Communion in one kind for Laymen was not practised by our Lord and Sauiour giuen vnto the two (a) Luc. 24.30.31 lay Disciples in Emmaus Was not the Latin seruice euery where in vse during the Primitiue tymes I meane (b) Ang. lib 2 de doctrine Christ. c. 11. in all Countryes of Europe and Africke which did pertayne to the Latin part of the word Was not Purgatory belieued and (c) Machab l. 2. c. 12. prayer for the reliefe of the dead practised by the people of God euen before the Ghospell was written Do not (d) Morton of the Sacramēt lib. 2. c. 1. pag. 91. If the words of Christ be certainly true in proper and literal sense then are we to yield Transubstantiation c. Protestants professe that Transubstantiation is as true and ancient as the Ghospell if the words of our Lord be certainly true in the plaine and proper sense And be not his words true in that sense he spake them though the same be neuer so high obscure to human vnderstanding incomprehensible But your discourse though alwayes without hornes of Conuiction of what you obiect to vs you will be sure it shall neuer be without hornes of stiffe and direct Contradiction against your selfe for euen this short period hath two hornes of this kind First where you say We damne all to Hell fire that any way differ from vs whereas more then fourty times in your booke you say you (e) pag. 404. lin 7. We censure your errours as heauily as you do ours damne vs to Hell as much as we do you and that we grant (f) Pag. 283. n. 74. lin 15. You your selfe affirme that ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may be saued Saluation to Protestants as much as they do to vs. Secondly you say heere that the Scripture is the sole and adaequate obiect of your faith but else where you say often that it is no obiect of your fayth at all but only the meanes of belieuing Cap. 2. n. 32. lin 5. Scripture conteynes all materiall obiects of fayth whereof the Scripture is NONE but ONELY the meanes of conueying them to vs. 14. Now to our purpose I take out of your dunghill this gem of cleere and manifest truth worthy of S. Austin his diuine wit and fayth that the Church which preferreth authority which is euidently credible of it selfe the pillar and ground of truth must not consist of a few but be diffused and spread ouer the world nor of turbulent persons that are full of discord and contention one against another but all agreeing in full vnity about matters of fayth not a new Church founded in after tymes but instituted by the blessed Apostles adorned with an illustrious succession of knowne Bishops to this present which is the very Maior proposition of my Argument which was that the Church which is the pillar and ground that is the teacher alwaies without fayle of all necessary truth must be both of one Denomination and Catholique that is vniuersally Apostolicall by succession of Bishops from them one and the same euery where for matters of faith For if it be not such but a company of a few in one corner of the world deuided into innumerable factions and sectes founded not by the Apostles but only yesterday or within the memory of men it can preferre no authority 15. Now Ecclesia totum poffidet quod a viro accepit in dotem quaecunque congregatio cuiustibet haeresis in angulis sedet concubina est non matrona Augustin l. 4. de symb c. 10. what more euident then the Minor of my former argument No Church of the World but the Roman is adorned with these glorious markes she wing the euident credibility of that Church in which they are For dare you say your Protesting Church is dilated ouer the word Is it not confined to one corner of Europe and reigneth most in the climate which is most North Quod latus mundi nebulae malusque Iupiter vrget Can you say that your Church is one the same euery where and not deuided into turbulent factions and iects Do not you say (a) Pag. 90. lin 12. there is among them infinite variance and King Iames (b) Against D. Vorstius pag. 65. an infinite diuersity of Sects agreeing in nothing but in vnion against the Pope Can you say it is Apostolicall hauing succession from the Apostles Do not you confesse it began but yesterday by deuiding themselues from the externall communion of the Roman and whole Catholique Church 16. On the other side can you deny the Roman to be spread ouer the world to be in Europe Africke Asia America almost in all countries of these foure quaters of the world euery where famously knowne that euery man that will be saued may come to this rocke be built thereon vnto euerlasting saluation For what you say cap. 6. n. 53. That the Roman Church is like the frog in the fable who thoght the ditch he liued in to be all the world is a speach not of truth and reason but of preiudice passion which education hath instilled into you the passion I say and custome of lying and vttering any falshood or scornefull reproach that may disgrace the Roman Church This you do without remorse of Conscience because you say you are sure without doubt Pag. 137. n. 19. God will not enter into Iudgement with you for such passions which custome and education haue made to you vnauoydahle Which I will belieue if you can make me sure that God did not damne to Hell Nero Domitian and such other Monsters for their pride and contempt of God and preiudices against Religion which by education and custome were to them all things considered vnauoydable 17. The Church of Rome is also Apostolicall by a notorious succession of Bishops from S. Peter that we may with S. Austyn (c) Aug. in Psal contra partem Donati say to you Number the Bishops succeeding in the sea of Peter this is the Rocke the proud gates of Hell do not conquer This Church is also the same euery where in all the professours thereof for matters of Fayth This you confesse pag. 129. and very wittily and prettily contradict your selfe within few lines In that pag. 129. n. 4. you speake to vs If you say you do agree in matters of Fayth I say this is ridiculous For you define matters of Fayth to be those things wherein you agree so that to say you agree in all matters of fayth is to say you agree in those things wherein you do agree But you are all agreed that onely those things wherein you agree are matters of Fayth And Protestants if they were wyse would do so to Sure I am they haue reason inough to do so seeing all of them agree with explicite fayth in all those things which are plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Thus you Is not this a wise discourse of a man who
THE CHVRCH CONQVERANT OVER HVMANE WIT. OR The Churches Authority demonstrated by M. VVilliam Chillingvvorth the Proctour for VVit against her his perpetual Contradictions in his booke entituled The Religion of Protestants a safe VVay to Saluation In ventre Ecclesiae Veritas manet Quisquis ab hoc ventre separatus fuerit necesse est vt falsa loquatur Aug. in Ps 57. v. 4. Permissu Superiorum 1638. THE PREFACE WHOSOEVER hath attentiuely perused the Booke the Confutation wherof I haue vndertaken cannot but with horrour perceaue therein a direct and often iterated exprobation made to the whole Army of the liuing God For he chargeth as subiect to vniuersall damnable Errours not only the present Catholike Church and that of some later tymes before but also the most prime and Primitiue (a) Pag. 292. nu 91. Ages of the 5.4.3.2 by Name yea the Church Apostolicall the (b) Pag. 144. n. 31. Blessed Apostles themselues euen after they had receaued the Holy Ghost 2. Against this Defyer and Challenger of the Church of God as I did hartily wish so did I hopefully expect that of the famous Vniuersity in the sight and hearing wherof this hatefull exprobation was made an Vniuersity stored with so many well experienced warriours and redoubted Champions some one would haue appeared in field with the complete Armour of Christian inuincible learning My desire was grounded on feare least otherwayes in the iudgment of Posterity the most vnpartiall Arbiter of former demerits this Nursery of sciences in ancient tymes so renowned for Christian piety and learning might be thought to haue wanted in this occasion either Knowledge of Theology to discerne or Maturity of Iudgment to consider or Zeale of Christianity to detest or Grace of Elocution to confute such vnchristian Principles 3. What may haue been the cause of this their forbearance I will not passe my Iudgment Whatsoeuer it were I am confident of their Christianity that they will approue fauour and applaud Christianity maintayned and say with S. Paul (c) Philip 1.18 so that Christ be preached any manner of way I ioy therein and will ioy Which Treatise if they haue read ouer perused I dare say they haue found therin a little Dauid short and solid pious and pithy learned and religious armed with smooth stones of cleere Truth gathered from the current of Christian Tradition deliuered by the Pastorall slinge of the Churches Authority On the other side a mighty Giant destitute of all the signes and markes of a Christian souldier armed neither with the authority of the present Christian Church nor perpetuall Traditions nor Councells nor Consent of Fathers nor with their single sentences which he reiects as Bul-rushes of no strength 4. He layeth claime to the Armour of light the Holy Bible but this is only to daunt his Aduersary with words not to vse the same in deeds For neuer Writer appeared in matter of Controuersy more bare then he is of this kind of proofe He hath cited twice or thrice some texts of Scripture so few and so short that I dare say al the words of Scripture vrged in his Booke against vs may be cōprized in ten lynes He cōfideth only in the launce of his Dialectical Discourse (d) Discourse grounded on Scripture by the neuer fayling rules of Logicke Preface n. 12. which he presumeth he can deliuer so assuredly by the stronge Arme of his Human Reason and dexterity of naturall Wit as euer infallibly (e) By discourse no man can possibly be lead into Errour ibid. to hit the marke of reuealed Truth 5. That short Treatise as I said of Christianity maintayned hath foyled this daring challenger by a stroke on the forehead by laying open his Principles how they destroy Christianity wherby he cannot but fall to the ground in the Iudgment of all Christian Churches The spoyles of his victory he leaueth to his Armiger to gather that he may also haue part of the honour and in the glorious victory which is as (f) Epist. 84. S. Hierome sayth cum Dauide extorquere gladium de aduersarij manibus superbissimi Goliae caput proprio mucrone truncare to confute and make away with the heads of his erroneous doctrine by the force of his owne sword his words sayings and principles 6. To take this course for the Confutation of his Booke I was vrged by Necessity and Charity Necessity against an Aduersary who denyeth all the Principles of Christian fayth He often repeates with much pride but still without proofe (g) Pag. 376. lin 6. pag. 131. lin 27. I see plainly and with my owne eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councells against Councels some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselues a consent of Fathers in one age against a consent of Fathers in another age the Church of one age against the Church of another Age. Scripture remaynes which he doth though not so openly and professedly yet cleerely and manifestly discard as a contradictious witnes For he teacheth that in respect of making a thing incredible or of no credit it is all one (h) Pag. 215. lin 16. whether the Contradictions be reall or only seeming So that a writing full of seeming contradictions can be of no more credit with vs then if the contradictions were reall Now he professeth that (i) Pag. 136. n. 9. lin 15. in all Controuersies betwixt Protestants one with another which are innumerable there is still a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture that the Scripture may with so great probabilities be alleaged on both sides that we (k) Pag. 41. l. 7. may expect an Elias to reconcile the repugnances If then the Scripture be to our seeming full of conflicts and irreconciliable repugnances as well as Popes Councells Fathers how can it be of more authority credit 7. Who doth not see that there is no way to deale with this man but to hamper him in the knots of his owne speach from the Authority wherof he will not disclayme He is not (l) Pag. 152. l. 15. an Idolatour of S. Austen but of himselfe D Field (m) Pag. 84. n. 86. is not infallible but he is Optatus (n) Pag. 298. n. 97. his sayings be not fit to determine controuersies of Fayth but his are S. Cyprians (o) Pag. 268. n. 44. sentences be not a rule of faith but his be The Scripture is full of seeming cōflicts Contradictions and irreconciliable Repugnances but he will neuer confesse so much of his owne Booke There be Christian Ages against Christian Ages but he will thinke we do him wronge if we say that in his writings Pages are repugnant to Pages yea many tymes sentences of the same Page are at deadly food the one with the other This then is the way to confute and confound him to shew that being lead by passion one way and by the euidence of truth another he hath spokē seelily vaynely against the Authority of the
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
You are a company of men vn willing and afrayd to vnderstand least you should do good that haue eyes to see but will not see that haue not the loue of the truth and therfore deserue to be giuen ouer to stronge delusions men that loue darknesse more then light in a word you are the blind leading the blind Thus you And this is the flat downe right plain songe you promised your reader without any discords in it for it is rust that tune of concord and harmonious concent which scoldes vse to singe when they rayle at some modest Matrone You will I trust find by experience that we are not all such Cowards blind men and beasts as you make vs you will see that considering we haue considered your Babylon with lights and haue bene bold to enter into the darkest corners and dennes of your booke and find your Lions to be but of the Cuman kind Will not you say I haue made a diligent and seuere search into your booke if I can out of it produce two propositions which ioyned togeather conclude in good forme against your head what I am loath to vtter worse blindnesse then you object to vs wheras the present Church is not capable of such folly 26. None can belieue contradictions at once but such as are Fooles and haue their braynes crackt This you suppose Cap. 6. n. 33. lin 14. vnlesse you will say that they S. Austin and the African Bishop◠were all so foolish as to belieue direct contradictions at once And c. 5. nu 105. lin 40. (a) 2. Edit pag. 292. n. 105. lin 40. Who can ioyne togeather in one brayne not crackt these assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable In the Roman Church there are no errors at all And (b) 2. Edit pag. 10. lin ◠Pag. 10 lin 12. It is an apparent contradiction That a man should dis belieue what himselfe belieues to be a truth And 2. Edit pag. 10. lin ◠Cap. 5. n. 59. That a man who is persuaded that your Church doth erre in these things should together belieue these things true is implicatio in termini as Schoolemen speake a contradiction so plaine as one word destroyeth the other Thus you and yet that foolery that men may belieue contradictions at once you affirme and proue it by your owne experience (d) 2. Edit pag. 20◠lin 6. Pag. 215. lin 3. Though there can be no damnable Heresy vnlesse it cōtradict some necessary truth yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresy and this Truth because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions Thus you wherein you manifestly contradict your selfe and practise what you say no man can do whose braynes be not crakt For what contradiction can be more plaine direct then this betwixt your two sayings It is no contradistion that a man belieue contradictions at once the same doctrine to be heresy and truth It is apparent contradiction so plaine as one word destroyeth another that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions or should belieue that to be Falshood which he belieues to be Truth 27. No man therfore in his wits can belieue contradictions at once only crackt brayns can thinke they do it when they do it not as mad-men imagine they fly when they rest in their bed In which number you ranke your selfe Cap. 4. n. 47. Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions I willingly grant but to say it is impossible is against euery mans experience and allmost as vnreasonable as to do the thing which is said to be impossible Thus you that other men besides your selfe belieue or think they belieue in their heart contradictions at once you cannot say but only by the experience you haue of your selfe that you do in your conceyt hartily belieue contradictions and therupon imagine that other men doe the like Now put togeather your two assertions Whosoeuer thinketh he can belieue contradictions at once is a foolish creature hath his brayne crackt I William Chillingworth know by experience that I can belieue contradictions as the same time What of this O that you would conclude what these premises vrge you vnto Therfore I will neuer more trust my owne wit and discourse in matters of religion I wil abandon those false principles Preface n. 12. He that followeth his owne discourse still followeth God By discourse no man can possibly be lead into errour I will take the Church for my guide which is constant in the truth and cannot oppose herselfe as I my selfe confesse 28. For so you do (f) 2. Edit p. 32. lin 7 Pag. 33. lin 9. It is impossible the Church should oppose the Church I meane the present Church oppose it selfe Now seeing men are naturâmendaces mutable subiect to errour to change and to be contrary to themselues this impossibility of opposing it selfe which you attribute to the Church must of necessity be acknowledged to be a Diuine priuiledge caused by the continuall assistāce of the spirit of Wisdome in whom and his doctrine there is not est and non est 2. Cor. 1.18 as the Apostle sayth Hence I conclude the infallibility of the Church You say Pag. 215. lin 29. that he that belieues the Bible and togeather belieues some errours against the Bible contradicteth himselfe belieuing contradictions at once But it is impossible you say that the present Church should oppose and contradicte it selfe Therfore it is impossible that the present Church belieuing the Bible should hold any errour against the Bible 29. Except perchance you will say that the Church can do thinges impossible as you say your selfe can In proofe wherof I giue one instance insteed of many Your aduersary vrgeth you often hard to set downe a Catalogue of your Fundamentals of fayth You after many tergiuersations say at last (h) 2. Edit 193. lin 10. Pag. 201. lin 25. To set downe a catalogue of Fundamentalls because to some more (g) 2. Edit pag. 206. lin 27. is fundamentall to others lesse to others nothing at all had bene impossible And (i) 2. Edit pag. 129. l. 15. Pag. 134. lin 25. This variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of fundamentalls and proues your request as vnreasonable as if you should desire vs to make a coate to sit the Moone in all her changes Can you make this impossible Catalogue of the Fundamentalls of your Church that is a coate for the moone in all her changes Yes surely you say you can (k) 2. Edit pag. 154. l. 21. Pag. 160. n. 53. lin 25. I could giue you an abstract of the essential parts of christianity if it were necessary but I haue shewed it not so and at this time I haue no leasure to do you courtesies so trouble some to my selfe Thus you Nor will we request
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
you vndertooke to answer Charity mantayned For it appeareth by your vntaught base manner of answering that your end was only by petulant abusing the modesty of the Authour to obscure as much as you might the cleere truth of that excellent Worke. So you doe here forging an Enthimeme he neuer thought on making a conclusion which he did not intend to proue in this place and yet would you turne your wit the right way and vse it to that end for which God bestowed the same on you you would easily find a proposition which doth tye the Antecedent and Consequent euen of this by you so scorned Enthymene with an vnsoluble knot 33. But to my purpose you grant with S. Austin that whatsoeuer the whole Church holds and deliuers not as a thing ordayned by Councels but as alwaies kept is most righty beliened to be an Apâ—stolical Tradition so that the testimony of the present Church in deliuering traditions is credible and most worthy to be belicued for it selfe without other proofe and (p) Edit pag 113. n. 163. li. 26. pag. 119. n. 12. you say S. Austen sayes that Christ hath recommended the Church to vs for a credible Witnesse of ancient Tradition not for an infallible Definer of all emergent CoÌ„trouersies which supposed I would know how with this truth that can consist which you write (q) 2. Edit p. 61. lin 1. Pag. 63. lin 30. The truth is that neither the Scripture nor the present Church hath any thing to do in this matter for the question which be Canonical bookes cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Church How hath the present Church nothing to do in deciding the question which be canonical bookes if her testimony be infallible in this matter if herein she do the part of a credible witnesse Haue you any glue or sodder or cement or chayne or threed to tye these your two sayings togeather Or rather haue you any chaine to kepe them asunder that they come not to fight and mutually to murther ech other Also what you say (r) 2. Edit pag. 147. lin 1. Paeg. 152. lin 44. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical c. who can secure vs that human inuentions might not in a short time gayne reputation of Apostolique how doth this agree with what you say in the next lines after Cap. 3. n. 45. That the Church in her vniuersall Traditions is as infallible as Scripture Do not you also affirme That Tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by credible for it selfe fit to be rested on how can this be true if we can haue no warrant no security but that the vniuersal Traditions of the Church may be false and forged not deliuered by the Apostles but à quocunque traditore inuentions of men and if there be no warrant but that vniuersal Traditions may be false what warrant is there that you haue the true vncorupt text of Scripture not depraued by the secret creeping in of damnable errours Do not you say Pag. 55. n. 8. that these bookes cannot be proued Canonicall but only by Tradition and cap. 2. n. 114. It is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue men to belieue Scripture If then vniuersal Tradition be fallible if there be no warrant no security of the certainty therof how are you secure that you haue the true text of the true Canonical bookes of Scripture But of this more in the next Chapter 34. By what hath bene said your so often repeated yea perpetuall and only argument of the circle is shewed to be friuolous and you running about therin haue made your head so dizzy as you forget your selfe For in arguing you alwayes presume without any proofe that the infallibility of the present Church deliuering Traditions or which is all one that the credibility of the vniuersal Tradition of the Church is not euident of it selfe A supposition which you neuer would haue presumed had not that bene out of your mind which you often affirme and confirme that the authority of vniuersal Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on No lesse vnproued yea more worthy to be reprou'd is your other b presumption that we do not so much as pretend that there are certaine euident notes to know the true Church and discerne it from all others nor that it is euident of it selfe that those notes agree only to our Church all men will wonder how you could be so ignorant or not being ignorant how you would be so bold For who doth not know we teach that the Church is knowne by visible markes euen euident to sense as succession Vniuersality and Vnity and that these markes do shine manifestly and conspicuosly only in the Roman Christianity Which truth is a necessary sequele of your doctrine That tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by fit to be rested on and euidently credible for it selfe Behold the deduction therof 35. That Church only is the true christian Church which hath vniuersall Tradition of Doctrines euidently credible for it selfe This is cleare because if Tradition credible of it selfe be the rule to iudge all Controuersies by and the only meanes to know which be Canonicall Scriptures then the Church which wants Tradition credible of it selfe wants the fundamentall Principle and ground of all Christianity and so cannot be the true christian Church But that Church only hath Tradition of doctrines credible of it selfe whose Tradition of Doctrines is euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles euidently vniuersall by diffusion ouer the world euidently one and the same in the mouth of all the reporters therof For Tradition which is not perpetuall from the Apostles but hath a knowne after-beginning wants credibility that it is Christian Tradition which is not vniuersall and notorious to the whole world but clancular and in a corner wants credibility that it is from the Apostles and the sound of their vniuersall preaching Tradition which is not one and the same but dissonant in the mouth of diuers reporters wants credibility that it is from truth and not a deuise of human fiction or of deceiued discourse from Scripture Ergo the Church whose Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe must be euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles Vniuersall by the notorious preaching of her Tradition diffused ouer the world One and the same and vniforme in all her Professours so that they all agree in the beleefe of all doctrine deliuered vnto them by the full consent of Tradition For they who of Traditions deliuered by full consent choose some and reiect others are Choosers that is Heretiques Nor can such Choosers choose but there will be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ variety of choyce and consequently dissension wherby they will appeare a company voyd of all authority and credit to testify what is the true Christian Tradition from the Apostles These be
the markes wherby the true Christian Catholique Church is knowne which to be found in the Church of Rome only shall be shewed in the seauenth Chapter though I cannot but presume the thing is to euery considering man euident inough Wherefore Catholiques and all true Christians do not choose their Church or Religion by their owne naturall reason and witt but Tradition notorious and euident of it selfe Perpetuall Vniuersall Vniforme shewes them the Church and with her and in her that Religion which was for them chosen ordayned deliuered by the wisedome of Christ Iesus brought by him from the bosome of his heauenly Father You see then that in granting Tradition to be the ground of all Christian beliefe you haue graÌ„ted as much as we can desire and howsoeuer you be pleased to terme vs vnconsidering men yet we haue considered the sequels of your assertions perchance more deeply then you haue done your selfe That the assent to Gods VVord of Christian sauing Faith is not meere human morall and probable but Diuine infallible and certainly vnerring CHAP. II. THE contrary errour cozen german to the refuted in the former Chapter consequent therupon is often inculcated by you in your booke That an infallible faith (a) Cap. 6. n. 6. is not necessary vnto saluation nor for our walking vnto happinesse through a world of oppositions backt by the strength of flesh and blood A weake probable and credible assurance that there is an Heauen sufficeth though (b) Cap. 1. n. 8. versus finem vndiscernable from the beleefe we giue to other human hystories It is inough men belieue the Gospell and mysteries of faith (c) Cap. 6. n. 5. l. 28. as much as Cesars Commentaries or the history of Salust That men are not bound nor is it possible they should belieue (d) Preface n. 8. in fine thinges impossible in human reason (e) Cap. 6. n. 7. in fine That we should belieue the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot be made euident with euidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of vs this for any man to be bouÌ„d to is vniust because to do it is impossible As sure as God is good he will not require impossibilities of vs but (f) Cap. 6. n 7. circa medium infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it selfe yet is not made to appeare to vs to be infallible certaine is an impossibility These and the like nullifidian Pardoxes you often vtter and endeauour to proue which are plausible and applauded by those S. Peter termeth vnlearned and vnstable heads Varro who now passe vnder the name of Gallant wits whose life we may feare is sutable to the leuity and vanity of their Faith Nam quae venustas hic adest Gallantibus Quae casta vestis These doctrines I say be welcome to such as groane vnder the (g) Nam vera Religio omnino sine graui Authoritatis imperâ—o intri rectè nuilo pacto potest August de vtil Cred. Cap. 9. yoke of humble obedience to Gods word vnder Christian duty of belieuing things inuisible the reuealed manner whereof is incomprehensible to humane vnderstanding who because they find difficulty to do it will not endeauour by Gods grace to rayse their erring and wandring thoughts and stay them by firme and fixed faith on high and heauenly obiects For as (h) Ser. 2. de Asconsione S. Leo saith it is the vigour only of generous mindes to belieue without doubt what comes not within sight and there to rest with our heart whither we cannot reach with our eye And because you accuse Catholiques that they require men to yield vpon only probable prudentiall (i) Pag. 79. n. 70. Vpon prudentiall motiues fallible and vncertaine grounds motiues (i) Pag. 79. n. 70. Vpon prudentiall motiues fallible and vncertaine grounds most certaine assent to thinges impossible in human reason that the falshood of this slaunder may be made apparent I must briefly declare our Catholique doctrine together proue it which shall be of this your errour The first Conuiction 2. TO the constitution of an assent absolutely infallible fiue thinges concurre all which by the consent of Catholique Deuines are most certaine and infallible in the assent of Christian faith 1. The Obiect with is doctrine reuealed of God 2. The motiue and reason of belieuing which is the Authority of God reuealing whose veracity is altogether infallible 3. Because we belieue Reuelations not made immediatly to our selues but to the blessed Apostles it is necessary there be a Proponent of Gods word that is a Witnesse worthy of all credit an Authority whereon we may securely rely that those Christian doctrines were deliuered and preached by the Apostles as Diuine Reuelations This Proponent and Witnesse is the present Catholique Church deliuering what she receaued by full vniuersall tradition from her Ancestours or which is the same in effect vniuersall Tradition Now we hold tradition to be altogether as infallible as Scripture and that it ought to be receaued with the same reuerence with the same submissiue deuotion of pious beliefe as Scripture as you acknowledge that we do chap. 2. n. 1. 3. Fourthly that an assent be infallible it is necessary that the thing belieued be represented and proposed to the Vnderstanding of the belieuer in such manner as he may know the same to be infallible and that in belieuing it he cannot possibly erre For the manner of belieuing if it be not knowne to the belieuer to be infallible though it be infallible in it selfe will not make him sure and infallible This condition is found in the assent of Christian fayth for the things to be belieued are represented as cleer by noted and marked with diuine and supernaturall proofes that is confirmed with innumerable manifest miracles which the belieuers haue seen with their eyes or else know them by the report of whole worlds of those that beheld them by report so full constant brim as it is equiualent to the euidence of sense These Diuine proofes and markes euidently shew that the things marked with them are vnder the speciall care of God and of his infinite goodnesse that he cannot but prouide that the pious belieuer be not deceaued about them 4. Hereby is concluded that the Christian manner of apprehending the mysteries of faith is infallible more sure and certaine then any manner of naturall representation and apprehension of things can possibly be Naturall knowledge is eyther Physicall whereby we apprehend things as true because represented as such by the euidence of sense or Metaphysicall whereby we apprehend things as true by the light of vnderstanding which cleerly beholds the necessary connexion the thing apprehended hath with truth As in this proposition Euery whole thing is greater then any single part thereof our vnderstanding by the notion of the single wordes presently without discourse sees and belieues the truth of the speach Neyther of these
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
marke wherat it aymeth the worke it laboureth with all might and mayne to bring to passe is the total ouerthrowe of Christianity In the first Chapter I haue shewed that you resolue Christian Religion into naturall reason wherby you destroy the Diuinity therof In the second that you make the same to stand vpon principles and motiues credible but fallible wherby you vndermine the absolute certainty therof In this third Chapter I am to shew you ouerthrow the truth therof and make the same stayned with ignorance and errour not only in the whole current of Tradition from the Apostles but also in the fountayne therof the holy Ghospel and in our Sauiour and Lord Christ Iesus the Authour The first Conuiction 1. YOv thrust a mortall stabbe into the heart of Christian Religion through S. Augustine his side whiles you charge his speach with palpable falshood which is the expresse word of Christ S. Austine say you ca 6. n. 14. in fine as he was in the right in thinking that the Church was extended further then Africk so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it alwayes must be so but most Palpably Mistaken in conceauing that it was then spread ouer the whole earth and knowne to all nations which if passion did not trouble you and make you forget how lately almost halfe of the world was discouered and in what state it was then found you would very easily see and confesse Thus you Vnto whome I say what the same S. Augustine sayd to Maximinus an Arian that is almost the same though not altogether so bad as a Sociniam Aduersu◠Maximinum lib. 2. c. 2. O quam de proximo te corrigeres si timeres credere quod times dicere O how soone would you reclayme your selfe did you feare to belieue in heart what you feare to say in words For although you dare not openly professe with the Samosatenians yet you dare belieue that Christ Iesus is a meere man that he was ignorant that there were any such people as Americans in the world and so out of ignorance vttered a palpable falshood when he said Luc. 24.47 that his Apostles should preach pennance in his name vnto all Nations that they should be witnesses vnto him not only in Ierusalem Iewry Samaria but also vnto thee vt most of the world Hereby he induced the Euangelists to mistake Mar. vlt. and falsely say that the Apostles going preached Euery Where our Lord working with them and confirming the word by signes that followed And S. Paul Rom. 〈◊〉 18. that the Apostolicall Preaching was spread into all Lands and their words vnto the endes of the world If I say S. Augustins saying that the Church was spread ouer all Nations in his dayes be a palpable falshood because it was not then in America then the prophesyes of our Lord that his Apostles should spread his name and plant Christianity in all Nations as also the testimony of the Ghospell that this was performed by the Apostles were also manifest mistakes and if the Ghospell be mistaken in one poynt through ignorance in the Author thereof we can be certayne of nothing 2. For if one confesse that our Sauiour was true God and knew all things and that there were Americans at that tyme he must say that eyther our Lord willlingly spake an vntruth in saying the Apostles should preach to all nations so by admitting on lye to be in one saying of the Ghospell he destroyeth the certainty of all or he must say that the Apostles preached to the Americans and made them Christians and if they were Christians in the dayes of the Apostles how can you tell they were not also in the dayes of S. Austine or finally he must confesse the truth that this speach of the Ghospell that the Church was euery where and in all nations was a most certayne and infallible truth euen when the Americans were not Christians nor had heard of Christ But this you deny and call it a palpable falshood so cleere as euery man not blinded with passiō doth now perceaue the falshood thereof Ergo you deny the Ghospell which you grant to be the word of God and consequently you are a formall Hereticke c. 2. n. 122. you do a thing not only impious but also impossible that any Christian should do as you say cap 4. n. 4. lin 19. a supposition impossible cap. 3. n. 35. lin 21. you do a thing you professe against saying you would not be moued from the truth of the Ghospell or any part of it euen by the preaching of an Angell from heauen So that your last refuge must be ro confesse that to call S. Austins speach which is the expresse word of Christ a palpable falshood you were persuaded not by an Angell from Heauen but by the spirit of errour which makes you hate subiection to the one vniuersall visible Church The second Conuiction 3. YOw do not vndermine but openly digge vp the Foundations of Christianity by teaching that the Apostles through ignorance ouersight or partiality erred in matters of Religion which they were bound to know Erred I say and the whole Church with them euen after the cōming of the holy Ghost for thus you write c. 3. n. 31. That the Apostles themselues euen after the sending of the holy Ghost were through inaduertence or preiudice continued for a tyme in an errour it is as I haue already noted vnansverably euident from the story of the Actes of the Apostles Thus you you auouch the same cap. 3. n 21. But in direct contradiction of this you say cap. 3. n. 74. lin 14. about the perpetuall infallibility of the Apostles according to that promise of our Lord that he would send them the holy Ghost the spirit of truth which should teach them all truth and stay with them for euer It signifyes say you not eternally without end of tyme but PERPETVALLY without interruption during the time of their liues So that the force and fense of the words is that they should neuer want the Spirits assistance in the performance of their function If the holy Ghost leading them into all truth did after his comming perpetually without interruption during the time of their liues stay with them alwayes assisting them teaching them all truth how can it be true that euen after the sending of the holy Ghost they were lead into errour and continued therein for as TIME through inaduertence or preiudice An errour so playne and manifest against the word of God and which they could not fall into without they were stupide seing the very guift of speaking the tongues of all nations which they receaued togeather with the holy Ghost still continued with them Were they so dull and heauy-hearted euen after they had receaued the holy Ghost as not to understand that by the guift of Tongues they were declared and made preachers of Christ vnto all nations vnder the cope of heauen
4. What you say that they erred and continued in errour through inaduertence and preiudice you contradict els where saying cap. 2. n. 155. that the Apostles in their persons while they were liuing were the only iudges of Controuersies And c. 2. n. 17 you say In matters of Religion none are fit to be iudges but such as are infallible And cap. 4. n. 88. lin 20. It is necessary for the constitution of infallible iudges that though they neglect the meanes of auoiding errour yet certainly they shall not erre Now can you put these propositions togeather in discourse The Apostles were whiles they were liuing the infallible guides iudges of fayth so made and ordained by the comming downe of the holy Ghost vpon them Iudges and guides infallible certainly shall not erre though they through inaduertence or preiudice neglect the meanes of auoyding errour Ergo the Apostles certainly did not erre nor deliuer errour through negligence inaduertence or preiudice And yet more to the same effect you write C. 2. n. 34. The Apostles infallibility was in a more absolute manner the Churches in a more limited sense The Apostles were lead by the Spirit into all truth efficaciter The Church is lead also into all truth sufficienter So that the Apostles and the Church may be fiftly compared to the Starre and the Wisemen The Starre was directed by the fingar of God and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was But the Wisemen were lead by the starre to Christ lead I say not efficaciter or irresistibiliter but sufficienter so that if they would they might follow it if they would not they might choose 5. But you stay not long in this conceyte of their absolute infallibility and being irresistably lead into all truth for within two or three pages you say that the promise of not erring was made them but vpon condition if they were not negligent and if they kept their station And. cap. 3. n. 77. Our Sauiour sayd to his disciples Yea are the salt of the earth not that this quality was inseparable frō their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue beene so of necessity could not haue beene otherwise in vaine had he put them in feare of that which followes If the salt lose the sauour wherwith shall it be salted Behold how you faulter before they were lead into all truth of necessity efficaciter irresistibiliter now not infallibly not of necessity they were in possibility to erre Neyther yet do you take vp your standing heere (a) Cap. 6. n. 〈◊〉 you runne into the contrary extreme that the Apostles could not lose the sauour of sanctity or charity and truth because it is certayne they could not haue any worldly or sinister intentiō in their preaching And then agayne to the contrary cap. 2. n. 93. This were to crosse the end of our creation which was to be glorifyed by free obedience To conclude for I am weary with the following of your light-headed guide fetching frisks euery way you iumpe at last vpon a truth the direct contradiction of that you sayd of the Apostles erring for a tyme about the Churches Vniuersality For you say cap. 6. n. 14. The Apostles who preached the Ghospell in the beginning did belieue the Church vniuersal though their preaching in the begining was not so They did belieue the Church vniuersall euen in your sense that is vniuersall de iure though not de facto Thus you Now this proposition The Apostles euen in the beginning before their preaching was vniuersall when they preached to Iewes only did beleeue the Church vniuersall de iure by diuine law is it not a direct contradiction of this The Apostles in the beginning before their preaching was vniuersall did not belieue the Church vniuersall de iure by diuine law yea they erred thinking it was against the diuine law to preach vniuersaly or to any but Iewes It is well that your wit the guide of your fayth doth professe that it can belieue contradictions at once this Heresy and this Truth otherwise it could not be the guide of that Religion you maintayne in your booke The third Conuiction 6. FRom the Apostles you passe to the second age after Christ accusing the vniuersal Tradition of that Primitiue Church as stayned vniuersally with impure and corrupt doctrine Cap. 5. n. 91. lin 41. seeking to answere what Charity Maintayn'd obiects that sundry Protestants acknowledge many of our doctrines to be taught by the ancient Fathers you say No antiquity except it be absolute and primitiue is a certaine signe of true doctrine For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption as we pretend it was who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption might not get in and preuaile in the 5. or 4 or 3. or 2. age Especially seing the Apostles assure vs that the mistery of iniquity was working though secretly euen in their times If any man aske how could it become vniuersal in so short a time let him tell me how the errour of the Millenaries and the Communicating of Infants became so soone vniuersal and then he shall acknowledge what was done in some was possible in others Thus you Which you repeate and inculcate more then fourty times at the least wherein you are like to the false witnesses to one of the which Daniel said very well Thou hast spoken falsely against thy owne head for the Angell of God shall deuide thee with a sword in the middes and doe thee away You are false against the spouse of Christ the holy primitiue Church as that witnesse was against Susanna and the same punishment of diuision and contradiction against your selfe is by God's iust sentence fallen on your head 7. You are false in saying so many times that the doctrine of the Millenaries to wit of Christs earthly Kingdome in the earthly Ierusalem full of all earthly felicity for a thousand yeares was deliuered as you say pag. 347. lin 24. as an Apostolicall Tradition that it was vniuersally receaued taught by all the Doctours and Saints and Martyrs of or about that time whose iudgement in this point is any way recorded This to be false is proued by your falsification of S. Iustine Martyr whome you make say that all good and orthodoxe Christians in his time belieued it and only hereticks denied it for his words are I and the Christians who are rightly persuaded in all things belieue the Resurrection of the bodies a thousands yeares in the new Ierusalem It is true all good Christians belieue the Resurrection of the body which you skippe ouer because Socinians do not belieue it in the Christian sense and a thousand yeares of felicity in the new Ierusalem in heauen not vpon earth Yea S. Iustine in that place doth plainly confesse that Many (q) Multos qui purae piaeque sunt Chriistianorum sentētiae hoc non agnoscere tibi significan◠who are of the
pure and pions Christian fayth did hold against this conceyt of Christs earthly Kingdome 8. More false you are about the Communicating of Infants for you are not able to name so much as one Father of the second age which holds it The words of Dionysius Arcepagita the only witnesse produced in this cause being short of this sense as Vasquez (r) Tom. 3. in 3. p. Disput 212. c. 2. n. 13. sheweth S. Cyprian (s) Serm. delapsis is the first that mentioned this custome to communicate sucking Infants vnder one kind to wit giuing them to (t) Paruulis saltem sub specie vini tradatur drinke of the Chalice which custome was good lawfull as all Catholiks defend (u) Concil Trid. sess 21 c. 4. It is cleere that Pope Innocentius with (w) Nisi manducauerint carnem cius non habebuÌ„t vitam significat Baptizatos vitam habere non posse praeter Christi corpus cui vt incorporentur Sacramento baptismatis imbuuntur de poceat merit râ—â— miss lib. 5. c. 4. vide serm eiusdenâ— citatum a Beda in cap. 10. ad Cor. Claud. Sanchez Rep. 6. c. 7. S. Austine and other Fathers disputing against Pelagius who denied Originall sinne and taught that Children were saued dying without Baptisme did by the eating of the body of Christ and drinking his bloud necessary for Infants vnderstand no more then incorporation into the mysticall body of Christ which was done by Baptisme And this was in Infants to eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud not with their owne (x) QuaÌ„uis suo corde ore id non agant August de peccat merit remiss lib 1. c. 20. mouth but by the mouth of the body wherof they are members to wit of the Church 9. I haue cleared the Catholick primitiue Church shewed her innocent of your slanders now I come to the second that mentitus es in caput tuum your owne false accusations light vpon your owne head that by your depositions you are proued more impudent then impudencieit selfe For c. 2. n. 163. in fine you say That it is euident and to impudence it selfe vndentable that vpon this ground of belieuing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Errour was held For example the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants and that by S. Austen himselfe and therefore certayne this is no certayne ground of truth Thus you Now what you here prononce vndeniable by impudence it selfe your selfe deny contending that S. Austin held the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants vpoÌ„ the warrant of the Tradition of all ages since the Apostles which is a proofe distinct from the doctrine and practice of the present vniuersall Chusch as you say cap. 2. n. 53. lin vlt. The credit of Tradition is not the Tradition of the present Church which we pretend may deuiate from the ancient Now that S. Austen did ground vpon the credit of Tradition Apostolicall or of all ages you say cap. 3. n. 47. in fine The pactice of communicating Infants had euen then in the tyme of S. Augustine got the credit and authority not only of Vniuersall custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition Behold the necessity of Communicating Infants is held by S. Augustine vpon the warrant not of the present Church but of the Church of all ages and places which you euen in that very place allow to be a good warrant Yea you affirme that S. Augustine in thinking the necessity of giuing the Eucharist to Infants to be a Tradition of all ages since the Apostles to his tyme was not deceiued saying pag. 152. lin 32. The doctrines of the Millenaries and the Eucharist necessity for Infants haue beene taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages you meane the. 2.3.4.5 without any (y) A manifest falshood They were contradicted by Dion Areop de Eccles Hierar c. 7. By Clem. Alex. 3. Strom. in the secoÌ„d age By Caius S. Cyprian Dionys Alexan. Euseb in the 3. opposition from any of their contemporaries and were deliuered by them not as Doctours but as Witnesses not as their owne (z) Another impudent falshood For they deliuered their Millenary doctrine as an exposition of Mille Anni of the Apocalyps c. 20. v. 3. Opinions but as Apostolick Traditions Thus you Who now is more impudeÌ„t then impudence it selfe Do not you deny S. Austins persuasion of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants to haue beene grounded on the bare vniuersall custome of the present Church And yet it is also false that S. Austine grounded the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants on the custome of the present Church or on the Tradition of all ages For though there were an vniuersall perpetuall custome of communicating Infants yet that doth not enforce that it was a thing necessary but only lawfull and godly because all vniuersall customes vsed in the primitiue Church were not necessary but pious S. Austine then his persuasion that the eating of the body of Christ was necessary for Infants he did build on the Scripture only the euidence thereof vpon this text (a) Ioan. 6.36 Except you eate the flesh and drinke the blooud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in your which testimony he termeth (b) De peccat merit remiss lib. 1. c. 20. Nisi pertinacia pugnaces neruos aduersus constantiamperspicuae veriatiâ— intendat diuinâ luce clarissimum diuinâ auctoritate certissimum so cleere as it cannot be resisted but by pertinacity it selfe 10. You contradict your selfe so farre as to proue your selfe to be a formall Heretike against God and his Word For you say (c) cap. 1. n. 13. cap. 4. n. 11. it is most impious for one to deny that to be true which he knowes or belieues to be Gods word In so much that if one be persuaded though falsely euen by the Diuell himselfe that it is the word of God if he disbelieue it you say he is (d) cap. 2. n. 122. a formall Heretike But you professe your selfe not only persuaded but conuinced not by the Diuels discourse but by the (e) cap. 2. n. 25. euident credibility of the thing that vniuersall Tradition since the Apostles is the word of God vnwritten as certaine and infallible as Scripture (f) cap. 3. n. 45. the rule of fayth to iudge all controuersies by And yet you say that this Tradition this word of God vnwritten is fallible yea false and erroneous in some particulars Could you haue professed greater impiety or more formall emnity agaynst God and his word 11. Thirdly by your contradictions and diuisions agaynst yourselfe you deuide your selfe from Christ saluatioÌ„ cap. 6. n. 1. you say that it is most absolutely indispensablely destructiue of saluation to deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the word of God But you are conuinced by your owne words to doe this by charging
with fallibility and falshood euen the Tradition of the primitiue Church of the very first age since the Apostles For you confesse that the Scripture cannot be proued to be the word of God by the diuinity light of the matter nor by any Apostolicall writing but by tradition c. 2. n. 8. lin 9. and cap. 2. n. 27. lin 33. ONELY by the testimony of the ancient Church Now if the only meanes to know that the Scripture is the word of God be the testimony of the anccient Church and of the primitiue Christians if you make as you do their testimony to be fallible obnoxious to errour and in many things false you make all assurance of this necessary poynt that the Scripture is the word of God impossible You contend our Catholicke Roman Church to be fallible and to haue erred in many things and thence conclude you can rely on her authority in nothing I might say you cap. 2. n. 25. lin 9. as well rest vpon the iudgement of the next man I meet or vpon the chaunce of a Lottery for it For by this meanes I only know I might erre but relying on your Church I know I should erre Thus you of the Roman church which agrees to Tradition vniuersal of the primitiue Christiās for if it be as you say it is fallible we cannot be possibly warranted that it doth not giue quid for quo a scorpion for an egge an errour in steed of Apostolicall doctrine for she hath done so you say in some other vniuersall Traditions and what was done in some was possible in others The primitiue Church as you contend did by vniuersall Tradition and full consent deliuer the doctrine of the Millenaries and of the Communion of Infants for Apostolicall which you say be errours and so it may be that the same consent of primitiue Christians hath deliuered vnto vs the Ghospell of S. Luke and of S. Marke as approued by (g) Cap. 1. n. 7. Wrote indeed by some but approued by all all the Apostles though there were neuer any such thing nor haue we any possible meanes to know whether heerein we be deceaued or no. You say cap. 2. n. 93. lin 11. It was necessary that by his prouidence he should preserue the Scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things he would haue knowne otherwise they could not haue beene knowne the onely meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished Now the onely meanes to know which Scriptures be the word of God and rule of sayth is as you confesse the testimony of the ancient Churches since the Apostles and yet you say God hath not preserued the same from vndiscernable corruption for the Church hath beene corrupt in some of her vniuersal Traditions from the Apostles so that there is no meanes to be sure that her Tradition about Scripture is incorrupt For you say what was done in some was possible in others and so we haue no warrant that the canon of Scripture is not corrupt vniuersall Tradition of the Church since the Apostles You see that I sayd true that by being a false witnesse against the incorrupt purity of the Primitiue Church you haue beene false agaynst your owne Saluation and haue lost all meanes to be assured of Sauing fayth The fourth Conuiction 12. FROM the second age you proceed affirming that still the mystery of iniquity wrought more openly in the ensuing ages and that in the dayes of S. Austin (h) Pag. 155. lin 20. cap. 3. n. 47. Second Edition pag. 149. 150. the Catholike Church it selfe did tolerate and dissemble vayne superstitions and human presumptions suffer all places to be full of them suffer them to be more seuerely exacted then the Commandements of God (i) Pag. 156. lin 1 doing therein directly against the command of the holy Ghost (k) Ibid. lin 11. permitting the diuine precepts euery where to be layd aside so that these superstitious Christians euery where might be said to worship God in vaine as well as Scribes Pharises Great variety of superstitions in this Kind were then already spread ouer the Church being different in diuers places That (m) Pag. 156. li. 36. this vniuersal superstition in the Church nourished cherished strengthened by the practise of the most and vrged with great violence vpon others as the Commandements of God might in tyme take deep roote and passe for vniuersall custome of the Church and an Apostolique Tradition he that doth not see sees nothing Finally that in S. Austins dayes the Church did not tolerate only such superstitions for but a part only and farre the lesser did tolerate them in silence but the Church or the farre greater part publiquely allowed them practised them and vrged them vpon others with great violence c. 13. Thus you write and make the face of the Church in S. Austines dayes to haue been most miserable full of superstition in which not so much as one could be saued but by repentance and leauing their superstitions which they neuer did But as it is your fury against Gods Church to vtter whatsoeuer comes into your mind to her disgrace without any care of truth so your folly is to forget presently what you haue said and speake the contrary For Cap. 6. n. 101. lin 12. you say that in S. Austin's tyme the publike seruice wherin men are to communicate was impolluted and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion which was so true as euen the Donatists did not deny it And c. 6. in fine you say The Church which then was a Virgin now may be an harlot Now if a man would haue studied to contradict your slaunder against the Church of S. Augustins tyme could he haue done it more directly The Church being then as you say it was in her communion and diuine seruice an impolluted virgin how can it stand with what you said before that Christians in all places were vrged with great violence to communicate in superstitions and vaine worships and to lay the commandments of God aside Againe you cleere the Church of that age cap. 6. n. 101. versus finem The Donatists in S. Augustines tyme were separated from the whole world of Christians vnited in one communion professing the same fayth seruing God after the same manner which was a great argument they could not haue cause to leaue them according to that of Tertullian that where there is erring there is variety of errings And is not this a variety yea a direct contradiction in your writing an vnanswerable argument that you erre and wander from the truth Now you say there was then euery where the same fayth the same communion one manner of seruing and worshipping God without any variety of superstitions and errours wheras before you said that in S. Austins dayes all places were full of vaine superstitions vaine worships with great variety of them spread ouer the Church being different in diuers places vrged with great seuerity and
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
be the only rule of fayth First That cannot be a rule of belieuing with is incredible it selfe But Scripture being seemingly contrary to it selfe and contradicting it selfe is by it selfe incredible therefore it cannot be a rule of fayth by it selfe but to be a rule of fayth it must be made credible by some extrinsecall Authority with is so worthy of credit as vpon the warrant therof we may belieue things incredible which is as you grant the rule of vniuersall Tradition 18. Secondly that cannot be the only rule or by it selfe a rule of Christian fayth with is not able to assure vs about the chiefest articles of our fayth as the Trinity Incarnation Reall presence the knowledge whereof is for Christians essentally necessary vnto saluation For if Christ Iesus be the true God consubstantiall to his father then Heretiques to wit Socinian and Arian Protesters against the Church of Rome cannot be saued by Christ seeing they refuse to belieue and worship him as the true God On the other side if Christ be not the true God then Roman Catholiques cannot be saued by the true God seing they were worshippers of a false God Now this article that Christ Iesus is the true God so absolutely necessary cannot be proued vnto them by Scripture only for about this poynt (a) Arius did alleage against the God head of Christ 40. places of Scripture and Catholiques alleage no fewer Scriptures are alleaged with so great probability on both sides that of learned Christians honest and vnderstanding men estemed pious religious true louers of God and his truth Pastours and guides in the Christian Church some haue gone one way some another as is notorious Wherefore what you say that this so probable allegation of Scriptures on both sides is a sure signe of a poynt not necessary implies Atheisme to wit that it doth not import Christians to know whether in worshipping Christ Iesus as the true God they be not worshippers of a false God And if this be Atheisme thē is it blasphemy to say that Scripture onely is the rule of Christian fayth and that Christians cannot be assured of any doctrine whereof they be not assured by the rule of Scripture onely For it is euident truth and vndeniable though other Protesters against vs will not confesse it so cleerely as you doe that where there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture where Scripture is alleadged on both sides with so great probability that learned vnderstanding and indifferent men differ about it it is cleere I say that about such points there cannot be any decision of controuersyes by Scripture onely 19. Thirdly by defending the Scripture to be the onely rule besides this blasphemy that Christians by their rule of fayth cannot be assured that they be not worshipers of a false God you are forced to adde another that on God and his word the fault lyeth that there be so many factions of fayth and so great dissenssion amongst vpright hearted Protestants for that these your true louers of God and his truth stand for contrary beliefe that in matters of Religion Christendome is deuided into Factions and Sects that some go one way and some another cursing and damning ech other to Hell is no doubt a great fault a mighty scandall an huge mischiefe which must of necessity lye heauily either vpon such Dicisioners or vpon God But you excuse the Diuisioners saying that (b) Cap. 1. n. 13. they goe some one way some another without any fault at all Ergo the whole fault must rest on God who gaue to these true louers of him his truth the Scripture for their onely rule which being it selfe as you say seemingly factious contradictious and one part therof fighting agaynst another set these innocent honest vpright hearts togeather by the eares one with the other in good earnest and implacably Thus to excuse Protestāts you protest against God that he is not the God of peace but of dissension and the authour of all the discord among Christians in matter of Religion and of all the mischiefs that are consequent thereupon by giuing a Scripture so full of seeming conflicts for the sole rule of their fayth The day will come that these boasters of their honest and vpright heart of their true loue to God and his truth shall sind the Apostles saying true Not who commendes himselfe but whome God commendes he is approued They shall see that in their trusting onely the Scripture and their owne reason in expounding it contemning the Tradition of the Church they were not louers of God his truth but fast freinds to their owne fancy and fond conceits louers of themselues adorers of their owne poore miserable wit The sixt Conuiction 20. THough we were sure that the Scripture is the word of God that we haue the incorrupt text the true translation thereof cleered from seeming contradictions yet for all this Scripture could not be to vs a rule of fayth alone by it selfe by reason of the high senses of Scripture incredible and incomprehensible to humane reason This I proue by your owne writing wherin you deliuer a grand Catholique verity which ouerthrowes the Scriptures being the onely rule Protestants pretend they know their doctrine and interpretation of Scripture to be the word of God by the diuine light and euident certainty thereof you will not belieue this resolution to be theirs and affirme the contrary cap. 6. n. 5◠That the Scripture is not euidently certaine nor of it selfe disuested of the motiues of credibility euidently credible For Protestants say you are not so vaine as to pretend that all men do assent to it which they would do if it were euidently certaine nor so ridiculous as to imagine if an Indian who had neuer heard of Christ should by chance find a Bible in his owne language that he would by reading it without miracle certainly belieue it to be the word of God which he could not choose if it were euidently credible Thus you and hence I thus argue 21. That Authority cannot be of it selfe and by it selfe alone the rule and guide of Christian sauing fayth in the vnderstanding and belieuing of Scripture which is not of it selfe euidently credible and worthy of all credit This I proue because the rule and reason to belieue the Scripture must be able to conuince the vnderstanding and to resolue it to belieue many high and incomprehensible mysteries For these are taught and deliuered in Scripture and must be belieued by euery Christian that will be saued But an authority which of it selfe is not euidently credible or worthy of all credit is not of it selfe a sufficient reason or a good rule for me to belieue incredible things incomprehensible to my humane reason as is manifest to euery man that hath wit to apprehend the sense of this speach Ergo the Scripture alone by it selfe not ioyned with the euidently credible authority of some other witnesse cānot be the rule of
three arguments as well to be briefe as because these be so full conuincing and well grounded euen by such an Aduersary as you are that more will not be required The first Conuiction 1. IF the Church be an infallible guide in fundamentals or which is all one an infallible teacher of all necessary truth then is she a certaine Society of ChristiaÌ„s of one denomination of one obedience subiect to one visible head in fallible in all her Proposals But the Church is such an infallible teacher of all necessary truth or such a guide in fundamentals In this argument both propositions are yours and I shall set downe your words fully whereby you not onely deliuer but also demonstrate them The Major you acknowledge ca. 2. n. 139. You must know that there is a wide difference betwixt being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible guide in Fundamentals The former we grant for it is no more but this that there shall be a Church in the world for euer But we vtterly deny the Church to be the later for to say so were to oblige our selues to find some certaine Society of men of whome we might be certayne that they neither do nor can erre in fundamentals nor in declaring what is fundamentall and what is not and consequently to make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all thinges she proposes to be belieued This therefore we deny both to your Church to all Churches of one denomination that is indeed we deny it simply to any Church For no Church can be fit to be a guide but only a Church of some certain denomination For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church but by a praeexamination of the doctrine controuerted and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine but by the true doctrine to the Church Heereafter therefore when you heare Protestants say the Church is infallible in fundamentalls you must not conceaue them as if they meane as you do some Society of Christians which may be knowne by adhering to some one Head for example to the Pope or Bishop of Constantinople c. Thus you deliuer the sequells of this proposition the Church is an infallible guide in fundamentalls which are in a word our whole Catholique doctrine about the Church that if that proposition be by you granted expressely and cleerely yea proued inuincibly from Scripture you must returne againe to the Church of Rome or else by your owne iudgment be damned to Hell specially because you repeate the same consequences of the granting of an infallible guide in fundamentalls and both approue and proue them Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 11. speaking to your Aduersary Good Sir you must needes do vs this fauour to be so accute as to diâ—tinguish between being infallible in Fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in Fundamentalls That shee shall be alwayes a Church infallible in Fundamentalls we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be alwayes a Church But that there shall be alwayes such a Church which is an infallible guide in Fundamentalls this we deny For this cannot be without setling a knowne infallibility in some one knowne Society of Christians as the Greeke or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which guide men might be guided to belieue aright in all Fundamentalls A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himselfe and to himselfe be infallible but he could not be a guide to others A Man or a Church that were inuisible so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible guide and yet he might be vnto himselfe infallible 2. Thus you haue told vs cleerely and fully what will follow if you grant the Church to be an infallible guide in Fundamentalls which sequells be so much denyed and detested by you as one would thinke it were impossible you should be so forgetfull as to affirme it And yet you do cleerely say that the Church is not only infallible in Fundamentalls but also an infallible guide in Fundamentalls being euen by essence not only a belieuer of all necessary truth but also a teacher or mistresse thereof Cap. 2. n. 164. initio The visible Church shall alwayes WITHOVT FAYLE PROPOSE so much of Gods reuelation as is sufficient to bring men to heauen for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometymes adde things hurtfull nay in themselues damnable And cap. 2. n. 77. in fiae n. 73. initio you grant that the Apostle termeth the Church of God the pillar and ground of truth not only because by duty it is still the teacher of all truth though not so euer in fact but also because it alwayes shall and will be so yet say you this is short to prooue your intent that the Church is infallible in all her proposals vnles you can shew that by Truth is certainly meant not only necessary to SaluatioÌ„ but all that is profitable absolutly simply ALL. For that the true Church alwayes shall be the MAINTAINER and TEACHER of ALL NECESSARY TRVTH you know We grant and â—â—st grant for it is of the ESSENCE of the Church to be so and any coÌ„pany of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man not be reasonable Thus you Verily were it possible for a creature to be a man not reasonable you deserue to carry away the title of a true vnreasonable man from all men that hitherto haue ranked themselues in the number of Writers You are a true man for that you deliuer manifest truth made good by strong reasons you are an vnreasonable man in that you wilfully and obstinately stand in defence of the contrary falshood I will briefly note first your contradictions secondly the sequels therof 3. In the words cited in the first place you distinguish betwixt a Church infallible in Fundamentals and such a Church as is an infallible guide in Fundamentals granting the true Church to be the former but not the later iesting at your Aduersary as though his confounding them did argue in him want of such an acute wyt as you suppose your selfe to haue But in the second citations you do vs the fauour to be so acute so perspicacious so sharpe-sighted as to penetrate into the very essence of the Church and out of that Closet of Truth pronounce that to be infallible in Fundamentals and to be an infallible guide in Fundamentals be inseparably coÌ„ioyned in the Church and that to grant the former to the Church and deny the later were to deuide the Church from its very essence For I hope you will not be so acute as to distinguish betwixt an infallible guide in Fundamentals and such a Church as is alwayes in fact without fayle the teacher the proposer the maintayner in a word the
you in which speach your wordes interfere gall ech others ankles destroy themselues for to say Who can deny according to the exposition of most Catholiques that this text is vnderstood of Sacramentall eating and drinking doth imply that many Catholiques and with them most of Protestants deny it And consequently Who can deny it according to most is as wise a speach as if you should say It is a most vndeniable by many iustly denied truth For do not you write Preface n. 30. in fine There is no more certaine signe that a Point is not euident then that honest and vnderstanding and in different men and such as giue themselues liberty of Iudgment after a mature deliberation differ about it 25. Thirdly you vrge Scripture as plaine against Latin seruice saying Cap. 3. n. 21. n. 71. It is a plaine reuelation of God that the publique Prayers and Hymnes of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification yet these reuelatiōs the Church of Rome not seeing c. I omit that you corrupt the Scripture by adding to the text the word most And pag. 173. lin 3. you cite these as the very words of S. Paul to vse a language which the Assistāts generally vnderstand not is not for edificatiō which is Scripture verbatim coyned and forged in your owne head I pretermit also so many cleere and fully satisfying answeres giuen by Catholiques which you do not mentiō much lesse confute I will shew that you behead this your Argumēt with your owne sword Do not you say Cap. 3. n. 32. that the Apostles in their writings deliuer some things as the dictates of human reason and prudence and not as diuine reuelations and that you see no reason why we should take them to be diuine reuelations This supposed I assume But S. Paul deliuers this order that an vnknowne tongue is not best for edification and decency as a dictate of humane reason and prudence as is manifest by the whole tenour of his discourse Ergo there is no reason why we should take it as a diuine reuelation vpon your word We belieue it indeed as the word of God that the Apostle did iudge that obseruance most for edification and decency in those tymes when Latin Greeke were vulgar languages almost euery where commonly knowne of all Since his tyme the Latin being not knowne and vulgar in euery Country of the Latin Church as it was before whether in this respect the Latin ought to cease to be the Vniuersall language for the Liturgy of the Latin Church is a question not decided by diuine reuelation but to be decided by human reason and prudence for it is different in state and quality from that decided by the Apostle such kind of dictats of human reason being variable according to the diuersity of tymes places persons customes Adde that Latin which most men of better education and quality vnderstand and all Church-men vnderstand cannot be tearmed a language vnknowne in the Church yea rather vulgar tongues are vnknowne and barbarous in the Christian Church 26. Fourthly against infallible Iudges (g) Cap 4. nu 16. lin 23. Ca. 4 n. 53 Cap. 6. n. 61. in many other places in the Church since the A postles you come forth euery foote with this Scripture Be not called Maisters vpon earth for one is your Maistere Christ The vanity of which obiection I demonstrate by this Syllogis me wherein both propositions be your owne and most infallible truths The Apostles (h) Cap. 2. n. 155. were the infallible Iudges of Controuersies about faith so long as they lyued the Maisters Doctours Guides of the Church But the A postles heerin did not transgresse the command giuen them by our Lord be not called Maisters on earth Ergo to be and to be called Iudges and Maisters of the Church in the place of Christ and subordinate vnto him is not against that precept of our Lord. 27. I conclude this Argument requesting you in the sight of the Inspectour of hearts as you belieue there is any such to ruminate and ponder your owne saying It imports euery man who separates from any Churches Communion euen as much as his Saluation is worth to looke most carefully that the case of his separation be iust and necessary The cause pretended of your separation from the Communion of the whole Catholique Church is the euidence of Scripture against her custome The strongest testimonies you do or can pretend are these by me now answered then which you say there cannot possibly be any playner Now can you thinke in cōscience that the former testimonies are cleere euident necessary such as necessitate conuince and compell the vnderstanding to assent Can you presume you shall be so eloquent at the day of Iudgement as to make our Lord belieue you were so simple and of so little Iudgement as you did really and in conscience vndoubtedly belieue that these texts were euident necessary formall expresse as cleere as the Sunne Thinke of it I pray you for by your owne confession it cōcernes you and euery Protestant as much as his eternall saluation is worth The seauenth Conuiction 27. YOu forsake the Roman and the Catholique externall Communion not onely without iust cause but without as much as a seeming cause euen against your conscience out of hatred of knowne truth What is damnable Schisme if this be not that you goe against your conscience and impugne knowne truth though you be very loath this mystery of your heart should be disclosed yet such is your inconsideration as you professe it openly inough in words but practise the same much more openly in deeds cap. 2. n. 47 in fine The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy vnconcerned You might haue met with an Aduersary that would not haue suffered you to haue said so much truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose These be your words in which you lay the inside of your heart outwards and plainly discouer your wifull auersion from knowne truth You suffered Charily mainteyned to speake so much truth togeather Why did you so Not because it was truth but because it was not to the purpose that is it made not against you so you were willing it should be true And doth not this imply that had that part of the Paragraph made against you had you beene vnwilling it should haue beene true you would not haue endured it you would haue impugned it with all might and mayne though it had beene truth neuer so much Had you sayd You might haue met with an Aduersary that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much vntruth together but to mee it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose this had been some courtesy of forbearāce but to say that you would not suffer so much
definition or declaration of the Church Now you and your Protesters hold the sense of Scripture proposed by the meere in ward euidence of the text onely and alone to be the last and vttermost euidence of credibility a Christian doctrine can haue the rocke and pillar of beliefe Ergo when you accuse ech other of disbelieuing euident and plaine Scripture you accuse ech other of the formall proper crime of heresy so that Protesters are according to S. Paul delinquishers of the Church conuinced and condemned by their owne Iudgement The second Conuiction 10. THey that protest against the pillar ground rocke of that Credit and Authority which doth vp hold propose and expose all truth of Saluation vnto Christian beliefe and make the same worthy of all credit in respect of us erre fundamentally and are damned Heretickes This is manifest by what is prooued in the Preface of this Chapter But you protest against such a Rocke for you protest against the Catholique present Church of euery age since the Apostles Cap. 5. n. â—â— circa medium Cap. 5. n. 91. paulo post medium as subiect to fundamentall and damnable errours and euer stayned euen in the second age immediately vpon the death of the Apostles with vniuersall errours whose Catholique externall Communion you haue forsaken because vniuersally polluted with superstitions as you confesse and professe to glory therein Now that the present Catholique vniuersall Church in euery age is the pillar (c) Cap. 5. n. 52. Cap. 3. n. 77. n. 78. ground rocke that is teacher of all Christian truth by duty and office and in fact alwayes the pillar and ground that is the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth which she could not be vnles she were infallible in all her proposals (d) Pag. 108. n. 139. Cap. 2. n. 139. these things you grant as hath bin shewed at large in the fift Chapter Ergo Protesters are guilty of Heresy as ouer throwers of the rocke pillar last Principle of Christian fayth 11. Moreouer you graunt Tradition vniuersall to be the last Principle of Christian fayth euident of it selfe and so the pillar and ground of all truth fit to be rested on But by making the Church fallible and subiect to errour in deliuering Apostolicall Traditions you destroy this Rocke and make the same no ground to be rested on in any kind of truth For say you an authority subiect (e) Cap. 3. n 36. lin 12. to errour cannot be a firme foundation of my beliefe in any thing and Cap. 5. n. 91. lin 40. expressely to this purpose you say If the Church were obnoxious to corruptions as we pretend who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption did not get in and preuaile in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age c. The errour of the Millenaries was you say in the second age vniuersall and what was done in some was possible in others Now seing the authority of the Scripture and of the foure Ghospels and our whole Christian fayth depend vpon the tradition of the primitiue Church you that make the authority of the primitiue Church and Tradition subiect to errour and fallible how do not you erre most fundamentally destroying the last stay and only rocke to be rested on by Christian beliefe Tradition primitiue vniuersall being vncertaine and fallible what certainty can Christians haue of the Scriptures being from God (f) Pag. 63. lin 34. Only by the testimony of the ancient Churches the testimony of the ancient Churches the only meanes of our certainty in this point being vncertaine The third Conuiction 12. IF the Roman Church be the pillar ground rocke that is the teacher both by duty and in deed of all Christian truth then Protesters against the Church of Rome be Heretickes as you graunt and must needes graunt But the Antecedent is true and proued euidently by what you graunt and by what hath been shewed to be consequent of your grants that there must be alwayes a Church of one denomination alwayes in fact euen by essence the teacher of all fundamentall truth visibly discerned from other Christian Societies by this note of Vnity and Subordination to One. Now if there must be alwayes such a one Church the Roman must of necessity be this Church Supra c. 6. conuict 2. This consequence you denied as we noted before which now I make good by this Argument The Church which can must and in fact doth performe the office of guide and directour must be of one denomination subiect to one certain Bishop and also vniuersal Apostolicall one the same euery where for matters of fayth But there is no Church of one denomination in the world noted with these markes but only the Roman Ergo the Roman and only the Roman is that Church of one denomination and obedience Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 18. wherein a knowne infallibility is settled by adhering to which men are guided to belieue aright in all fundamentals The maior proposition of this argument I prooue by what you write pag. 91. (a) Cap. 2. n. 101. where you apply a testimony of S. Austin against vs Euery one may see that you so few in comparison of all those on whose consent we ground our beliefe of Scripture so turbulent that you damne all to the fire and to Hell that any way differ from you c. Lastly so new in many of your doctrines as in the lawfulnes and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramentall Cup the lawfulnes expedience of your Latin seruice Transubstantiation Purgatory the Popes infallibility authority ouer Kings c. So new I say in respect of the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture which contayneth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adaequate obiect of our fayth I say euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deseruing authority 13. This whole discourse though the last two lines only be sufficient to my purpose I haue produced at large that the Reader might see by this patterne for all your Booke is of the same stile methode and pith what a Kilcow-Disputant you are that is a curst Cow with short hornes yea without hornes at all for your Heart is not so curst and fierce in vttering what you conceaue to the discredit of the Roman Church but your Vnderstanding is as weake and faynt in proouing what you say You haue heaped togeather many doctrines of the Roman Church which you traduce as nouelties but in all your discourse there is not any strength of Argument to shew them to be such So we cannot say of you Cornu ferit ille caueto for you strike vs only with the bare forehead of impudent assertion without proofe yea without offer or proffer of proofe Nor could you prooue them these being for the most part all manifest Christian truths which you would haue taken vpon your bare word to be errours For how can you prooue that
holdes his discourse to be infallible and (a) Preface n. 12. By discourse no man can possibly be lead into errour that thereby he cannot possibly be lead into errour Protestants all of them great and little men women belieue with explicite fayth all things whatsoeuer are plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Is not this ridiculous Credat Iudaeus Apella Non ego You say it is ridiculous that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree and then say we agree in all matters of fayth And yet presently you say that Protestāts if they were wise wold do so too to wit agre that those things onely wherein they agree be matters of fayth then stop our mouthes when we reproach them with disagreements by saying they agree in all matters of fayth because matters of fayth be those onely wherein they agree Is this discourse coherent If it be ridiculous in us to do so how were it wisedome for Protestants to do the same And how haue they reason reason inough why they might do so Though also it be false that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree We define matters of fayth to be all doctrines proposed by the Church as her traditions or definitions wherein all Catholiques must agree The fourth Conuiction 18. I proue directly by the word of God the Roman Church that is the Church subiect to S. Peter and his successour to be the Church of one denomination which is the pillar and ground of truth There was alwayes as you haue confessed by force a Catholique visible Church by duty in deed the teacher of necessary truth that no Church is fit or able to performe this office which is not of one denomination Ergo this church was built dependently vpō one Rocke subordinately to one visible head by Christ Iesus our Lord because such a Church could not be instituted but by him as is manifest But Christ did not institute or build any Church of one denomination but onely on S. Peter Thou art Peter a Rocke and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church Math. 16. Ioan 21. To the I will giue thee keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen Doest thou loue me feed my lambes feed my sheepe What can be more cleere Now this power of Rocke to vphold this authority of Pastour to guide this Superiority of Head to gouerne the vniuersall Church of one denomination was to descend and did descend to S. Peters successours This cannot be denied because this Church was to be alwayes successiuely in the world Ergo the Rocke sustayning it the Pastour guiding it the Head ruling it was to be alwayes successiuely in the world which is to say that S. Peter must alwayes haue a successour in the Headship of the one Church which I further more prooue in this manner 19. If the institution of the Apostles to be Priests by these wordes do this in remembrance of me do import that the Apostles should haue successours in their Priesthood then this institution of S. Peter to be the one Pastour and Guide of the Church doth import that he should haue a successour in that office of Pastour For as Priesthood was not instituted for the Apostles sake but for the diuine worship which was to continue in the Christian Church till the world ended So the Pastourship of S. Peter ouer the one Christian Church flocke was not instituted for S. Peters sake but for the good of Christians that by adhering to one guide they might all vnitedly be lead into all truth But the Institution Do this in remembrance of me doth import successours in Priesthood Ergo this Institution feede my sheepe Cap. 2. n. 23. doth import the office of Guide and Pastour was to go to S. Peters successours vntill the consumamtion of the world But you say pag. 62. n. 23. If our Sauiour had intended that all Controuersies in Religion should be by some visible Iudge finally determined who can doubt but in playne tearmes he would haue expressed himselfe about this matter He would haue sayd playnly The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all controuersies Thus you 20. And this is your perpetuall impertinency of arguing by interrogations supposing that to be vndeniable truth which is manifest falshood for which you can say nothing This manner of arguing you vse often through whole pages and leaues togeather that should I transcribe the places I might set downe more then halfe of your booke But now to your question Who can doubt but Christ would haue said plainely the Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all Controuersies I answer euery man that hath any braines or wit in his head For such an one cannot but see that Christ our Lord could not haue said as you would haue him to haue spoken without vntruth For though he did appoint that S. Peter and his successour should be the Guide and Pastour of his flocke yet that S. Peter or his successour should be the Bishop of Rome more then of Hierusalem or Antioch this he did not appoint at the least whiles he liued on earth Why may it not suffice you that by cleere Scripture and by what you your selfe grant S. Peters successour is to be for euer the guide and Pastour of the Church of one denomination the pillar and ground of Truth Do you doubt whether the Roman Bishop be S. Peters successour or no Of this you cannot doubt if you will not stagger at your owne principle which you deliuer as vndeniable Cap. 4. nu 53. li. 20. All wise men for the assurance of truth in all matters of beliefe relye vpon the consent of ancient Records and vniuersal Tradition Now vniuersal Tradition doth deliuer by full consent that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome is his successour Or if you doubt of this you may as well doubt whether euer Iulius Caesar was at Rome The fifth Conuiction 21. THat the Bishop of Rome is appointed of God to decide all emergent Controuersies I proue by Principles acknowledged and set downe by your selfe For whereas the Mainteyner of Charity sayth that Protestants depriue S. Peter and his successours of the Authority which Christ our Lord conferred vpon them ouer his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which they reproue diuers of the most holy Ancient Fathers as Brerely sheweth at large you c. 5. n. 98. first question the worth and authority of the holy Fathers as no certaine rule of fayth then write in this sort lin 14. Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point for the point here issuable is not Whether S. Peter were head of the Church nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church nor whether he had any authority ouer it giuen him by the
Church but whether by diuine right and by Christs appointment he were head of the Catholique Church Now hauing perused Brerely I cannot find any Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point Thus you From these words we haue this great Truth which by the consent of ancient Records vniuersal Tradition is most certaine and vndeniable that S. Peter and his successour for the time was euer acknowledged to be the Head of the Catholique Church with authority ouer it in all Ecclesiasticall causes You adde that the point here issuable and controuerted betwixt Protestants and vs is not whether he had his authority for hereof you seeme to suppose that Protestants make no controuersy but only whether by diuine right and our Lords appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church Now I assume If he were Head of the Church he was so by diuine right Christs appointment and could not be so by human institution How proue I this Euen by your owne words Pag. 60 nu 22. For the deciding of ciuill controuersies men may appoint themselfes a Iudge but in matters of Religion this office may be giuen to none but whome God hath designed for it Thus you hence I inforce the Conclusion by ioyning together in forme of discourse your two Propositions S. Peter and the Roman Bishop his Successour was euer held by the consent of Fathers the Head the Pastour the Iudge of the Catholike Militant Church But he could not be so by the appointment of men Ergo he was so by diuine right and by the institution of Christ our Lord. 22. And I wonder what did bleare your eyes in perusing Brerely that you could not see in him so much as one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with vs in this point For doth he not cite the Centurists that is a messe of Protestants at once who reprehend Tertullian for agreeing herein with vs saying (a) Centur 3. c. 4. col 84. lin 60. edit Basileae Tertullian did erroneously thinke the Keyes to haue bene committed to Peter alone and the Church to be builded on him Who charge S. Cyprian for his affirming (b) Centur 3. c 4. the Church to haue beene built vpon Peter and one (c) Col. 84. lin 60. Chaire founded by our Lords voyce vpon the rocke and that (d) Col. 84 lin â—4 there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholique Church and for calling Peters Chayre (e) Col. 84 li. 19. the principall Church from whence Priestly vnity ariseth and lastly for his teaching say they without any foundation of Scripture that (f) Col 84. lin 51. the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other the Mother and roote of the Catholique Church They likewise reprehend as a corrupt saying concerning the Primacy of the Roman Church that of Irenaeus All Churches ought to agree with the Roman Church in regard of a more powerable Principality 23. You more then once fall vpon (g) Cap. 6. n. 30. This is falsly translated say you for conuenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam euery body knowes signifies no more then to resort c. Cardinal Peron his noble Translatresse about this place Ad quam propier potentiorem principatitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclepam which they turne thus in English To which Church it is necessaerie that euery Church should agree in regard of more powerfull principality you say they make bold with the Latin tongue as though conuenire did signifie to agree wheras it doth signifie to resort Hence of this sentence ad quam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam you make this construction To this Church by reason of the powerfull principality it hath ouer all the adiacent Churches there is and awayes hath bene a necessity of perpetuall recourse of all the faythfull round about Thus you shewing your selfe to be no better a Grammarien then you are a Christian Who euer did deny that conuenire according to the property of the Latin tongue doth signifie to agree rather then to resort I thinke the Lady translatresse and euery Lady that vnderstands English know that to resort is to repayre frequently to a place which conuenire doth no more signifie then to leape ouer a ditch 24. But this is your audacity to make bold with Latin and then rayle against others who translate according to the property of the Latin whereof I can giue another exemple S. Austin against some abuses in his time sayth Quae in diuinis libris saluberrimè praecepta sunt minùs curantur This say you I suppose I may (a) Cap. 2 n. 47. pag. 156. Edit 1. pag. 150. lin 6. Edit 2. Cap. 3. n. 16. li. 10. very well render in our Sauiours words The commandements of God are layd aside Thus you and vpon this false translation you slander and rayle at the Church in S. Austins time as vniuersally superstitious for two pages togeather 25. Item Pag. 176. n. 76. in this place of S. Paul to Timo thy Quomodo oporteat te in demo Dei conuersari quae est Ecclesia Dei viui columna firmamentum Veritatis you will haue columna firmamentum veritatis not to be referred to the Church with which it agreeeth in case but to Timothy which is the accusatiue case by subaudition of the particle As te vt columna firmamentum veritatis in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iust as if one should say to you vt scias quomodo oporteat te subdi Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi qui est successor Sancti Augustini primas Angliae amicus veritatis you should contend that amicus veritatis were referred from his Grace to your selfe by this construction quomodo oporteat te amicus veritatis subdi c. 26. But to returne to the place of S. Irenaus I say that conuenire doth signity to agree not only when it is referred to a thinge by the preposition Cum as Conuenire cum alique but also many times when it is referred by the preposition Ad. When Cicero sayth (a) Pro Sylla Conuenit ad eum haec contumelia will you translate this reproach resorteth to him and not agrees to him When he sayth (b) Lib. 3. de finibus De re rustica c 6. Varro lib. 1. cap. 19. Conuenit optimè ad pedem cothurnus will you translate the buskin resorteth to the foote and not agrees with the foote when Cato and Varro say as they do often conueniunt hae vites ad quemuis agrum will you translate these vine-trees resort to any soyle and not agree with any soyle When Plautus sayth conueniebat ad vaginam tuam machaera militis will you translate the blade of the soldier resorted to thy scabbard and not agreed with thy scabbard Surely if you do you may giue the Lady Translatresse iust cause to smile at your simplicity as now she hath
saying of S. Augustine I would not belieue the Gospell vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me I would more easely persuade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I belieued him this Profession I say though most euident truth caÌ„not without impiety be applyed to any church which is not indefectible and infallible in all her Proposals It is euident truth because the proofe must be to vs more manifest and we surer of the truth there of then the thing proued thereby otherwise it is no proofe as you say Cap. 6 n. 59. in fine But the only proofe the only motiue and reason we haue to belieue Christ that he liued on earth and that his doctrine and Religion is contayned in the Christian Scripture is the Catholique Church and her word and Tradition as you often grant Therefore as S. Cap. 5. n. 64. lin 8. Augustine sayth how can we haue euidence of Christ if we haue not euidence of the Church that she cannot erre in her Proposals And if true Christians be surer of the Tradition of the Church then of Christ then according to reason they may sooner disbelieue Christ then the vniuersall Church But you Protest against the visible Catholique Church that she is not free from damnable errours in fayth and damnable corruptions in practise that Church by whom you haue belieued Christ if you do truely and Christianly belieue in him How then can you be Christians or haue any grounded assurance of fayth concerning him You will say that you haue belieued in Christ not by this present Catholique Church but by the Church of all ages This is vaine because you can haue no assurance of the Church of all former ages and of what they belieued and taught but by the word and testimony of the present Nor do you hold the Church of all ages infallible Cap. 5. n. 91. post medium yea you expressely teach that the same was presently vpon the Apostles death couered with darkenesse and vniuersall Errours how then be you not heretiques and false Christians who belieue Christ and Christianity vpon no other or better ground then your owne fancy The ninth Conuiction 35. PRotesters destroy by their doctrine the being essence of the Catho Christian Church But the doctrine destructiue of the Church or the deniall of the holy Catholique Church is a damnable blasphemous heresy Ergo Protesters be Heretiques of the worser and more damnable sort You deny both Propositions of this Argument yet you teach principles by which they are demonstratiuely cleered against you The maior is proued because you often teach and it is the mayne point of your Religion that the whole Catholique (a) Pag. 291. lin 9. or c. 5. n. 88 in â—edio Church is subiect to errours to damnable errours yea (b) Cap. 5. n. 7. Cap. 3. n. 36. li. 12. to fundamentall errours in some kind But this doctrine doth totally and essentially ouerthrow the being of the Church For you grant that the Church is alwayes by essence the Rocke and ground c that is alwayes the actual Teacher of all necessary truth so that they who take this from her take her essence from her Cap. 5. per to â—uÌ„ and essentially destroy her being But he who sayth that the Church is subiect to errours in matter of fayth maketh the Church not to be the pillar and ground of truth for you say An authority subiect to errour cannot be a firme and stable foundation a pillar and ground of beliefe in any thing Ergo they that make the Church fallible and subiect to some errours in some proposalls of fayth destroy her essence Hence your distinction of a true Church and of a pure Church free from errours and that there was euer shall be a true Christian Catholique Church in the world but not a pure vnspotted Church from all errours this distinction I say by you repeated many hundred of times is vayne for I haue demonstrated that impurity in matter of fayth yea possibility to be impure and erroneous in any Proposals of Fayth is against the very essence of the Church The minor also you deny See Edit 6 n. 9. circamed Cap. 2. n. 13. lin 12. If Zelots had held that there was not only no pure visible Church but none at all surely they had said more then they could iustify but yet you do not shew nor can I discouer any such vast absurdity or sacrilegious Blasphemy in this assertion Thus you And this fancy then did so occupy the short capacity of your brayne that the contrary declaratioÌ„s which you make in your Booke were driuen quite out of your mind Pag. 336. lin 25. Into such an heresie which destroyeth essentially Christianity if the Church should fall it might be said more truly to perish then if it fell only into some errours of its owne nature damnable for in that state all the members of it without exception all without mercy must perish for euer Thus you teaching that if the Church perish essentially and remayne Christian not in Truth but only in name that all the members thereof without exception all without mercy perish with it Can any absurdity be more vast and full of horrour then this You teach this immanity to be consequent vpon the totall destruction of the Church and yet say that you cannot discouer any such vast absurdity in that destructiue doctrine So small a matter it seemes to you to grant that all Christians since the dayes of the Apostles perished euerlastingly 36. Is it not sacrilegious blasphemy to make Christ a false Prophet who sayd that the gates of Hell should neuer preuayle against is Which promise doth import as you acknowledge cap. 3. n. 70 that she shall alwayes continue a true Church and bring forth children vnto God and send soules to Heauen Now they who contend that there was for many ages no Church make this promise of our Lord to be false Therefore they are guilty of most sacrilegious Blasphemy as the Maintayner of Charity said and none will deny that hath in him any sparke of Charity towardes Christ The Conclusion 37. ANd now giue me leaue Courteous Reader to make an end For what hath been said may more then abundantly suffice to shew the vanity of this mans enterprize who would cut out a safe way to Saluation through the flint of Heretical obstinacy If any thinke this cannot be performed against such a volume by a Treatise so small as this is for bignesse not comparable vnto his let him examine comparatiuely the strength the pith the arguments of the one with the other and I do not doubt but in this comparison the Prouerbe will also be found true A Cane non magno saepe tenetur aper 38. The Crocodile that vast venemous Serpent of Nilus is conquered and made away by a litle fish tearmed Ichneumon which watching an