Scripture is not proued to be a perfect rule by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being said or written in a booke but only by Tradition you singe out of tune so high in the prayse of Tradition and so decry Holy Scripture as euen our Catholique eares will not endure it except the harsh sound thereof be allayed and tempered by some reasonable restriction to wit that nothing is proued by being written in a Booke as by the last principle or proofe whereon our persuasion doth rest I feare Protestants will be offended at this your speach and iudge your Booke in respect of this Blasphemy worthy of the fire For verily your wordes as they sound make Scripture no rule or principle of fayth at all but cleerely disannull and make voyd that so frequent Protestant argument Scriptumest it is written it is Scripture For how can this argument be of any force if nothing be proued true because written in a booke but only by tradition The best fauour I can do you is to shew Protestants a place of your Booke where you contradict your selfe about this assertion For this may perchance pacify them to wit cap 4. n. 53. lin 33. A man belieuing the Scripture to be the word of God must of necessity belieue it true and if he belieue it true he must belieue it contaynes all necessary directions vnto eternall happinesse because it affirmes it selfe to do so Behold Scripture proued a perfect rule by its owne saying so and not only by tradition The third Conuiction 13 YOur conceit of resoluing by reason discourse implyeth a double blasphemy first by your owne contrary sayings it is proued to imply that God requires of men impossibilities Preface nu 12. If by discourse you meane right reason grounded on diuine Reuelation and common notions written by God in the Hearts of all men and deducing according to the neuer-fayling rules of Logicke deductions from them if this be it you mean by discourse it is meete and reasonable and NECESSARY that men as in all their actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choyce of their way to Happinesse be left vnto it And in saying this I say no more then S. Iohn to all Christians Deerely beloued Belieue not euery spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God or not I say no more then S. Paul in exhorting all Christians to try all thinges and to hold fast that which is good then S. Peter in commanding all Christians to be ready to giue a reason of the hope that is in them then our Sauiour himselfe in forewarning all his followers that if they blindely followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the Ditch and againe in saying euen to the People Yea and why of your selues iudge ye not what is right 14. But are all men able to do this able to giue a reason of their fayth by the rules of logicke Experience sheweth and you confesse they cannot cap. 6. n. 10. l. 10. I could wish with all my part as Moyses did that all the Lords people could prophesy that all that belieue the true Religion were able according to S. Peters iniunction to giue a reason of the hope in them c. But should I affirme that all true belieuers CANDOSO I suppose it would be much against experience and modesty c. Thus you grant that all Christians are not able to giuea reason of their fayth and yet you say that this is commanded vnto all Christians vnder paine of falling into the ditch that is of being damned What is consequēt hereupon That your doctrine that true fayth is finally resolued into human reason that all men and women that will be saued must be able to be their owne iudges able of themselues to iudge of so many Religious and different pretended wayes to Heauen Oxf. edit pag. 18. n. 26. l. 29. Lond. edit cap. 2. n. 26. pag. 18. l. 11. which is the right This your doctrine is to vse your owne wordes against your selfe iniurioust God man robbing God of his goodnes and man of his comfort making God a Tyrant exacting of men what he knowes they cannot doe and causing man to be desperate seing he cannot be saued but by doing thinges which to him are impossible 15. Secondly your way of resoluing by reason by your contrary sayings is proued blasphemous against Iesus Christ making him O vild impiety a blind and false Prophet You say he foretold and forewarned all his followers that if they blindly followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch of damnation And yet else where you say that millions of his followers who blindely and imprudently belieue vpon the word of their father or Maister or Minister haue true faith are saued cap. 2. n. 49. lin 18. There ara millions amongst you and vs who belieue vpon no other reason then their education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers c. And will you proscribe from Heauen all those belieuers of your owne Creed who do indeed lay the foundation of their Faith no deeper then vpon the authority of their Father or Maister or Parish Priest c What if their motiue to belieue be not in reason sufficient Do they therefore not belieue what they do belieue They choose their Faith imprudently perhaps but yet they do choose it vnlesse you will haue vs belieue that is not done which is done because it is not done vpon good reason c. Wherefore you must for shame recant this fancy when you write againe suffer true faith to be many times where your Churches infallibility has no hād in the begetting of it Behold how earnest you are to proue many millions of Christs followers who belieue vpon no good reason but blindely follow their blind fallible leaders a father a maister a Minister haue true faith and are saued consequently that our Lords forewarning that if the blind follow the blind both shall fall into the ditch is not true 16. Thus you make our Lord which I haue horrour to think a blind prophet out of your owne damnable blindnes For our Lords saying is most true and infallibly certaine that if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch but your doctrine is blind and impious that the Catholique Church as a blind guide and many times they that follow it follow a company of beasts Nor is it true that many of ours haue true Christiā faith of the Creed who belieue vpon no better authority then the word of a Father or Master c. For how can they belieue the Creed whereof one article is the holy Catholique Church without apprehending better authority to belieue then the bare word of a Father If they want discretion to conceaue the notion of the holy Catholique Church they want vnderstanding to belieue actually and so are saued by Habituall faith but if they apprehend what is
you to do vs courtesies impossible which are I confesse troublesome things to be done and the doing of them requires time longer then Eternity only we will beseech you as you tender the good of your soule to do a courtesy to your selfe very possible to be done That you will reflect that you being a man witty and brought vp in learning it were not possible you should fall into such contradictions as these are were not the hand of diuine permission therin for the eure of your capital euil which is Confidence in your owne wit and contempt of the Whole Catholique Church as of a company of only blindmen and beasts It is not weaknesse of wit but dizzinesse of pride which makes you thus reele in your writing as euen here you do againe You auerre that to some more is fundamental to others lesse to others nothing at all Which is not only against D. Potter but your selfe haue in your booke contradicted it I am sure more then twenty times as Cap. 3. n. 20. lin 9. Points fundamental be those only which are reuealed by God and commanded to be prach't to all and to be belieued of all If fundamentall points be those only which are to be (b) D. Potter p. â—11 preacht vnto all and to be belieued of all how is it possible that there should be some points fundamental for some only and not for all The seauenth Conuiction 30. VVIth this Conuiction I meane to conclude this first Chapter and answere your chiefe argument against our grounding Fayth on the authority of the Church for say you the infallibility of the Church the Principle we build on is not euident of it selfe and therfore needeth proofe It cannot be proued by tradition because none can be shewed for it nor by Scripture because the Scripture is receaued vpon the authority of the Church and so the Church must be belieued infallible before we belieue Scripture wherefore it cannot be proued by Scripture except we will runne round in a circle saying We belieue the Scripture to be Canonical because the Church which is infallible sayth so and We belieue the Church to be infallible because the Scripture Canonicall sayth so To get out of this circle we must say that we belieue the Scripture to be the word of God because the Church infallible in all her proposalls doth so affirme and the Church to be infallible we belieue because our natural reason guided by the motiues of credibility and prudential motiues doth persuade vs that it is so This argument by the repetition whereof your booke is growne into a great bulk I could answere by retorsion and shew that you are forced to dance the round in a circle though many times you runne in and out by contradicting your selfe But I will not goe so far about I answere directly that the Church may be considered either as deliuering Traditions receaued from the Apostles or as defining Controuersies of fayth which for the present arise The infallibility of the Church as deliuering Traditions is not proued by Scripture nor by tradition but is euident of it selfe for the authority of the Church deliuering Traditions by liuely voyce is nothing else See conuict 1. n. 7. but the authority of vniuersall tradition which Authority you graunt to be euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on And on what principle can Christian Fayth rest but on that which is infallible by relying wheron we cannot be deceaued 31. You are a man so courteous and kind to the Church of Rome as for her sake you will deny your selfe you will destroy your owne writing you will grant this infallibility of the Church in plaine termes to do her a pleasure Cap. 2. n. 44. lin 6. There is no repugnance but we may be certaine inough of the vniuersal Tradition of the ancient Church c. and not certaine inough of the definitions of the present Church vnlesse you can shew which I am sure you neuer can do that the infallibility of the present Church was alwaies a Tradition of the ancient Church Now your maine businesse is to proue the present Church infallible not so much in consigning ancient traditions as in defining emergent controuersies Thus you In which words I note how you shuffle and imply in saying We cannot shew tradition for the infallibility of the present Church for tradition is a liuely voyce to be heard and belieued of such as haue eares to heare not a thing of sight to be shewed in books Do not you say nothing is proued true by being written in a booke but only by tradition of liuely voyce which is credible for it selfe Why then do you require proofe of that which you say nedeth (a) Cap. 4. n. 53. l. 24. Tradition is such a principle as may be rested on and which requires no other proofe no proofe And how can you deny the tradition for the infallibility of present Church against emergent Heresies seing it is consigned to her Children by the present Church which you do not deny to be infallible in consigning ancient traditions It is true you do not in this place make vs of this truth an absolute deed of gift you are afrayd it goes something against your heart but you will be presently more kind-hearted For in the next Cap. 3. n. 45. you speak thus to your aduersary You were to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as vniuersal as the tradition of the vndoubted bookes of Scripture c. not therfore in her vniuersall traditions were you to proue the Church infallible but in all her decrees and definitions of Controuersies Behold now you grant willingly and with all your heart that the present Church is infallible in her vniuersall Traditions but not in all her definitions With this your grant we remaine content for the present and for the grant of the second we shall expect your leasure for you will grant it in the end as shall be shewed in the 7. Chapter 32. This grant of the Churches infallibility in deliuering Traditions you confirme vnto vs by the authority of S. Austine cap. 3. n. 43. For to his testimony broght by Charity mantayned That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwais been kept is most rightly belieued to be deliuered by Apostolicall authority you answer Very right and what then therfore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controuersies Thus you and then you fall to skoffe at your learned Aduersary saying You are at your wits end to find some glue or soder or cement or chaine or thred or any thing to tye togeather the Autecedent and the Consequent of his Enthimemes and so wish him when he writes againe to write nothing but syllogismes I belieue what you say that in writing thus scornefully and crakingly you were at your wits end that is at that end of your wit you prefixed vnto it when
vpon what you write Cap. 6. n. 59. We must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued thereby otherwise it it no proofe that is the certainty of the proofe must be better knowne and more euident to vs then the thing proued But cap. 2. n. 8. you say the Scripture cannot be proued to be the word of God and a perfect rule of faith but onely by Tradition which is credible for it selfe Ergo the certainty of Tradition is surer that is better knowne and more euident to vs then the Scripture Yea further Tradition is a Rocke of our beliefe a principle so euident that it needes no further proofe This I proue by this argument grounded vpon your sayings That which is credible for it selfe and fit to be rested on must be so euident that it need no further euidence This you suppose Cap. 2. n. 45. lin 8. where you say I will neuer cease multiplying demaunds vpon demaunds vntill you settle me vpon a Rocke I meane giue me such an answere whose truth is so euident that it needs no further euidence But Cap. 2. n. 25 lin 5. you say The credibility of vniuersall Tradition is a thing credible of it selfe and therfore fit to be rested on Ergo the Authority of Tradition vniuersall or of the Catholique Church is a Rocke a rule a reason of belieuing so euident and credible of it selfe as it needes no further euidence The third Conuiction 14. VVE haue conuinced your errour by the ouerthrow of the ground thereof Now I proue the absolute infallibility of Christiā faith by the proper cause shewing why it is so and must of necessity be so grounding my proofes on truthes so cleere as they are by you granted Cap. 6. n. 9. lin 2. you say If we were required to belieue with certainty I meane a morall certainty thinges no way represented as infallible and certaine I meane morally an vnreasonable obedience were required of vs. And so likewise were it were we required to belieue as absolutely certaine that which is no way represented to vs as absolutely certaine Thus you Now I subsume But the Articles of our faith are represented vnto you as absolutely infallible not only as morally but as metaphysically and mathematically certaine in themselues This I proue by what you write Cap. 6. n. 3. lin 6. I do heartily acknowledge and belieue the articles of our faith be in themselues Truthes as certaine as the very common principles of Geometry and Metaphysickes But that there is required of vs a knowledge of them an adherence to them as certaine as that of sense or science that such a certainty is required of vs vnder paine of damnation this I haue shewed to be an errour c. Thus you Here you professe that you do heartily belieue the articles of our faith to be in themselues truths altogether infallible euen metaphysically certaine But you could not belieue them heartily as absolutely certaine Truth were they no wayes represented to your vnderstanding as absolutely metaphysically certaine What more cleere then this For how can you apprehend that truth by firme hearty faith which you do not apprehend at all Or how can you apprehend that truth at all with is no wayes represented to your vnderstanding Ergo the mysteries of Christian Religion are by the reasons and motiues of Christian Tradition represented to your vnderstanding as truthes most certaine and infallible in themselues How then are you not bound to belieue them as Truth absolutely and metaphysically certaine in themselues with an hearty adherence to them as certaine as that of sense and science The mysteries of Christian faith being represented to you as morally certaine you are bound as our confesse vnder paine of damnation to belieue them with morall assurance Ergo if they be represented to your vnderstanding as truth absolutely certaine you are bound to belieue them with absolute certainty equall to the certainty of mathematicall and metaphysicall science But they are so represented to your vnderstanding and you heartily apprehend them as absolutely infallible in themselues The fourth Conuiction 15. I conuince the absolute infallibility of Christian fayth by what you write Cap. 4. n. 11. lin 20. Which of vs euer taught that it was not damnable eyther to deny or to so much as doubt of the truth of any thing whereof we either know or belieue that God hath reuealed it Thus you I do not know of what sect you are and so I not say which of you but I cā say that you of what Sect soeuer you be haue taught that it is not damnable for men not to doubt of that doctrine which they belieue to be reuealed for you accuse Catholiques as blind as peruerse enemies of truth and of many the like crimes and in proofe thereof you say Cap. 6. n. 72. lin 15. My owne experience assures me that in this imputation I do you no iniury but it is very apparent to all men by your ranking doubting of any part of your doctrine among mortall sinnes Here you reprehend our doctrine that to doubt deliberately of the doctrine we belieue to be reuealed of God is a mortall sinne that is damnable for I hope your owne experience assures you that we belieue our Catholique doctrine and euery part thereof to be the word of God written or vnwritten With what reason and congruence then can you reprehend vs for holding that it is a mortall sinne to doubt of any part of our Religion which we hold to be the word of God Especially seeing you say Cap. 2. n. 122. lin 12. That if you be persuaded by the Deuil though falsely that it is diuine reuelation you are bound not to disbelieue it vnder paine of formall heresy But to our purpose we will take of your contradictions that part which is manifest truth that it is damnable to doubt of the truth of any doctrine we belieue to be reuealed of God and then I dispute thus There can be no more certaine nor stronger adherence to any doctrine then that which is so firme and vndoubted as the belieuer esteemeth it damnable and an heynous crime so much as to doubt thereof But this adherence to Christian doctrine you require as necessary damning all those that admit any voluntary doubt of the verity thereof Ergo an adherence to Christian doctrine most certayne equall to that men giue to the principles of Metaphysicke is required of Christians vnder paine of damnation yea stronger adherence seing a Christian is ready and ought to be ready to deny the principles of Metaphysicke rather then doubt of Christian doctrine proposed to him as Gods word by perpetuall Christian Tradition Finally it is vnreasonable that men should be bound vnder paine of damnation neuer to doubt of that doctrine which is not so much as represented vnto them as vndoubtedly and absolutely certaine It is a burthen intollerable to maintayne a thing without any staggering and doubting which is proposed only as
this office may be giuen to none but whome God hath designed for it And pag. 59. n. 17. In ciuill Controuersies euery henest vnderstanding man is fit to be Iudge but in matters of Religion none but he that is infallible 10. The Minor also you deliuer often but specially in two places Cap. 2. n. 162. explicating a Conclusion defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. That the Church hath authority to determine Controuersies of fayth obrected by your Aduersary you answere Me thinkes so subtill a man as you are should easily apprehend a wyde difference betweene authority to do a thing and infallibility in doing it againe betweene a conditionall infallibility and an absolute The former the Doctour togeather with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church and I subscribe to this opinion that is an authority in determining Controuersies of fayth according to plain and euident Scripture and vniuersall Tradition infallibility so long as they proceed according to this rule As if there arise an Heretique that should call in question Christs Passion and Resurrection the Church had authority to decred this Controuersie and infallible direction how to do it and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in errour I hope you will not deny but that Iudges haue authority to determine criminall and ciuill Controuersies and yet I hope you wil not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallible while they proceed according to law if they do so but not infallibly that they shall euer do so Thus you Now let the Reader be Iudge whether it be not a thing in you both ridiculous and hatefull to be still vanting of the subtilty of your wit and reproaching want thereof to your Aduersarie whereas your subtilties be grosse contradictions of your selfe that I am euen amazed how any man could be so forgetfull and voyd of consideration You say there is a wyde difference betweene authority to decide matters of Religion and Infallibility in doing it which you proue because Iudges haue authority to determine criminal and ciuill Controuersies and yet are not absolutely infallible but infallible only conditionally if they proceed according to law Now this your subtility your selfe condemnes for ignorant folly as not considering the wide difference betwixt Iudges in ciuill Controuersies and Iudges with authority to determine matters of fayth that the former may be fallible but not the later Be not these your very wordes pag. 59. lin vlt. and pag. 60. lin 1. In ciuill Controuersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible How then do you now distinguish betwixt a Iudge and an infallible Iudge in matters of Religion 11. Your other distinction also of Infallibility absolute and conditionall is a meere fopperie as you declare it and by attributing only conditionall infallibility to the Church you contradict your selfe For you say in ciuill Contronersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible heere you attribute greater infallibility to the Church or Ecclesiasticall Iudge then to a Iudge in ciuill causes But you say a Iudge in ciuill affaires is infallible conditionally if he proceed according to law Ergo the Church is infallible absolutely so that she cānot erre in her definitions and sentences but still proceed according to the diuine law or sacred Scripture Besides the Church is infallible in a higher and absoluter manner then euery priuate Christian But euery priuate Christian is infallible conditionally to wit while he proceeds according to the true and vndoubted sense of Scripture Ergo the Conclusion of Oxford The Church hath authority to determine Controuersies of fayth was by the defendant Doctour vnderstood of infallible authority or els it was a meere mockery Moreouer authority to determine Controuersies of fayth must be sufficient to make the determination to be an assured stay wheron Christian fayth may securely rely which before was not knowne to be such otherwise there is no determination of fayth but fayth about that point remaynes as vncertayne and vnderermined as it was before But a Iudge absolutely fallible and only conditionally infallible cannot determine any controuersy infallibly that Fayth may determine to belieue it without danger of being deceaued Againe you say pag. 337. n. 20. A questionable guide for mens direction is as good as none at all But the Church infallible only conditionally that is if perchance she hit vpon the true sense of Scripture is a guide or determiner of Controuersies questionable because after such a determination the question still remaynes vndecided whether that be the true sense of Scripture Adde heereunto that Protestants do not attribute so much as this conditionall infallibility to the Church that her determinations are infallible when they are according to plaine and euident Scripture For they will not belieue Transubstantiation though they grant that the Lateran Councell defining it proceeded according to the plaine and euident sense of Scripture Morton of the Sacrament lib. 2. initio If sayth D. Morton the words of Christ This is my Body be certainly true in the proper literall sense we must yield to Papists the whole cause Transubstantiation corporall and materiall Presence c So that the Church is not infallible with Protestants if she proceed according to the plaine proper and litterall sense of Scripture but only when she hits on those figuratiue tropicall improper senses they fancy to themselues And I pray you giue me a reason why the Catholike Church may not condemne you for expounding figuratiuely symbolically tropically the text of Scripture deliuering Transubstantiation according to the playne proper and literall sense as well as she may condemne any Heretique that should expound the place of Scripture about our Lords Passion and Resurrection figuratiuely against the plaine proper and litteral sense Finally wheras you say the Church is to determine Controuersies not only by the rule of plaine Scripture but also of vniuersall Tradition you say a truth against the whole drift of your booke that the Bible is the only rule and against what you write Cap. 2. n. 155. nothing but Scripture comes to vs with a full streame of Tradition and so besides Scripture there is no vnwritten doctrine 12. A third place yet more cleere for the Churches totall infallibility you haue cap. 2. n. 77. where you grant the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth by office Our Sauiour sayd to his disciples yee are the salt of the earth not that this quality was inseparable from their persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity in vaine had he put them in feare of that which followes If the salt haue lost his sauour wherewith shall it be salted So the Church may be by duty the pillar ground of Truth of all truth not onely necessary but also
cause to admire your ignorance in Latin yea want of iudgment in playing Monus at her Translation For euery man of wit and common sense must of necessity perceaue that S. Irenaeus could not meane corporall resorting to Rome without being ridiculous For though we should grant that conuenire may signifie to resort yet it is cleere that it doth not signify barely to resort but to resort or come to a place together to meet there in one assembly Now it is ridiculous to thinke that S. Irenaeus would haue all Churchs and all the faythfull on euery side to be bound not only to come to Rome but also to come thither all at the same time at once It is therefore manifest that S. Irenaeus doth attribute powerfull principality to the Roman Church Bishop ouer all Christian Churches by reason wherof all other are bound and obliged in duty to come together with the Church of Rome not by corporal repayre to the Citty but by consent of mind to the Roman Fayth But this more powerfull Principality this Iudicial Authority and Headship the Roman Bishop could not haue by gift of men as you confesse Ergo he had it by diuine appointment as the successour of S. Peter in whom by the voyce and word of our Lord it was instituted So that Protesters by opposing the Church of Rome and S. Peters successour oppose the ground and pillar of all Christian truth and so are Heretiques The sixt Conuiction 27. THE visible Church is the Iudge of Controuersies and therefore infallible in all her Proposals so that to oppose her is as much as to oppose God himselfe and consequently whosoeuer opposeth against the Doctrine of the visible Church is an Hereticke This argument is proposed by the maintayner of Charity c. 6. n. 15. to which you answere cap. 6. n. 13. First you deny the Church to be Iudge of Controuersies How say you can she be the Iudge of them if she cannot decide them and how can she decide them if it be a question whether she be Iudge of them That which is questioned it selfe cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide Controuersies Secondly you say If she were iudge it wold not follow that she were infallible for we haue many Iudge in our Courts of Iudicature yet none infallible Thus you How could you possibly be so obliuious as not once to imagine that both these answeres are direct Contradictions of what you before affirmed Cap. 2. n. 162. you say The Church hath authority of determining Controuersies of fayth according to plaine and euident Scripture and vniuersall Tradition and to excommunicate the man that should persist in errour against her determinations Now if she be not Iudge if her authority be questioned how can she do this Secondly she being Iudge of Controuersies that she must be infallible though Iudges in the Courts of Ciuill Iudicature be not such you affirme cap. 2. n. 17. We are to obey the sentence of the ciuill Iudge and not resist it but not alwayes to belieue it iust but in matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whome we should be bound to belieue to haue iudged right so that in ciuill Controuersies euery honest and vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible Thus you whose words cōtaine an vnanswerable demonstration against your selfe that the Church being Iudge to determine Controuersies of fayth must of necessity be infallible 28. Thirdly you say That though she were a Iudge infallible yet to oppose her declaration would not be to oppose God except the opposer know that she doth infallibly propose the word of God I answere that to oppose the Propenent of fayth (a) Cap. 2 n. 26. That which is either euident of it selfe and seen by its owne light or reduced vnto setled vpon the principle that is so which is euidently credible of it selfe or euidently reduced to such an euident credible Principle is Heresy a vertuall opposing of God and his Reuelation For the Proponēt being a witnesse worthy of all credit the disbelieuer of this proposition must of necessity assent except he be mislead by Passiō against the truth reueal'd or by pride against the proposer therof as I shewed in the preface to the argumēts of this chapter The seauenth Conuiction 29. THE Church gathered togeather in Generall Councels or a Generall Councell of Christian Bishops haue Power to propose define with infallibility the Cōttouersies of Religion bind all Christians vnder paine of heresy to belieue their definitions But Protesters oppose Generall Councels such definitions of fayth which they know and confesse to haue beene enacted by them contending that such Christian Assemblies representing the whole Christian Church are fallible and haue beene many times false as is notorious Ergo they contradict the infallible Proponent of Christian Fayth preferring their owne priuate fancyes and so are guilty of Hereticall obstinacy and pride The maior Proposition of this argument is euident and vndeniable by the perpetuall Tradition and practise of all former Christian ages euen of the Primitiue times For though then they could not meet together all in one place yet they did assemble generally in different places determine the Controuersies of Religion against Heresies that did arise In proofe hereof the testimony of Tertullian is cleere and direct mentioning generall Councels gathered by command no doubt of the Roman Bishop De iciunijs cap. 13. Aguntur praecepta per Graecias illas certis in locis Concilia ex vniuersis Ecclesiis perquae altiord quaeque in commune tractantur ipsa representatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur Behold the notorious Antiquity of the Catholique Tradition about the venerable Authority of General Councells to determine the highest matters of Religion as being the representatiue Church or representations of the whole Christian Name Wherfore Protesters who contemne this Tradition euidently certaine or credible of it selfe and oppose Generall Councels cannot be excused from damnable Hereticall pride 30. But Tradition though neuer so perpetuall and primitiue full and vniuersall will not grow in your garden except the same be watered from your Well with whome nothing is well but what is your owne Thus you write c. 2. n. 85. lin 6. This we know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a Iudiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controuersies of Religion but onely such a Man or such a Society of men as is authorized thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not beene the pleasure of God to giue to any Man or Society of men any such authority The truth of the first part of this saying will establish the authority of Generall Councels from God when the falshood of the second shall be confuted by D. Potter yea by your owne contradiction thereof D. Potter writeth pag. 165. We say that such Generall Councels as
meant by the holy Catholique Church the Churches authority concurrs to the begetting of faith in them together with the illumination of Gods spirit making them to apprehend more deepely and diuinely of the thing then otherwise naturally they could by sole Church proposition You hauing made it necessary vnto saluation that men do not blindely follow blind guides but that by their owne wit and reason euery one choose and frame to himselfe his Religion being his owne caruer iudge hauing I say layd this ground you should in consequence haue maintayned that such as ignorantly and blindely follow a blind Church fall into the ditch and are damned But now making it the word of God that the blind following the blind must needes perish and yet labouring to saue some blind followers of the blind your selfe are fallen into blasphemy by following your owne blind discourse which still through want of light stumbles at euery step contradicting is selfe The fourth Conuiction 17. YOv contradict your selfe againe about simple and ignorant Christians whome you terme Fooles In one place you teach they caÌ„ hardely be saued in another that they cannot erre from the way of Saluation vnlesse they will The first you affirme pag. 96. lin 12. For my part I am certain God hath ginen vs reason to discerne between truth and falshood and he that makes not this vse of it but belieues thinges he knowes not why I say it is by chance and not by choyce that he belieues the truth and I cannot but feare that God will not accept of the sacrifice of Fooles Thus you The second in plain and direct contradiction of this you deliuer (p) Second edit pag. 212. lin 5. pag. 221. lin 17 saying of your safe Way to Saluation This is a way so plaine as fooles except they will cannot erre from it Now by Fooles in matters of Religion you vnderstand such as want strength of vnderstanding and wit to iudge by themselues and to discerne truth from falshood in mattets of Religion and controuersies moued by Heretiques against the Church How then it is true that Fooles cannot misse of the way of Saluation except they will if such only be saued to whome God hath giuen such reason and vnderstanding that of themselues they be able to discerne truth from falshood in matters of fayth controuerted betwixt Heretiques and the Church If God will not accept of the sacrifice of Fooles that is their deuout obedience vnto the doctrine which they belieue to be his vpon the word of his Church without knowing any other why your word that Fooles cannot erre from Saluation vnlesse they will is so farre from being true as the contrary is true they cannot be saued though they would neuer so fayne 18. Your two sayings are cleerely and mainely opposite the one to the other the first being false and the second true For it is against experience and modesty to say as you do that God hath giuen vs that is all Christians reason to discerne truth from falshood in the controuersies of Religion No man huing can do this by the reason giuen him of God without relying for his assurance on the authority of Gods Church Yea your selfe though you much presume of the goodnes of your vnderstanding and excellency of your wit haue not reason inough for this which I conuince by what you write Cap. 3. n. 19. lin 19. Where there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture reason with reason Authority with Authority how it can consist with manifest reuealing of the truth I do not well vnderstand What is I do not well vnderstand but as if you had said God hath not giuen me vnderstanding and reason to discerne assuredly Christian truth from Hereticall falshood in the controuersies about Christian Religion where Scripture reason authority are seemingly alleaged on both sides as in the controuersies betwixt the Roman Church and your Biblists and Gospellers namely Arians and Socinians they are And if you haue not sufficient vnderstanding and reason to diseerne truth from falshood about the fundamentall article of Christianity the Godhead of Christ how hath God giuen all Christians reason to frame an assured iudgment of discretion about this and all other fundamental points debated betwixt any kind of your Protestants and vs 19. The other part then of your contradiction is true that Fooles cannot erre from the way of Saluation except they will because God will without doubt accept of the sacrifice of their humble deuotion firmely to belieue what they haue receaued from the Church as his Word For you say c. 5. n. 64. lin 20. God requires no more of any man to his Saluation but his true endeauour to be saued But Fooles that is such as want strength of vnderstanding to discerne Truth from Falshood in the Controuersies about Religion the best they can do to belieue aright and be saued is to rest on the word tradition of the Church without asking her Why she teacheth this or that Doctrine For what can they do better You will say let them search the Scriptures and looke into the writings of the primitiue Fathers First being ignorant men and of meane capacity they cannot do it and when they haue done it how can they be the wiser seing x you say nothing is proued true because written in a booke but only by Tradition which is credible for it selfe And to what purpose to goe from the Church and her tradition for a short time and then presently to come to it againe For euen as the Doue departing from the Arke of Noe not finding where to settle her foote in such a deluge of waters returned instantly to the Arke so mans reasoÌ„ leauing the Churches Authority to find by Scripture which is the true Religion in the vast deluge of contrary wauing Doctrines will meete with nothing wher on he may firme his beleefe and so will be forced for rest and assurance to fly backe to the Arke of Gods Church 20. Adde that the truth of your second assertion that the way of Saluation in the Law of Grace is so plain that (a) Esay c. 35. v. 8. Via sancta vocabitur hac erit directa via ita vâ— stuâ—ti noÌ„ errent per eam fooles cannot erre from it was foretold by the prophet Esay and he giueth the reason thereof because they should haue a visible Teacher or (b) Esay c. 30. v. 20 Erunt ocult tui videntes preceptorem tunm anres tua andient voceÌ„ post tergum monentis Haec est via ambulate 〈◊〉 ca. Maister should heare his voyce behind them saying This is the way walke therein From this truth I conclude that euery man and woman is not to resolue for his beleefe by his owne reason but by the voyce of the Church Because in the way of Wit and Discourse according to the rules of (p) c. n. 8.2 Logick Fooles may erre against their will as not being able of
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
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
violence How different are you from your selfe in diuers places To bring in your new Religion of the Bible and only the Bible you accuse the Ancient Fathers that they are with full consent opposit one to another ages against ages but in your so wisely chosen Religion there is such a perpetual fighting that there is more difference betwixt two of your pages then betwixt all Christian ages 14. I must note in this place to answere a seely calumniation against our Church the only argument in your Booke that may trouble an ignorant Reader because it requires some litle historical erudition to confute it that though you feigne the Church in the dayes of S. Augustine full of great variety of superstitions yet you say that the Donatists did falsely calumniate Catholikes that they did set Images vpon their Altars and (n) Cap. 6. n. 101. S. Austine doth not iustify the Church saying as we would haue done in that case Those pictures were worshipped not for their owne sake but for them who were represented by them but doth abhorre the thing and deny the imputation Behold here a tale of a Tub or of I know not what For cap. 6. n. 16. you acknowledge that S. Augustine makes no mention of any picture but by a Rhetoricall figure calles it I know not what but say you compare him with Optatus and you shall plainly perceaue that this I know not what pretended to be set vpon the Altar was indeed a picture Behold in this your second telling the tale of a Tub or of I know not what you are fallen from pictures to a picture granting that the Donatists did not accuse Catholicks for setting vp all kind of pictures in the Church or vpon the Altar but for a picture I will not stand to note and shew the ridiculous vanity of the inference you tacitly make It was a picture Ergo the picture of Christ or of some Saint but tell the Reader what that picture was and of whome to wit of Constans the Emperour Sonne to Constantine the Great This most pious Christian Emperour as Optatus relates sent two chief noble men of his Court Paulus and Macarius eminent for Christian piety and wisdome in Ambassadge into Africke with (o) Cum elee mosynis quibus subleuata per Ecclesias singulas possit respirare vestiti pasci gaudere paupertas great liberalities to bestow on poore Christians Donatists especially hoping by this courtesy to win their hearts vnto vnity with the Church The Bishops of the Donatists fearing the successe of this Imperial liberality did mightily maligne the two Noblemen especially Macarius whome they somtimes assaulted in his iourneys put him in danger of his life sought to take from him by force that Imperial treasure because in one assault they made some two Donatists were slayne they presently proclaymed them Martyrs (p) Aug. contr liter as Pitil l. 2. c. 39. Macarius a Persecutour a Pagan and called Catholiques Macarians of him Amongst other tales and slanders they gaue out that (q) Falsa opinio omnium populorum aures oppleuerat Dice batur enim venturos Paulum Macarium qui interessent sacrificio vt cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur preferrent illi imaginem sic Sacrificiū offerretur Optat. lib. 3. circa finem 2. Edition pag. 331. lin 9. 2. Edition pag. 322. lin 15. Paulus and Macarius when they were present at the Christian sacrifice vsed to set vp the image of the Emperour on the Altar and that before it sacrifice was offered and the oblations of the people made wherof the Reader may be more fully informed in Baronius Anno 348. Behold the best argument erudition of your Booke what a poore snake it is being brought to light out of the lurking hole of your darke and dimidiate narration of the fact The fifth Conuiction 15. YOu often affirme that the whole Church cānot vtterlyperish nor loose its Essence and Being cap. 3. n. 78. You know we grant must grant that the Church still holdes all necessary truths for it is of the essence of the Church to doe so But pag. 347. l. 21. You fay the cōtrary The Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also nay the whole Church of the Gentils might fall if they lookt not to ther standing Pag. 338. lin 11. speaking agaynst the priuiledge of infallibility of the Roman Church Me thinks you say S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but haue congratulated this their priuiledge to them bad he acknowledged that their sayth was the rule for all the world for euer But then sure he would haue forborne to put them in feare that they nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not looke to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Iewes had done Cop. 3. n. 30. in fine It is in the power of she Church to deuiate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which euery one has free will is subiect to passion and errour This your reason conuinceth if your suppositiō be true to wit that the Church is NOTHING else but meere men left to their ntture hauing freewill subiect to passion and errour But for my part I did euer and shall still belieue that no true Christian will be so profane as to thinke that in the Church there is freewill without diuine grace nothing but nature subiect to passion and errour without the spirit of God guiding them into all truth the Church being the mysticall Body animated with his spirit which she shall neuer abandone 16. Nor doth S. Paul fright the whole Church of Rome much lesse the whole Church of the Gentils with possibility of falling away into Infidelity but sayes in the singular number (r) Rom. 11. thou standest by fayth be not high minded but feare to shew that he speaketh of euery single Christian that he may fall away from the faith on the other side he sayth in the plurall nūber (s) Rom. 1.4 Your fayth is declared in the whole world which words the Fathers (t) Hieron Apolog aduers Ruf. Scito Romanam fidem huiusmodi praestigias non recipere Pauliauthoritate munitam non posse mutari vnderstand to signify that the fayth of the Romans shall euer be an infallible rule of Fayth to the rest of the Christian Church But more cleerly afterward in the end of his epistle (u) Rom. 16.17 Note such as make dissensions against the doctrin you haue receaued signifying that the Church of Rome hath the office to note censure all Hereticks that shall rayse discord in the Church agaynst the Roman Tradition of fayth And incontinently he sheweth the priuiledge of Diuine efficacions assistance not to erre in this office saying And the God of peace shal crush Satan vnder your feet with speed What is this but the God of peace hath made the Church of Rome the head and roote of peace and vnity as
(x) Radicem matricem Eeclesiae Catholicae Cyp Ep. 45. the Fathers terme it to the rest of the Church to crush Satan that is sayth Origen euery contradictious spirit that teacheth agaynst the doctrine of Tradition vnder their feete Which speach hath no small allusion to the Reuerence vsed by Catholicke Christians to the feete of S. Peters Successour If you had any text in Scripture but halfe as cleere agaynst the infallible authority of the Roman Church and Bishop as this is for it your triumphing vociferations that the text is cleere as the sunne would hardly be contayned vnder the cope of heauen This appeareth by your vrging the place Be not high minded but feare as threatning the whole Church of Rome with possibility of falling from Christ which seing you could not do without inuoluing in the same damnation and defectibility the whole Church of the Gentiles you professe the whole Church of God may fall away into Infidelity agaynst the promises of Christ (z) Infra c. 7. conu 9. yea agaynst what your selfe affirme an hundred tymes That scripture is not the onely Meanes or Rule to know all necessary truths or that all necessary things are not euidently contayned in Scripture CHAP. IIII. 1. IN this Chapter I lay the axe to the roote of your vnfruitfull tree couered with greene leaues of assertions without any branch or bow of strong proofe I digge vp the ruinous foundation of your Babilonicall building of confused language full of doctrines different yea opposit the one to the other I shall demonstrate that you mistake the Protestant sense of this their principle The Scripture is the onely Rule o◠All necessary poynts of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture that you vnderstand not the state of the Controuersy betwixt vs and them about Tradition vnwritten that you runne headlong on with this principle in your mouth without any bit of true sense or Christian beliefe stumbling agaynst all the Articles of Christianity whereby you get many new noble victories ouer your selfe by falling downe in flat contradiction vpon your selfe 2. To vnderstand this we must obserue that a thing may be contayned most cleerely to the seeming in some text of Scripture taken singly by it selfe which yet if places of Scripture be conferred and all things considered is but darkely and doubtfully deliuered therein For example by the saying of S. Luke that Ioseph the husbād of the Virgin Mary was the Sonne of Hely it seemes most cleere and euident that Hely was his true and naturall father neyther would any Christian haue doubted thereof had not S. Matthew written that Iacob begat Ioseph the husband of Mary so that the two texts which taken by themselselues seeme most cleere being conferred together do mutually darken obscure ech other This truth supposed the doctrine of Protestants about the question whether all poynts of necessary fayth be contayned in Scripture consists in two assertions in the one they agree in the other they disagree from vs. 3. First they teach that all necessary things of Fayth are not contayned cleerely in Scripture vnderstood by conference of places but for the cleering of ambiguytyes the Rule of fayth deliuered by Traditiō is necessary which Rule comprehends all poynts of fayth which haue beene alwayes notoriously knowne and explicitely belieued of all Christians Thus farre they and we consent There is (y) D. field of the Church lib. 4. c. 16. item c. 14. sayth D. Field betwixt our Aduersaries and vs no difference in this matter for we confesse that neyther conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the Originals ARE OF ANY FORCE vnlesse we find the things we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of fayth c. neyther is there any of our Deuines that teach otherwise Thus he 4. Secondly Protestants teach that all necessary points of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture in some text or texts of Scripture cleer and conspicuous taken by themselues so that though we need the rule of Tradition that we may assuredly vnderstand the Scriptures cōferred together yet not to deliuer vnto vs some necessary matters of fayth (z) D. Field lib. 4. c. 14. We do not so make Scripture the rule of our fayth as we neglect the other of Tradition nor so admit the other as to detractany thing from the plenitude of Scripture in which al things are contayned that must be belieued which are no wayes deliuered in Scripture Heerin there is some disagreement betwixt them and vs because we hold that some verities of necessary beliefe cannot be proued by any text of Scripture sufficiently to be a matter of fayth by that sole proofe without the help of Tradition Now you agree neither with Protestants nor with vs you maintayne that all necessary things are euidently certayne in Scripture expounded by conference of places without any rule of Traditiue interpretation yea you contend that no such rule is extant This you do not as Protestants do to establish the totall sufficiency clarity of Scriptures about the receaued articles of Christian fayth but to ouerthrow totally all explicite belief of any Christian mystery whatsoeuer as by the ensuing Conuictiō of your errour from your owne sayings will manifestly appeare For whiles you endeauour to spread this Infidelity couertly vnder the maske of a Protestant or of a Christian for want of consideration memory and wit you euery where contradict your selfe affirme and deny say and vnsay build and vnbuild The first Conuiction 5. THus you write cap. 2. n. 159. lin 9. The bookes of Scripture are not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine as requisit to the well being thereof men may be saued without belieuing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without belieuing it to be a rule and perfect rule of fayth And cap. 2. n. 33. lin 7. If men aid belieue the doctrine contayned in Scripture it would no way hinder their saluation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations S. Irenaeus speakes of were in this case yet no doubt they might be saued Yea say (b) Cap. 2. n. 159. lin 20. you though they had reiected the bookes of Scripture proposed vnto them by all the rest of the Church which receaued them I do not doubt but they might be saued God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation onely to belieue the verityes therein contayned and not the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contayned Thus you destroying your Principle that Scripture is the onely rule and the onely safe way to heauen as I proue by three arguments from these words which indeed are euident truths The first argument Christian fayth cannot be ruled and guided to saluation and attayne to heauen without the onely rule without the onely guide without the onely meanes No man in his wits can deny this Now
fayth This may be made manifest by examples as by this What the Scripture sayth Asonne of thirty yeares was Dauid when he began to reigne and he reigned fourty yeares I easily belieue in the plaine sense because there is no incredibility therin But whē the Scripture sayth a sonne of one yeare was Saul when he began to reigne and he reigned two yeares the incredibility of the sense the Scripture in other places assuring me that whē he began to reigne he was higher by head shoulders then any man in Israel makes me presently stagger and to seeke for some stronger pillar then the euidence of the text in my priuate seeming and finding none my reason is presently ouercome and wone to forsake the seeming euidence of the the text The same no doubt would happen in other texts of Scripture about the B. Trinity Incarnation and other mysteries of fayth My fayth I say would giue backe had I no stronger rule and reason of belieuing them then the euidence of the text in my priuate Iudgement But whē I perceaue the euidence of the text in my priuate Iudgment to be vpheld and confirmed by the Iudgement of the Catholique Church which did euer vnderstand belieue such texts in that incredible and incomprehensible sense then am I fully confirmed and Christianly resolued to belieue those high senses though neuer so impossible to the seeming of my reason because tradition or traditine Interpretation as you speake that is the perpetuall doctrine and beleefe of Christians in all former ages is able to ouercome all incredulity which the incredibility of the thing may represent vnto reasō For it is as you are forced to confesse the rule to iudge all controuersies by Cap. 2. n. 25. ca. 3. n. 45. being Gods infallible word euidently credible of it selfe and so a fit rule whereon Christian fayth may rely for what witnesse can be more illustrious and knowne and of more eminent credit then the Church founded by Christ Iesus and his Apostles bathed with the blood of innumerable Martyrs adorned by the glorious liues and miracles of millions of holy men 22. I confesse the Protestants opinion that the doctrine of Scripture is to them euident that they see the truth thereof as cleerely as they do the light of the sunne to be absurd fond ridiculous as you tear me it But also I must acknowledge that they speake consequently other wise they could not say their fayth doth finally rest on the Scripture nor pretend the Scripture to be their onely rule And you who reiect this Protestants conceit of the intrinsecall light of Scripture do not onely harbour Infidelity in your heart but also professe it openly in words pag. 330. lin 28. I deny not 2. Edit n. 318. lin 24. but I am bound to belieue the truth of many texts of Scripture the sense whereof is to me obscure and the truth of many articles of fayth the manner whereof is obscure and to humane vnderstanding incomprehensible But then it is to be obserued that not the sense of such texts nor the MANNER of such things is that which I am bound to belieue but the truth of them for that I should belieue the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot be made euident to me with an euidence proportionable to the fayth required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is vniust and vnreasonable because to do it is impossible Thus you professe that you neither do nor can belieue the incomprehensible mysteries of Christian Religion For when the manner is the very substance of the mystery then the very substance is incomprehensible For example in the B. Trinity that Three Father Sonne and Holy Ghost be One the mystery is not that these three names signifie one thing as Sabellians and Socinians vnderstand it but that in the vnity of the Godhead there be three Persons distinct of one substance But you professe not to belieue the manner of these mysteries because it is incomprehensible Ergo you do not belieue the substance of the mysterie the substance thereof being a manner of being incomprehensible Moreouer he is no faythfull Christian who belieues not the articles of Christianity according to the Christian manner and sense But the Christian manner of belieuing them is according as they are incomprehensible to humane vnderstanding and seeme to prophane Wit and Gentilisme follies and absurdities as S. Paul doth declare 1. Cor. 1. 23. Ergo you are no Christian who openly shew your selfe a shamed to belieue any MANNER of things reuealed by Christ vpon his word that is incomprehensible except he make it euident to your vnderstanding and then if you belieue him he shall be much beholding vnto you for belieuing him so farre as you see he speakes truth and no further that is so farre as you will trust any liar whatsoeuer The summe of all is that seeing you reiect the Puritanical conceipt that Scripture is knowne to be the word of God by its owne light as a foolerie for so really it is you must either deny the Scripture to be the only rule or else continue to professe vnbeliefe of Christianity and of all manner of incomprehensible mysteries The seauenth Conuiction 23. YOur Aduersary often vrgeth you to set downe an exact Catalogue of fundamentalls or necessary truths without the particular and distinct beliefe of which you contend that it implyes contradiction that any man be saued You hauing vsed many tergiuersations to diuert the mind of the Reader at last confesse (a) 2. Edit pag. 22. lin 13. 2. Edition Pag. 129. lin 15. Pag. 23 lin 8. That it is an intricate peece of buisinesse of extreme great difficultie and of extreme little necessitie almost impossible And pag. 134. lin 28. This variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls And (b) 2. Edition cap. 4. n. 19. pag. 193. l. 10. Cap. 4. n. ◠pag. 201. lin 23. A Catalogue of Fundamentalls because to some more is fundamentall to others lesse to others none at all had been impossible By this confession you ouerthrowe your Principle that Scripture is the only rule wherein all necessary things are euidently conteyned For fundamentall points being the essentiall parts of the Ghospell Doctrines intrinsecall to the couenant betwixt God and man Cap. 4. 〈◊〉 4. lin 29. not only cleerely reuealed and so certaine truths but also commanded vnder payne of damnation to be distinctly knowne and belieued of all and so necessary truths I demand whether these diuine fundamentall and essentiall lawes about the distinct knowing and belieuing of these points in particular be cleerely deliuered in Scripture or not If not Ergo there be some diuine Lawes necessary vnto saluation without the obseruance of which it implyes contradiction any man should be saued Cap. 6. in fine not cleerely deliuered in Scripture If they be cleerely deliuered then points fundamentall be cleerely discernable from
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
mistresse of all necessary truth euen by essence that she can no more depart from teaching proposing and maintayning all fundamentall Christian doctrine then from her owne being Nor do you onely so affirme the Churches essentiall infallibility in teaching all Fundamentals but also prooue the same by the word of God which proposes the Church of Christ as the pillar and ground of truth as built on the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shal neuer preuaile For these words at least euince as you confesse Cap. 3. n. 70. that there shall still continue a true Church and bring forth children vnto God send soules to HeaueÌ„ which could not be vnles she did alwayes without fayle teach all necessary truth so be an infallible guide in Fundamentals 4. Now this being a truth infallible that the Church cannot erre in teaching fundamentals let vs proceed to note and number the doctrines which you openly grant and proue to be consequent thereupon which be such as no more could haue byn desired A Sicilian Nobleman when Scipio Praetor of that country offered him one wealthy and talkatiue but of little wit for aduocate of his cause replyed I pray you Sir giue this man for Aduocate to my Aduersary and then I will be content to haue no Aduocate at all So we may say that the cause of Protestants about the Totall of their Religion and Saluation controuerted with the Church of Rome being abandoned by learned Protestants none presuming to appeare against euident truth so cleerely demonstrated by Charity maintayned it was the Roman Churches good luck you should preferre your selfe and be admitted for their Aduocate for you speake so wisely so pertinently so coherently for ProtestaÌ„ts as the Roman Church needs not any other Aduocate in her behalfe No Catholique Patron no learned man howsoeuer well seene in Controuersies of Religion nay the Author of Charity mainteyned himselfe could not haue spoken more fully grouÌ„dedly vnanswerably in the defence of the Roman Catholique Church then you haue done while you are perswaded that you plead against her as appeareth by these Conclusions the deduction whereof is confessed and expressed by your selfe 5. First there is euer was and shal be a true Church visible and conspicuous to the world that all men according to the will of God may be saued if they please by the meanes of her preaching ouer the world This you grant in saying that if the Church be an infallible guide in Fundamentals then this knowne infallibility must be setled in some knowne Society of Christians by adhering to which guide men may be guided to belieue aright in all Fundamentals 1. Tim. 2.4 No was the Apostle sayth God will haue all men to be saued and to come to the knowledge of truth and consequently he will haue the meanes which proposeth all the truth of Saluation infallibly guiding men to heaueÌ„ to be sisible so diffused in the world as all men may come to see her and learne of her and be saued if they will by the grace of Christ Iesus 6. Secondly this Church being an infallible guide in Fundamentals must be likewyse infallible in all her proposals in matter of fayth This sequell according to your good custome you both deny and grant You deny it pag. 177. saying that the Church though she be the ground and rocke of all necessary truth yet not the rocke and ground or infallible teacher of all profitable truth but may erre and mainteyne damnable errour against it But pag. 105. n. 139. you grant the Consequence saying To grant any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed and Cap. 3. n. 36. you say The Church except she be infallible in all things we can belieue her in nothing vpoÌ„ her word and authority which you proue by this demonstration vnanswerably Because say you an authority subiect to errour can be no firme and stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this authority being one the same in all proposals I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one And therefore must do vnreasonably eyther in belieuing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this authority or else in not belieuing all things aequally warranted by it Behold how earnestly you auerre and forcibly demonstrate what before you did so peremptorily deny that the Church being the pillar and ground of some Truth to wit of Truth necessary to Saluation must of necessity be the pillar ground of all sauing Truth because a Church subiect to errour in some things cannot be the ground and firme foundation of my beleefe in any thing whatsoeuer 7. Thirdly the true Church of Christ the pillar and ground of Truth to which it is essential to propose teach and mayntaine all necessary truth is one Society of Christians notoriously knowne by subordination to one vniuersall visible Head or Pastour This you grant saying that an infallible guide in Fundamentals or which is all one such a Church as shall alwayes without fayle be the pillar ground and teacher of all necessary truth must be one knowne Society of Christians by adhering to which we are sure to be gurded aright to belieue all Fundamentals one certaine Society of men by whome we are certaine they neither do nor can erre in Fundamentals one certayne Society of Christians which may be knowne by adhering to such a Bishop as their Head 8. Fourthly there being such an infallible Church in all her doctrines you suppose that we are not to find out which is the true Church by preexamination of the doctrine controuerted but by euidence of the marke of subordination to one visible Head find the true Church by whose teaching we are lead to all necessary truth if we follow her direction and rest in her Iudgement These foure sequels you teach to be inuolued and contayned in your grant that the Church is alwayes euen by ssâ—nce the pillar and ground of fayth the infallible teacher and maynteyner of all necessary truth whence we shall in the sixt and seuenth Chapter inferre the totall ouerthrow of your cause and shew saluation to be impossible against the Catholique Roman Church The second Conuiction 9. FOr the totall infallibility of the Catholique Church I propose this Syllogisme out of your sayings In matters of Religion none can be lawfull Iudges but such as are for that office appointed of God nor any fit for it but such as are infallible but the Catholike Church is lawfull Iudge endued with authority to determine controuersies of Religion Ergo she is appoynted of God and made by him fit for that office that is infallible In this Syllogisme as in the former both propositions be your owne the Maior you delyuer pag. 60. n. 21. For the deciding of ciuill controuersies men may appoynt themselues a Iudge But in matters of Religion
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
be decided for Christians affirmatiuely by another principle or direction besides naturall wit and iudgment to wit by the testimony of the primitiue Church or by tradition which is a rule to iudge all Controuersies by 3. If you reply that the question which Scriptures be canonicall is indeed determined by the testimony of the primitiue Church but not only by it without the concurence of naturall reason this euasion is stopt by what you write cap. 2. n. 2◠lin 26. The question whether such or such a booke be Canonicall Scripture though it may be decided negatiuely out of Scripture by shewing apparent and inreconcileable contradictions betweene it and some other booke confessedly canonicall yet affirmatiuely it cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Churches Behold the controuersie wherein Scripture is the subiect cannot be decided affirmatiuely by any rule or principle but by tradition only that is by the testimony of the ancient Church a rule distinct from that of naturall wit and iudgement 4. You will say yea you do say that Tradition though a principle distinct from reason yet is not able to stand by it selfe without the support of naturall reason cap. 2. n. 31. Though Scripture be a principle most knowne in Christianity yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a principle more knowne then Scripture but to say it is a principle not in Christianity but in reason not proper to Christians but common to all men And cap. 2. n. 114. You would haue men follow authority on Gods name let them we also would haue them follow authority for it is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue them beleiue the Scripture But then as for the authority you follow you will let them see reason why they should follow it And is not this to goe a little about to leaue reason for a short time then to come to it againe and to do that which you condemne in others It being indeed a plain impossibility to submit reason but to reason for he that does it to authority must of necessity thinke himselfe to haue greater reason to beleiue that Authority Thus you And though you often iterate this falshood that tradition is not rested vpon for it selfe but proued by reason yet you do as often inculcate the contrary truth that it is a principle euident of it selfe independently of any reason besides that credit it hath of it selfe Cap. 2. n. 155. The Scripture is not an absolutely perfect rule but as perfect as a written rule can be which must alwayes need something else which is euidently true or euidently credible to giue attestation to it and that in this case is vniuersall Tradition so that vniuersall Tradition is the rule to iudge all controuersies by Cap. 2. n. 25. lin 3. We belieue not this the bookes of Scripture to be canonicll vpon the authority of your Church but vpon the credibility of vniuersall tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe and therefore fit to be rested on Cap. 4. n. 53. lin 26. you say That Charity maintayned though he differ from D. Potter in many things yet agrees with him in this that tradition is such a principle as may be rested on and requires no other proofe 5. By these later texts of cleere Truth I conuince the falshood of the former that Tradition vniuersall is not a principle in Christianity but in reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men How can tradition vniuersall that is deriued from the Apostles by the full consent of all former Christian ages to this present be a rule to determine all controuersies amongst Christians and yet not be a rule in Christianity but in preason only And whereas you say That tradition is a principle not proper to Christians but common to all men I wonder what mist of disaffection against this truth could be so thicke betweene your vnderstanding and it as to hide it from your sight Is not tradition vniuersall frō the Apostles a rule of beliefe proper to Christians that is for Christians only Do any men in the world but Christians belieue Doctrines to be true Institutions and Lawes holy and pious because they are deliuered as such by full consent from the Apostles who but Christians admit Scriptures to be the word of God because receiued from the Apostles by tradition as such How then is not Apostolicall tradition a principle proper to Christient but common to all men You will say Infidels also belieue the tradition of their Ancestours and so tradition is a principle which Christians haue common with them I answere in like manner Infidels belieue the Scriptures and writings of their ancestours will you then say that Apostolicall Scripture is not a principle proper to Christians but common to all men If not I hope then you will easily vnderstand that though prophane tradition be a principle with Infidels yet Apostolicall tradition may be is a principle proper to Christians 6. The Principle whereby you proue that the authority of Tradition is resolued into Reason because It is impossible that any man should submit his reason but to reason for he that does it to authority must of necessity thinke himselfe to haue greater reason to belieue that authority This principle I say is not onely false but impious For according to it it is impossible that any man should belieue the mystery of the most blessed Trinity except he haue greater reason to belieue it then the authority of God reuealing it For if he haue not then he submits his naturall reason not vnto reason but vnto the authority of God reuealing things farre aboue the reach of reason 7. I conclude the principall intent of this Chapter with a demonstration from your contradictions that with Christians the authority of Apostolicall tradition is not a principle in reason but of Christian faith aboue Reason able to command Reason to belieue euen what may seeme repugnant to reason You affirme that in Scripture there are many irreconcileable contradictions to the seeming of reason ca. 3. n. 19. In all the controuersies of Protestants there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture And cap. 1. n. 13 lin 26. The contrary beliefe may be concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alleaged on both sides that true louers of God and truth may without any fault some goe one way and some another and some and those as good as either of the former suspend their iudgement and expect some Elias to reconcile the repugnancies Now reason cannot but feele much difficulty and repugnance to belieue a book full of seeming contradictions to be the word of God and to containe nothing but infallible truth And yet all true Christians and you professe with them do vpon the authority of Tradition belieue Scripture to be Gods word euery word sillable thereof to be infallible truth notwithstanding all the seeming contradictions which most of
themselues to discerne assuredly betwixt sauing truth damnable falshood guilded with many seeming cleere texts of Scripture But the true way of Saluation euen fooles cannot erre from it except they be willfull against the teaching and voyce of the visible Church telling them this is the way walke therein Ergo the way of belieuing simply the voyce of the Church is the sole way of Saluation and your way of Wit and proud Disdayne of the Church is the way to the bottomlesse pit The fifth Conuiction 21. YOVR way of resoluing your fayth by reason is refuted because by this meanes you may be forced vnder paine of damnation to admit the Diuel himselfe to be your Maister bound to receaue his false suggestions as the word of God What absurdity more immane vast horrible then this And yet it doth so necessarely follow vpon your foresayd Doctrine as you are forced to grant it cap. 2. n. 12. lin 22. If by the Discourse of the Diuell himselfe I be I will not say conuinced but persuaded though falsely that it is a Diuine reuelation shall deny to belieue it I shall be a formal though not a materiall Heretique 22. You will perhaps say I do you wrong and mistake your meaning For you do not meane that you are bound to belieue any falshood proposed vnto you by the Diuel in persuasiue or conuictiue discourse but onely if you haue belieued vpon the Diuels persuasion any thing to be Diuine Reuelation you cannot this supposed disbeleeue it or thinke it to be false I answer the drift of your discourse sheweth this could not be your meaning and if it were the same is proued by your owne confession sottish In that place you discourse vpon a difficulty debated betweene D. Potter and the Maintayner of Charity what is required to sufficient proposition obliging men to beleeue D. Potter (a) D. Pot. pag. 247. a Be it by a Preacher or lay man or reading Scriptures or hearing them read that a point be cleered to him thinkes that to be sufficiently proposed as God's Word which is proposed by seeming euident proofe from Scripture whosoeuer the Propounder be The Mantayner iudgeth sufficiency of Proposition to depend not so much on the seeming clarity of Scripture as on the Authority of the propounder that he be worthy of credit and such an one as on his word and proposition we may securely rely You take part with D. Potter affirme that what is proposed by good and sufficient proofe by conuictiue or persuasiue discourse as the word of God is sufficiently propounded vnto fayth though the propounder be the Diuell himselfe Be the meanes of proposal what it will sufficient or in sufficient worthy of credit or not worthy though it were the discourse of the Diuel himselfe yet if I be I will not say conuinced but persuaded though falsely that it is a Diuine reuelation and shall deny to belieue it I shal be a formal though not a material Heretique These be your wordes which shew euidently your mind to be that men are bound to belieue the Diuel himselfe if his discourse be sufficient that is conuictiue or euidently probable and persuasiue 23. For the sense that if you were persuaded by the Diuel that it is a diuine Reuelation yet should refuse to belieue it to be true that then you should be a formal Heretique this sense is idle and sottish not formall heresy but plain impossibility as you say (u) Second edition pag. 10. lin 2. Pag. 10. lin 12. How is it not apparent contradiction that a man should disbelieue what himselfe vnderstandes to be a truth or any Christian what he vnderstandes or but belieues to be testified by God D. Potter might well thinke it superfluous to tell you This is damnable because indeed it is impossible 24. Moreouer this obligation of belieuing the Diuels Discourse and Conference if it seeme to you to be conuictiue or persuasiue is necessarily consequent vpon these your principles 1. That proposition sufficient doth not depend on the authority of the propounder but only on the apparent goodnesse or seeming euidence of his discourse 2. That he who followes God only and his owne reason cannot possibly erre 3. That by discourse no man can possibly be led into errour For all men are bound to belieue that to be the word of God and infallible truth which they iudge sufficiently propounded as such But you iudge that sufficiently propounded which is propounded by conuictiue or persuasiue discourse from Scripture whosoeuer the propounder be though he be the Diuel himselfe Therfore you are by your principles bound to belieue euen the Diuel himselfe when his discourse to you seemeth conuictiue or persuasiue as Luther did and by diabolical persuasion was induced to abrogate the Masse This being so that your way of resolution bindeth you to belieue the Diuells discourse I subsume But in the true Christian way of resolution none can be bound to belieue the Diuel when he knows him to be the Diuel Therfore this your Wit-way of resolution of fayth is the right way to make the Diuell the ruler guide of your wit You say (y) Second Edit pag 340. lin 22. Pag. 357. lin 13. That our Diuells at Lowden doing tricks against the Gospell shall not moue you I am persuaded the Diuell will not giue so much as a false miracle for your soule seing he may haue it at an easier rate For he can easier frame an hundred arguments of conuictiue discourse from Scripture in the behalfe of his falshoods that is such as you with all your wit shall not be able to solue then do such tricks as he is said to be forced to do at Lowden And yet you do not aske so much as a conuictiue Argument for your soule if he can by probable reasons from Scripture hammer into your head that his doctrine is diuine reuelation you are sure his owne The sixt Conuiction 25. WHereas the Directour offers you the perpetuall visible Church descended by neuer interrupted succession from our Sauiour for your guide instred of your natural wit and reason you reiect the offer Preface n. 12. saying He that followeth reason in all his opinions followeth God whereas he that followeth a company of men may oftentimes follow a company of beasts And against the Catholique Romane Church thus you declame Cap. 6 n. 72. If I follow your Church for my guide I shall do all one as I should follow a company of blind men in a iudgment of colours or in the choyce of a way For euery inconsidering man is blind in that which he doth not consider Now what is your Church but a company of vnconsidering men who comfort themselus because they are a great company togeather but all of them either out of idelnesse refuse a seuere trial of their Religion or out of superstition feare the euent of such a triall that they may be scrupuled and staggered by it c.
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
you say men may attaine by fayth vnto saluation without Scripture though they be wholy ignorant of Scripture as you truly say with vs yea though they actually reiect Scripture and refuse to be ruled by it though the same be proposed to them by the whole Church as you say without vs and truth Ergo Scripture is not the only rule and meanes of Saluation 6. Hence you contradict your self when you say To (c) Cap. 6. n. 19. reiect Christ or to deny the Scripture is such an heresy the beliefe of whose contrary is necessary not only necessitate praecepti sed medij and therfore is so absolutly destructiue of saluation that no ignorance can excuse it so that the Church may most truly be said to perish if she Apostate from Christ absolutly or directly reiect the Scripture denying it to be the word of God Thus you so conrradicting you selfe that if what here you write so absolutly be true your doctrine that men wholy ignorant of Scripture yea though they reiect and deny it to be Gods word may be saued is not only heresy damnable in it selfe but also Heresy Apostaticall so absolutly and indispensably destructiue of saluation as no ignorance can excuse it You are a fit man to teach others the safe way of saluation who by your owne words are conuinced to runne a way absolutly destructiue of saluation 7. The second argument If the diuine authority of the Scripture be the only rule and guide of fayth then it is so appointed of God and God requireth of men that they should belieue Scripture to be their rule as being his infallible word his only doctrine But you say God requires not that men belieue the diuine Authority of Scripture yea they may reiect this light and the direction therof without doing against any diuine ordinance or appointment How then is Scripture the only rule of fayth the only meanes and way to saluation except you will say it is the rule appointed not of God but by your selfe the deep wisdome of your excellent wit We shall doubtlesse be well guided and besure not so misse if we follow you for our guide you will teach vs to goe euery way yea contrary wayes at once to belieue contradictions at the same tyme. Consider I pray you this your saying now refuted how contrary the same is to what you write cap. 6. n. 54. in fine where you set downe the totall Summe of your new chosen Religion I am fully assured that God does not and therfore that men ought not to require any more of any man but this To belieue the Scripture to be the word of God to endeauour to find the true sense therof and to liue according to it Quo te Maeripedes Quae te via ducet ad Orcum You goe contrary wayes yet both be damnable errours and lead directly to Hell One way to damnation is belieuing that God doth require nothing els no more then that we belieue the Scripture to be his word not the verityes contayned therin but only that we endeauour to find them This way you take and it is your (d) Cap. 6. n. 57. I am verily persuaded that I haue wisely chosen after a long deliberation new wise choyce the only (e) After a long vnpartiall search I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but vpon this rock only rock of rest for the sole of your foot wearied with a long search of the true way to eternal happinesse You haue indeed found rest not for the foot of your soule but for the sole of your foot because your Religion newly chosen hath no footing in your soule but only Ventosâ linguâ pedibusque fugacibus Hence your sole in your foot wearied to stand longe vpon any persuasion flyes from this way God requires of vs that we belieue the Scripture to be his word and no more to the playne contrary That God requires of vs that we belieue the verityes contained in Scripture not the diuine authority of Scripture or that it is his word Betwixt these two contraries you fly from the one to the other without any rest or end 8. Poore wearied commiserable creature One of those wauering babes tossed this way and that way with euery gust of different fancyes Behold the only rock of rest for Christian fayth is offered you in your owne words you haue it if you know what you say if you will not stand ouer by proud ignorance but vnderstand or stand with humble beliefe vnder this your owne saying Scripture is not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being therof For on this Catholicke saying of inuincible truth I ground my third argument and by it proue that not so much the being written in Scripture as the Being taught by the Church is the rule to know which is the Christian Doctrine and to belieue it For the Being proposed and taught externally is requisit not to the well being only but to the very being of Christian Doctrine because it cannot be credible and fit to be belieued of Christian men except it be externally proposed and taught them to be of God by some credible witnesse But the Being taught which is so much of the being of Christian Doctrine is not the being taught in Scripture For this is requisit but to the well being therof as you say Ergo besides being written and taught by Scripture another external being taught is requisite which is of the very essence of Christian doctrine which makes the same credible and fit to be belieued and this can be no other but the Being taught by the Church of Christ the pillar and ground of truth So that the rocke the solid firme substantiall reason of belieuing Christian Doctrine is the Being taught by the Church and the Being written in Scripture is requisit ad melius esse to the well being thereof because we belieue it better and more assuredly when we find that which is taught by the Church to be also written in Scripture though this be not absolutly necessary to the constitution of Christian Doctrine Behold what is contayned in your words Hoc fac viues hic sta quiesces follow the counsell of S. Austin (f) Si iam satis tibi ia ctatus videris finemque huiusmodi laboribus vis imponere sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos vsque manauit de vtil The cred c. 8. which I I haue noted for you in the margent and abandon that sandy banck an imaginary rocke the Scripture is the only rule of fayth from which you are carried away into a sea of inconstant swelling fancyes which fight together like waues to the dissolution of ech other The second Conuiction 9. THis Conuiction I ground vpon this truth◠that Scripture cannot proue it selfe to be the word of God which truth you deliuer ca. 2. n. 46. That the
Diuinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it selfe alone but by some extrinsicall authority you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of vniuersall Tradition not of your Church From this truth by you granted I thus argue That cannot be the onely rule or by it selfe alone a rule of fayth with is not of it selfe able to proue and shew that which it contaynes to be the word of God For the matter of Christian Faith being the word of God onely that which caÌ„not shew it selfe to be the word of God cannot shew it selfe to be matter of Christian fayth But Scripture alone by it selfe cannot proue it selfe nor consequently the doctrine it contaynes to be the word of God but to this end needeth the extrinsecall Authority of Tradition Therefore not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned with the extrinsecall authority of Tradition is the rule of fayth 10. This defect of Scripture in respect of being the onely rule or by it selfe alone any rule of fayth you lay open cap. 2. n. 8. lin 7. Though a writing could not be proued to vs to be a perfect rule of fayth by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being said or written in a booke but onely by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe Thus you I would gladly know how can Scripture be the onely rule of fayth or by it selfe any rule of fayth if nothing be proued true nothing shewed to be the word of God barely by being written therein but onely by the light of Tradition ioyned vnto Scripture 11. Hence I inferre if Scripture by it selfe without Tradition cannot be a rule of Fayth nor shew any doctrine to be of God how much lesse can it be a rule of fayth against the vniuersal Tradition of the Church It is deep vanity in you and dull inconsideration of the consequences of your doctrine to boast as you do cap. 3. n. 40. that by Scripture you can confute the Church which taught you Scripture to be the word of God aswel say you as of my Maister in Physicke or the Mathematickes I may learne those rules and principles by which I may confute his erroneous Conclusions Thus you who verily are such a maister you speake of For you deliuer rules and principles by which you may be confuted your selfe For do not you often inculcate this Principle that the Scripture is knowne to be the word of God only by Tradition onely by the testimony of the ancient Churches If then you proue by Scripture any TraditioÌ„ of the ancieÌ„t Church to be against Scripture you shall not proue that TraditioÌ„ of the Church to be against the word of God but that you haue no sure ground to belieue the Scripture to be of God and that you were vnwise to belieue it vpon the warrant of Tradition as you say you do For the rule which may be false in one thing caÌ„not be a sure ground of beliefe in any thing May I learne this lesson of my good Maister your booke which being your scholler hath taught me many rules and principles by which I might confute his maister Pag. â—5 lin 23. The meanes to decide Controuersies in Fayth and Religion must be endued with vniuersall infallibility in whatsoeuer it propoundeth as a diuine truth For if it may be false in one thing of this nature we can yeld vnto it but a wauering and fearfull assent in any thing Thus you Wherefore if Tradition be not endued with vniuersall infallibility if it may be false in any one thing it proposeth for diuine truth it cannot be belieued with firme assent in any thing at all Now the principles of Physicke or Mathematicks are belieued because euident of themselues and not vpon the bare word tradition and authority of the maister For a scholler if he be not assured of those rules principles otherwise then by the word of his maister cannot by the authority of these rules and principles proue any thing against his maister but onely against himselfe that he is a foole eyther in belieuing these rules vpon his Maisters bare word or else in thinking he can by those rules conuince his maister of falshood In like sort you shew small iudgement discretion who persuade your selfe you are able to proue some Church-TraditioÌ„ to be against the word of God by Scripture which Scripture you belieue to be the word of God onely vpon the warrant of vniuersall Church Tradition for this is a thing impossible and implicatory as any considering man will see wherfore not only Scripture but Scripture ioyned with Tradition is a rule of Fayth consequently it is not possible to confute any Church-Tradition by Scripture The third Conuiction 12. THis conuiction is grounded on this truth that vnlearned men cannot be assured they haue the incorrupt text or the true TranslatioÌ„ of Scripture but onely by the word of the Church This you affirme pag. 79. lin 7. 2. Edit pag. 75. lin 36. It were altogether as abhorrent from the goodnesse of God and repugnant to it to suffer an ignorant lay mans soule to perish meerly for being mislead by an indiscernable false Translation which yet was commended vnto him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he hath reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired absolution Thus you from which I conuince two thinges First that the Scripture is not the rule Secondly that the Church must of necessity be still visible and infallible in guiding men to heauen The first I proue in this fort The only rule of fayth must be for the capacity of all men aswell vnlearned as learned simple as iudicious occupied in worldly affaires as disoccupied The only rule I say must be able to assure all men of the Scripture that the Text and the Translation thereof is not corrupt in any substantiall matter But Scripture is not able to do this as you do confesse and consequently there is a necessity that men vnlearned men of meane capacity men occupied in worldly affaires trust the Church Ergo not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned vnto the authority of the Church is the rule of fayth 13. Secondly that the Church is visible and an infallible guide I proue You say It is repugnant to the goodnesse of God to suffer the soules of men to perish for their trusting the Church which they had reason to trust aboue all other being of necessity to trust some If this be true and it is most true then God is bound in his goodnesse to prouide that the Church which is to be trusted aboue all other be not so bidden as it cannot without extreme difficulty be found nor fallible that it cannot without extreme danger be trusted 2. Edit cap. 6. n. 20. pag. 322. li.
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
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
truth to be sayd together but that it made not against you this is Charity with all my heart You will suffer vs to speake truth if you are willing it should be truth a great fauour But if you hate that truth we speake because it presseth your pride which will not let you stoope to submit your wit to the word of God proposed by his Church you will rage storme against it deny it impugne it seeke to darken the light thereof to make the same hatcfull by vttering any vntruth against it 28. For example you are not willing the Roman Church should be the true Church therefore to hide the light of this truth you heape lyes togeather and fill whole pages and leaues with rage and fury without any the least lucidum interuallum To giue the reader a little tast of your bitternes and one draught of your salt sea you pag. 90. thus declaime against vs. See edit cap. 2. n. 101. pag 26. lin 26. You who haue wronged so exceedingly Christ his miracles and his doctrine by forging so euidently so many false miracles for the confirmation of your new doctrine who with forging so many false Stories and false Authours haue taken a fayre way to make the fayth of all Stories questionable who haue brought in doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confesse to be the word of Christ which for the most part make for the honour and proffit of the teachers of them who make profession of corrupting al sorts of Authours whose questioned doctrines none of them came from the fountayne of Apostolique tradition but haue insinuated themselues into the streames by little and little some in one age some in another c. and men are told they were as good belieue nothing at all as not to belieue these things to haue come from the Apostles which they know to haue been brought in but yesterday whether this be not a ready way and likely way to make men to conclude with themselues I will belieue nothing at all and whether this conclusion be not to often made in Italy and Spaiue and France and England too I leaue it to the Iudgment of those who haue wisedome and experience Thus you And is not this a good proofe of your profession that you will suffer no truth if you be vnwilling it should be truth but will load it with all manner of vnprooued and vnprobable falshood 29. As for the last point of your inuectiue whether there be not too many in Italy Spaine France and England who because they are vrged to belieue more then they list thereupon conclude to belieue iust nothing at all with firme Christian fayth you leaue it to be determined by men of wisedome and experience I thinke euery man may resolue it by the experience which you will not let them want to wit that in England certainly there is one such and that is too many by one for you hate and abhorre to belieue the reuealed (a) Pag. 330 lin 24. manner of Christian mysteries which is incomprehensible to your human and carnall reason and in this respect also hate and abhorre the Church of Rome which will not allow Saluation without beliefe thereof vnto any Christian to whome it is proposed by her preaching Yea you do both by word and deed further professe that you will not suffer any truth which crosseth this your impious fancy though it be truth neuer so much you will deny it impugne it disgrace it by all kind of fictions and lyes And whereas you say that some other answerer of your Crew would not haue been so good to the Mainteyner of Charity for they would not you say haue suffered him to haue said so much truth together whereas to you it is sufficient that the truth makes not to the purpose Pardon me Sir I tell you plainely I do not belieue you For why should they deny knowne truth and rage against it if they be willing it should be truth as not being against them It may well be that they may hate some knowne truth which you do not hate and againe you may hate some truth as the mysterie of the B. Trinity which they do not hate but for malignity and wilfull opposition against knowne truth for not enduring it for being rebells against the light for being in the number of them in whome S. Pauls Prophecy is verified That in the later dayes there should arise many who would not SVFFER or enaure wholesome doctrine but turne away their hearing from truth to the belieuing and venting of fables tales lyes villanous slaunders In this respect Isay they cannot be worse then you are as appeareth by your profession practise set downe in this argument from which we will passe to the next wherein you assure Protesters of their Saluation notwithstanding their liuing and dying in these kind of direfull passions and preiudices instilled by education against the truth The eight Conuiction 30. THey who against the saluation of that Church from which they separate protest through extreme want of charity partiality and manifest imustice through hatred of that Church not out of Iudgment are damnable Schismatiques That Protestants of your stampe be such is manifest by your wordes and deedes Cap. 3. n. 63. circa finem We Protest and proclaime the contrary and that we haue very little hope of their saluation who either out of negligence in seeking the truth or vnwillingnesse to fynd it lyue and dye in the errours and impieties of that Church And c. 5. n. 34. in fine you tell vs That God is infinitely iust and therefore it is to be feared will not pardon Roman Catholiques who might easily haue knowne the tauth and either through pride or obstinacy or negligence would not And (a) Cap. 7. n. 6. in fine Pag. 389. lin 10. To lyue and dye in the Roman Church is as daungerous as to shoote a gulfe which though some good ignorant soules may do and escape yet it may be well feared scarce one in a hundred but miscarries 31. This you make the case of poore Catholiques euen of good ignorant soules if happely they erre and might haue byn rid of their errours by speaking with so learned and Religious a Teacher as you M. William Chillingworth are There is little hope of their saluation because they were vnwilling to conferre with you as supposing for certaine you could be of no credit to oppose and accuse as you do the whole Christian Church of all ages as subiect to vniuersall damnable errours On the other side if your Protestants erre not through negligence onely but through (b) Cap. 3. n. 52. lin 7. Betrayed into and kept in errour by their fault vice or passion by pride obstinacy as most men are pag. 21. lin 40. If any protestāt or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sinne of his will as it is to be feared many millions are passion pride obstinacy
Christian a wilfull obstinate opposer of diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed to him how can any man possibly be an Hereticke 3. Some may say if he see the doctrine to be contayned in Scripture and yet disbelieue it then is he an Hereticke I answere then he is not an heretique but a Heathen openly and formally an Infidell For you say (a) Sec. edition cap. 4. n. 4 post medium Pag. 194. lin 14. To disbelieue any doctrine which one knowes to be reuealed in Scripture is for a Christian not only impious but also impossible D. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 5. 4. Some may also pretend that an Hereticke is one that erreth about some truth which doth directly and essentially concerne matter of Saluation though he ioyne not obstinacy to his errour But this is manifestly false An Hereticke is one hatefull horrible and detestable but a man that erreth in matters of saluation ignorantly for want of sufficient instruction and proposition is commiserable and to be pittied not to be abhorred He that being in the darke seeth not the meate that is neere him and so starueth for want of food cannot be said to be a blind man or a wilfull staruer of himselfe so the Christian who doth erre about some essentiall points of Saluation the necessary food of the soule so perisheth because the light of credibility doth not shine vpon it in respect of him cannot be said to be an Hereticke or an Infidell but only in this respect an vnhappy wretch though this case among Christians can hardly happen Finally an Hereticke is one that erreth through inward indisposition to belieue but the man that doth disbelieue a truth only because he is not sufficiently in structed may want no good disposition and readines of mind to belieue Ergo he cannot be an Hereticke 5. Now this mayne and last principle for resolution of the Controuersy which be diuine Reuelations is the Christian Catholique Church deliuering perpetuall Traditions from the Apostles or which is all one as you confesse (a) Cap. 2.155 Vniuersall Tradition is the rule to iudge all controuersies by (b) Cap. 2 n. 28. being a thing credible of it selfe and therefore fit to be rested on Other principles and rules though they be not euident of themselues yet are good stayes of our fayth because euidently (c) Cap. 2. n. 8. That Scripture cannot be proued to be a perfect rule by its owne saying so but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe conioyned with this principle of Tradition credible of it selfe against all which your Protestants or Protesters directly oppose and so erre fundamentally and are Heretickes as these Arguments conuince The first Conuiction 6. FIrst I prooue them to be Heretickes against their owne last Principle and rule their rocke pillar and ground the Scripture euident of it selfe and known to be the word of God by its owne glorious beames rayes Though somtimes you reiect this Principle as not onely false but also (a) Cap. 6. n. 55. Cap. 2. n. 47. fond ridiculous vnworthy to be the conceyt of any wise man yet to keepe your good purpose of contradicting your selfe in euery thing you approue it also c. 4. n. 53. lin 25. where to the question What assurance is there that the Scripture is the word of God you answere The doctrine it selfe is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat What is this but to make the Scripture credible and worthy of credit for it selfe seeing the credibility or worthines of credit Scripture hath from its owne doctrine stile language it hath of it selfe But howsoeuer Scripture be not the last stay of your beliefe in the question Whether it be the word of God yet in respect of your Fayth of the sense of Scripture you make Scripture the last Principle yea the onely rule thereof cleere manifest euident of it selfe This supposed I subsume but Protestants disbelieue doctrines proposed cleerly and plainly by Scripture through preiudices and passions instilled into them by education Cap. 3. n. 19. lin 18. Second Edit pa. 21. lin 4. as you confesse pag. 137. lin 6. and there be millions of them that are betrayed into errour not by ignorance but by the sinfull and damnable passions of their will pag. 21. lin 40. Ergo Protestants erre fundamentally and are prooued Heretickes by their owne fundamentall rule and last Principle of fayth for if they be not Heretickes who contradict a doctrine which is propoposed vnto them by cleere plaine and euident texts of Scripture it is not possible there should be any Hereticke by their grounds 7. This is confirmed because the same Protestants belieue truths proposed vnto them by texts not so cleer and euident as those are the true sense whereof they disbelieue Ergo the cause why they do not belieue other more plainly and cleerely proposed Truths is not want of credibility in the proposition nor of faculty in their vnderstandings but want of disposition to belieue in their wils This you confesse saying Pag. 137. lin 6. That truths reuealed in Scripture plainly inough in the mselues be not plainly reuealed to such and such men into whome passions and preiudices against such truths haue beene by education instilled Now to disbelieue truths proposed sufficiently and inough by plaine texts of Scripture that is in your way with the vttermost light and euidence of credibility any Christian proposition can possibly haue not to belieue I say truths so proposed through passion and preiudice is the formall crime of Hereticall obstinacy wilfull blindnes 8. Hence we may further conclude that disagreeing Protestants are Heretiques to ech other and their dissensions Hereticall on the one side or on both As to say of one he wants light to see the sunne shining at noone day is to say he is starke blind To say of one he wants wit to appehend the truthes that are euident of themselues is to say he is a foole so to say of one that he wants disposition to belieue Christian doctrine proposed by cleare and manifest Scripture is to say he is an Infidell and voyd of Fayth if doctrine proposed by cleere texts of Scripture be hoc ipso proposed to Christian belieuers sufficiently and inough as Protesters teach and must teach else no doctrine can be in their Religion proposed sufficiently and inough What you so often (a) Pag. 336. n. 19. and else where a hundred times obiect that then the Dominicans should be Heretiques vnto Iesuites because in the opinion of Iesuites their opinion is cleerely repugnant to Scripture is friuolous and vaine For to Iesuits and Dominicans the sole euidence of the text of Scripture is not sufficient proposition because many plaine texts are not to be vnderstood in the plaine and litterall sense but that the proposition of Scripture be sufficient the euidence of the text must be backt and strengthned by the Tradition
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
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
are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church that they are the highest Tribunals the Church hath on earth that their Authority is immediatly deriued and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and iurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon euident reason Behold D. Potter cryes We Protestants say that Generall Councels are authorized of God to pronounce a Iudiciall definitiue sentence obliging all persons and you cry the contrary We say and are able to demonstrate that God hath not giuen any such authority to any Society Councell or Congregation of men How do you not feare least by thus contradicting your Potter Isa c. 45. you incurre the curse of the Prophet Vaequi contradicis fictori tuo testa de Samijs terrae Woe vnto thee that darest contradict thy Potter though thou art but (a) Samosatenian a Samian Pot-sheard 31. But I can easely make you friends with the Doctour shewing that else where you contradict your selfe and agree with him that Councels are authorized of God to pronounce a definitiue obliging sentence c. 4. n. 18. in fine I willingly confesse that the iudgement of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farre directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the Contrary it may be sinne to reiect it at least not to affoard it outward submission for publique peace-sake Hence I thus argue Christian Councels haue power to pronounce a Iudiciall definitiue obliging sentence as you confesse and from that obligation you except no Christian and consequently they can bind all persons of the Church at the least to outward submission and externall obedience for peace-sake But none are fit to pronounce such a sentence but such a Congregation or Society of men as are by God authorized thereto as you also affirme Ergo a Christian Councell or Conuocation of Bishops is authorized of God to pronounce a Iudiciall definitiue sentence obliging the whole Christian world 32. And whereas you say with D. Potter that such Councels be not infallible and so may be questioned or reiected vpon euident reasons and that they do bind vs to externall obedience for peace sake but not to an inward assent that their Decrees are true you contradict what you write pag. 59. n. 17. In Ciuill Controuersies we are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge or not be resist it but not alwayes to belieue it iust But in matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue iudged right So that in ciuill Cōtrouersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible Now seing you say cap. 2. n. 22. That in matters of Religion the office of Iudge may be giuen to none but whome God hath designed for it a Generall Councell which hath the office of iudge to pronounce a Iudiciall obliging sentence in matters of Religion must of necessity be infallible and bind Christians not onely to outward submission but also to belieue that it hath iudged right and according to the word of God Except you will say that God doth assigne and authorize such Iudges as are not sit for the office nor such as the state of Religion doth require Besides to say that Generall Councels haue authority immediatly from Christ to bind all persons to externall obedience and yet that such Councels be fallible and false many times what is it but to say that Christ hath appoynted such Authority gouernement in his Church by the force wherof men are bound to dissemble and play the Hypocrites in matters of Religion For example Generall Councels haue defined That Communion in one kind is lawfull command all Christians to approue and practize it You are persuaded in conscience that this is vnlawfull a sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament and yet by your doctrine That Councels bind at the least to outward submission and externall obedience you are bound outwardly to practise it and to make a shew as if you did iudge the same lawfull It is therefore euident truth the contrary impious that Generall Councels appoynted of Christ as the highest externall Tribunals the Church hath on earth and which bind all persons to externall obedience are infallible And if they be infallible then they who moued with conceyte of their priuate skill in Scripture which they pretend to haue gotten by the excellency of their wit discourse or by singular illumination from God reiect their iudgment and openly Potest that they may erre and haue erred are proued damnable Heretiques The eight Conuiction 33. PRotesters are Heretiques because they condemne and contemne that Church vpon whose authority they haue belieued Christ and Christian Religion For they haue receaued Christ and the grounds of Christianity by the preaching (a) Cap. 2. n. 101. and vpon the Authority of some Church as you say cap. 3. n. 33. lin 10. Now the Authority of this Church ought to be to them to firme and infallible as their Christianity so as they should rather not belieue in Christ then belieue any thing against them by whome they belieued Christ This you teach pag. 90 lin 2. Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was moued to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoeuer you are better declare to me what he sayd whom I would not haue thought to haue beene or to bee if the beliefe thereof had beene recommended to me by you c Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easely persuade my selfe that I were not to belieue in Christ then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whome I belieued him This is your discourse full of impieties because what S. Augustine sayth of the whole Christian Catholique Church you apply to the Protestant Church of England It is false that any true Christian belieues in Christ by resting on the Authority of the Church of England nor doth this Church if it make Christians propose her selfe but the Holy Catholique Church for the irrefragable witnesse of Christ It is impious that you would neuer haue belieued Christ nor Christianity if the beliefe thereof had beene recommended to you by vs that is by preachers of the Roman Church and Holy monkes sent you for that office from Rome It is Antichristian to professe that you would more easely not belieue in Christ then learne any thing concerning him from any other then them the Church of England by whom you belieued him so that if the Church of England should fall away from Christ into Infidelity you professe aforehand that you will fall away and become an Infidell with her 34. Hence it is cleere that the