre his priuate seeming his human fallible certainty his moral probabilities that this is Gods word before the word of an Angell and all the arguments he can bring against it 26. I conclude with this demonstration for the infallibility of our Christian fayth God commandeth all Christians and requires of them vnder payne of damnation to stand constant in the beliefe of the Ghospell euen against an Angell from heauen that should Euangelize to the contrary as you suppose truly this being the very doctrine of S. Paul Gal. 1.8 But except God did infuse into the heart of euery true belieuing Christian a most certaine vndoubted infallible assent and adherence to the Ghospel this command were vniust vnreasonable and such a precept as no man prudently might obserue For it cannot be wisdome to oppose the testimony of men and seeming probabilities of reason against the word of an Angel against Angelicall reasons and discourse Ergo God doth infuse and bindeth all Christians to admit a most certaine and infallible assent of the truth of the Ghospel and of Christian Religion That Christian Religion and Tradition is pure and incorrupt both in the fountayne and streame CHAP. III. WHAT may haue been your personal intention in penning and publishing of this worke the searcher of hearts knoweth best The end wherunto your course driueth the
points not fundamentall as being not only cleerely reuealed in Scripture as some points not fundamentall may be but also cleerely commanded vnto the beliefe of all vnder paine of damnation as vn-fundamentall points cannot be What more easy for a man that hath eyes then to discerne the places of a garden on which the Sunne shineth from those on which it shineth not but are shaded from his beames When light from heauen shined on the howses and habitations of the Israëlites Exod 10. and not on the houses and habitations of the Aegyptians was it an intricate peece of businesse for a man not blind to haue discerned the one from the other But you affirme often and earnestly that it is a thing of extreme great diffieulty yea morally impossible to distinguish in Scripture things fundamentall from things not fundamentall Ergo they are not cleerely commaunded in Scripture and consequently some things necessary to wit Cap. 4. n. 42. some diuine commandes of fayth the obseruance of which is fundamentall to the couenant betwixt God and man for their Saluation are not contayned in Scripture at all or else only intricately and obscurely (a) Cap. 4. n. 40. n. 43. lin 4. The eighth Conuiction 24. BY the discouery of this contradiction your cheefe or rather onely argument for the sufficiency of Scripture is answered (a) Cap. 4. n. 40. n. 43. lin 4. Pag. 210. lin 28. pag. 212. lin 1. you affirme that in the sole Ghospell of S. Lake all necessary things are contayned so that in other bookes of Scripture (b) Cap. 4. n. 42. namely in the Ghospell of S. Iohn whatsoeuer is reuealed ouer and aboue that in S. Luke is indeed profitable truth but not necessary or fundamentall This you proue because S. Luke in the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles sayth The former treatise haue I made O Theophilus of all that Iesus began to do and teach This argument you of ten inculcate and prosecute with great vehemency and according to your almost perpetual ridiculous manner of disputing with a cart load of interrogations but in fine the substance of all the difficultie is how could S. Luke truly say that he had written a treatise of all that Iesus began to do and teach if he haue left some necessary doctrines and fundamentall matters vnwritten 25. In this argument you contradict in plaine tearmes both S. Iohn and your selfe shewing your want of Christianity in the one your want of wit memory consideration in the other The Eternall Generation of Christ whereby he is the only begotten of God in the bosome of his Father is no where cleerely deliuered in the Ghospell of S. Luke yea your Socinians collect out of his Ghospell many strong arguments as they conceaue against this article of our fayth And yet the same is cleerely deliuered in the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the beliefe thereof commanded vnto all expressely vnder payne of damnation Iohn 3.18 He that belieueth is not iudged he that belieueth not is already iudged because he hath not belieued in the name of the only begotten Sonne of God (a) Also ver 36. He that belieueth not the Sone shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth in him How can you belieue in the Ghospell of S. Iohn not belieue the Eternall Generation of the Sonne of God and the eternal damnation of the disbelieuers thereof and consequently that there is some necessary commanded truth in S. Iohns Ghospell aboue the Ghospell of S. Luke 26. You also contradict your selfe and ouerthrow this your so often asserted plenitude of S. Lukes Ghospell by obiecting out of the Ghospell of S. Iohn the Precept of Communion in both kinds as a thing necessary to be knowne belieued yea practised of all aswell of the Clergy as Laytie for in proofe of this in your conceite so necessary truth you produce not any text word or syllable out of S. Luke Yea S. Luke is so farre from teaching the necessity of both kindes as he signifies the contrary cleerely inough Luke â— 22. v. 19. For in his narration of the Eucharist how it was instituted he doth expressely note that our Lord deliuering the Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread said Do this in remembrance of me but in deliuering the Chalice he makes no mention of any such command To this institution coÌ„formable was our Lords practice recorded by (c) Luke 24.21 S. Luke that in Emmaus he gaue the two difciples that were laymen the Eucharist in the forme only of consecrated bread Nor is S. Luke his saying that he had written his former treatise of all things Iesus began to do and teach to be restrayned to necessary things onely his words being all thinges absolutely without limitation He writ then all thinges not only necessary but also profitable which he iudged fit for the end purpose of his writing which was not as you fondly imagine to set out a Catechisme or briefe Summe of Christian doctrine but to write such a History of the whole life of our Lord as might serue to confirme and assure (d) Luk. cap. 1. v. 4. That thou mightst know the certainty of these things wherein thou hast beene instructed Christians in the beliefe of that forme of Doctrine in which they had been instructed catechized and christened by the Apostles and other Apostolicall men 27. I coÌ„clude this Chapter with noting the extreme misery pouerty futility of your whole booke Do not you say in your Preface n. 34. that this Principle all things necessary are euidently contayned in Scripture is not onely the corner stone and chiefe pillar but euen the base and adaequate fouÌ„dation of your answer Now this Principle not being prime immediate or euident of it selfe you haue not brought for it any solide argument or proofe The plenitude of the other Ghospels besides S. Lukes you dare not so confidently maintayne you (e) Pag. 210. lin 25. Of all the foure Euangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent Cap. 4. n. 43. say no more but that it is very probable that in ech of them all necessary things are deliuered you (f) Pag. 212. lin 2. stand absolutely only vpon the Ghospel of S. Luke that therein all is contayned which is so false and vayne as it is contradicted euen by your selfe nor do any Protestants hold it but onely Socinâ—aâ—s who by pretending this fulnes of S. Luke his Gospell would put off the necessity of belieuing the Gospell of S. Iohn and the high mysteries therof and so you had good reason to terme this principle by you so stoutly and perpetually auouched so poorely and miserably proued the adaequate Base of your Booke That there is one visible Society of Christians infallible in all her Proposalls knowne vnto all by subordination to one visible Head or Pastour CHAP. V. IN proofe of this Title omitting many other I produce only two or
this office may be giuen to none but whome God hath designed for it And pag. 59. n. 17. In ciuill Controuersies euery henest vnderstanding man is fit to be Iudge but in matters of Religion none but he that is infallible 10. The Minor also you deliuer often but specially in two places Cap. 2. n. 162. explicating a Conclusion defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. That the Church hath authority to determine Controuersies of fayth obrected by your Aduersary you answere Me thinkes so subtill a man as you are should easily apprehend a wyde difference betweene authority to do a thing and infallibility in doing it againe betweene a conditionall infallibility and an absolute The former the Doctour togeather with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church and I subscribe to this opinion that is an authority in determining Controuersies of fayth according to plain and euident Scripture and vniuersall Tradition infallibility so long as they proceed according to this rule As if there arise an Heretique that should call in question Christs Passion and Resurrection the Church had authority to decred this Controuersie and infallible direction how to do it and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in errour I hope you will not deny but that Iudges haue authority to determine criminall and ciuill Controuersies and yet I hope you wil not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallible while they proceed according to law if they do so but not infallibly that they shall euer do so Thus you Now let the Reader be Iudge whether it be not a thing in you both ridiculous and hatefull to be still vanting of the subtilty of your wit and reproaching want thereof to your Aduersarie whereas your subtilties be grosse contradictions of your selfe that I am euen amazed how any man could be so forgetfull and voyd of consideration You say there is a wyde difference betweene authority to decide matters of Religion and Infallibility in doing it which you proue because Iudges haue authority to determine criminal and ciuill Controuersies and yet are not absolutely infallible but infallible only conditionally if they proceed according to law Now this your subtility your selfe condemnes for ignorant folly as not considering the wide difference betwixt Iudges in ciuill Controuersies and Iudges with authority to determine matters of fayth that the former may be fallible but not the later Be not these your very wordes pag. 59. lin vlt. and pag. 60. lin 1. In ciuill Controuersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible How then do you now distinguish betwixt a Iudge and an infallible Iudge in matters of Religion 11. Your other distinction also of Infallibility absolute and conditionall is a meere fopperie as you declare it and by attributing only conditionall infallibility to the Church you contradict your selfe For you say in ciuill Contronersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible heere you attribute greater infallibility to the Church or Ecclesiasticall Iudge then to a Iudge in ciuill causes But you say a Iudge in ciuill affaires is infallible conditionally if he proceed according to law Ergo the Church is infallible absolutely so that she cānot erre in her definitions and sentences but still proceed according to the diuine law or sacred Scripture Besides the Church is infallible in a higher and absoluter manner then euery priuate Christian But euery priuate Christian is infallible conditionally to wit while he proceeds according to the true and vndoubted sense of Scripture Ergo the Conclusion of Oxford The Church hath authority to determine Controuersies of fayth was by the defendant Doctour vnderstood of infallible authority or els it was a meere mockery Moreouer authority to determine Controuersies of fayth must be sufficient to make the determination to be an assured stay wheron Christian fayth may securely rely which before was not knowne to be such otherwise there is no determination of fayth but fayth about that point remaynes as vncertayne and vnderermined as it was before But a Iudge absolutely fallible and only conditionally infallible cannot determine any controuersy infallibly that Fayth may determine to belieue it without danger of being deceaued Againe you say pag. 337. n. 20. A questionable guide for mens direction is as good as none at all But the Church infallible only conditionally that is if perchance she hit vpon the true sense of Scripture is a guide or determiner of Controuersies questionable because after such a determination the question still remaynes vndecided whether that be the true sense of Scripture Adde heereunto that Protestants do not attribute so much as this conditionall infallibility to the Church that her determinations are infallible when they are according to plaine and euident Scripture For they will not belieue Transubstantiation though they grant that the Lateran Councell defining it proceeded according to the plaine and euident sense of Scripture Morton of the Sacrament lib. 2. initio If sayth D. Morton the words of Christ This is my Body be certainly true in the proper literall sense we must yield to Papists the whole cause Transubstantiation corporall and materiall Presence c So that the Church is not infallible with Protestants if she proceed according to the plaine proper and litterall sense of Scripture but only when she hits on those figuratiue tropicall improper senses they fancy to themselues And I pray you giue me a reason why the Catholike Church may not condemne you for expounding figuratiuely symbolically tropically the text of Scripture deliuering Transubstantiation according to the playne proper and literall sense as well as she may condemne any Heretique that should expound the place of Scripture about our Lords Passion and Resurrection figuratiuely against the plaine proper and litteral sense Finally wheras you say the Church is to determine Controuersies not only by the rule of plaine Scripture but also of vniuersall Tradition you say a truth against the whole drift of your booke that the Bible is the only rule and against what you write Cap. 2. n. 155. nothing but Scripture comes to vs with a full streame of Tradition and so besides Scripture there is no vnwritten doctrine 12. A third place yet more cleere for the Churches totall infallibility you haue cap. 2. n. 77. where you grant the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth by office Our Sauiour sayd to his disciples yee are the salt of the earth not that this quality was inseparable from their persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity in vaine had he put them in feare of that which followes If the salt haue lost his sauour wherewith shall it be salted So the Church may be by duty the pillar ground of Truth of all truth not onely necessary but also