the common Head and Pastour of the Church or indirect when he standeth peremptory against the Church either obstinately against her Doctrines or contumaciously against her Commandes For such an one is hocipso cut of and cast away out of the Church in the sight of God and the sentence of the Church doth declare him to be such an one and makes him knowne for such an one to them of the Church This supposed I come to prooue that they who separate or oppose against the Church of Rome are Schismatiques The first Conuiction 5. YOu say Cap. 5. n. 36. initio For men to forsake the external Communion of them with whome they agree in fayth is the most formal proper crime of schisme very true Thus you But Protestants agree with the visible vniuersal Church in all fundamental points of fayth as you pretend and yet they haue forsaken her externall Communion For cap. 5. n. 52. initio you speake thus to your aduersary Whereas you say that Protestants diuided themselues from the externall Communion of the visible Church adde which externall communion was corrupted and we shall confesse the accusation and glory in it And cap. 5. n. 55. As for the externall Communion of the visible Church we haue without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it Ergo it is very true that Protestants in separating from the Church of Rome did commit the proper and for mall crime of Schisme 6. This Syllogisme doth consist of propositions which are formally verbally yours yet because you falter and halt in the assertion of them contradicting your selfe to make this demonstration conuincing I will proue both the Premises cleerely by such truths as you are forced to acknowledge The maior Proposition that it is formall Schisme to forsake the visible Church or her externall Communion which you grant in the words I cired you deny cap. 5. n. 25. lin 3. in these words to your aduersary Whereas you take for granted as an vndoubied truth that whosoeuer leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church are Schismaticall I tell you Sir you presume to much vpon vs and would haue vs grant that which is the maine point in question Behold now that is false which before you sayd was very true Which also to be absolutely true I proue by what you write cap. 5. n. 45 lin 16. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Prouided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church doth consist And c. 3. n. 66. lin 9. You may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be This you Now I subsume but externall Communion that is externall Society fellowship and vnity of the members of the Church in their subordination to the common Head and supreme external Authority therof is one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist one of the thinges which make it to be a Church This is cleere because as it is of the essence of an human organicall Body not only to haue a multitude of members locally layd together in one heape but also that they be knit and compacted together in the vnity of one Body by ioint subordination to the head so it is of the essence of euery morall or mysticall body not only to haue a multitude of members or persons but also that the persons members and subiects be knit together and vnited in the Society of one Communion that is of one common vnion of subordination to the Head 7. And this Communion or common subiection must in the members of the Church be external and visible because it is of the essence of the Church to be an externall and visible Society or Body which is proued because you say Cap. 3. n. 78. That it is of the essence of the Church to be the rocke and pillar that is still in fact a proposer mantayner and teacher of all necessary truth But it is of the essentiall necessity of a teaching Church to be visible and externall as you suppose Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 23. A Church that were inuisible so that none could repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible guide that is a teacher of truth yet it might be in it selfe infallible Wherfore external Communion or common Vnion of the members of the Church in their subiection to one common Head or visible supreme gouerning Authority is of the essence of the Church it is one of the thinges which make the Church a Church But Protesters forsooke the externall Communion the common Vnion knot with their fellow-members in the vnity of subiection to one visible gouerning Church-Authority and made to themselues new Conuenticles and Churches vnder new Gouernours and formes of gouerment as is notorious It is therefore manifest that they forsaking the externall Communion of the visible Church because in their iudgment corrupted forsooke the Church of God in one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist in one of the thinges which make the Church a Church and consequently are Schismatiques The second Conuiction 8. IT is you say of the essence of the Church of Christ to be by office the pillar and ground that is the teacher of truth of all truth alwayes in fact the teacher and guide of men in all truth necessary to Saluation Consequently it is of the essence of the Church to be able to performe this office Cap. 3. n. 7â— and to be still in act a Direstour of men to heauen But you say Pag. 163. lin 6. That Church alone can performe the office of Guide or Directour which is of one denomination that is a setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for their guide in Fundamentalls Ergo it is of the essence of the visible Catholique Church of Christ to be of one denomination adhering to one common Bishop as to their guide in Fundamentalls This supposed that Protestants be seuered from the way of Saluation Schismatiques aliens from the only Church that can be the guide to heauen I shall not need to proue you grant it (a) Cap. 5. n. 27. versus finem Pag. 264. lin 4. Put case I should grant of meere fauour that there must be alwaies some Church of one denomination free from all errors in Doctrine and that Protestants had not alwayes such a Church it would indeed follow that I must not be a Protestant but that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence then this If you will leaue England your must of necessity goe to Rome Thus you From which saying I argue If there must be alwayes some Church of one denomination free from all errors in doctrine subiect to one visible head and guide then you must
not be a Protestant if you will be saued that is then Protestants be not a true Church but a Company that hath forsaken the true Church and cannot be saued if they continue where they are But that there alwayes was alwayes must be such a Church of Christ such a Society of Christians which is the ground and rocke of all truth setled and certaine and of one denomination was in the precedent Chapter not by you granted of meere fauour but extorted from you by the euidence of truth vndeniable texts of Scripture Ergo Protestants are Schismatiques separated from the Church the rocke and ground of fayth and cannot be saued except they remoue to the one Church be built thereupon by dependance on the Rocke by subordination to the Head thereof Now if there must be such a Catholique Church of one denomination whether the Roman be that Church and not rather the Graecian or Abissine is in the iudgment euen of Protestants I dare say a ridiculous doubt and a fond fancy but more hereof in the next Chapter The third Conuiction 9. YOu are conuinced of proper and formall Schisme by the Confutation of your excuses whereby you would cleere your reuolt from so heynous a crime which you set downe Cap. 5. nu 36. I would faine know wherein I may not without Schisme forsake the externall Communion of them with whome I agree in fayth whether I be bound for feare of Schisme to communicate with those that belieue as I do only in lawfull thinges or absolutely in euery thing whether I am to ioyne with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common confession of fayth wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abiuration of it These your questions or excuses be friuolous and idle for many reasons First because you suppose without proofe that the vniuersal visible Church may be stayned with superstition Idolatrie which is the mayne point in question And your supposition to be false we prooue euen by this argument That Church cannot be stayned with superstition and Idolatry whose external Communion or vnion of the members thereof vnder one head cannot be forsaken without the most proper and formall crime of Schisme But to forsake the externall Communion of the visible Church you confesse to be the most formall crime of Schisme Ergo the external Communion of the visible Church cannot be stayned vniuersally with superstition and Idolatrie 10. Secondly your questions are vaine because they imply contradiction destroy ech other For how can it consist together that you do agree in fayth with the Church in fundamentals and that yet she teach Idolatry and vrge you to abiure with her the fayth wherein you she both agree Thirdly if the Church be supposed to be stayned with vniuersall errour and Idolatry it doth indeed follow that you must not communicate with her in Idolatry but not that you may forsake the external common Vnion of all the members thereof to the Head and vniuersall Authority which ioyneth them together in one Society of a Christian Church But Protestants forsooke the vnity of their follow-members refusing to communicate with them not onely in superstition but also in the vnity of subiection to the Head-authority of the whole body They did deuide themselues from that Body erecting to themselues new Conuenticlss new Churches vnder new chosen heades guides pastours Ergo they cannot be excused from the formall and proper crime of Schisme and Rebellion against the Church 11. You will say had they not forsaken that vnity of subiection to the common head they must haue professed Idolatry or else haue beene burnt I answere if the supposition be true of Idolatry in the Church they had byn blessed Martyrs in choosing rather to dye then eyther to commit Idolatry or deuide the Church But because they did not so but sought to deuide the Church to saue their lyues they be now damned Schismatiques For will you dare to say that men may commit the most formall crime of Schisme and rebellion against the Church rather then be put to death Then if a Prince perfecute men for Religion they may rebell and deuide his Kingdome if they be able rather then dye for their Religion 12. You say Cap. 5. n. 55. in fine No man can haue cause to be a Schismaque I assume But to forsake the externall vnity of Gods Church or the fellowship of subordination to the head-authority of the whole Body is to be a most formall and proper Schismatique Ergo No feare of being eyther stayned with superstitiō or put to death could iustifie your relinquishing the externall Communion or vnion with Gods Church nor your erecting of new Conuenticles vnder new Superiours from being formall and proper Schisme 13. Moreouer you say that in the dayes of S. Austine there (a) Pag. 156. lin 50. was vniuersall superstition in the Church that (b) pag. 155. lin 21. Second Edit c. 3. n. 47. pag. 149. 150. all places were full of superstitions humane presumptions vayne worships which were (c) Pag. 156. lin 36. vrged vpon others with great violence the streame of them was growne (d) Pag. 156. lin 24. so stronge that S. Austin durst not oppose it And yet S. Austin did not therefore forsake the Church and his subordination to the Pastours thereof nay he doth euery where most earnestly and seuerely as you confesse iustly rebuke and conuince the Donatists of damnable sinne for deuiding the Church and erecting new Conuenticles Altars Churches vnder new Pastours It is manifest therefore euen by your owne Principles and Professions that Protesters cannot be excused from damnable Schisme though the visible Church had beene as in S. Austins tyme you make it so when Luther reuolted full of superstitions human presumptions and vaine worships which yet to haue byn or to be in the church you neither do nor can prooue otherwyse then by your bare word which I hope is no rule of Fayth more then S. Cyprians which being obiected to you you reiect (e) Cap. ◠43.4◠saying angerly to your Aduersary Why in a contronersy of fayth do you cite any thing which is confessed on all bands not to be a rule of fayth The fourth Conuiction 14. VVE proceed to conuince Protesters of Schisme euen though your most false suppositions were true Let vs suppose ineuitable necessity to haue beene vrgent vpon them as you say it was eyther to abandon the vnity of subordination to Gods Church Cap. 5. n. 72. or else against their conscience to professe her errours I say they should in that case rather haue vndergone this hypocriticall dissimulation then that Schismaticall separation This I proue because though that be true which S. Paul teaches That euill is not to done that good may follow yet that is false which you affirme pag. 283. n. 72. We must not do euill to auoydeuil This is against the knowne Principle of reason
that of two Euills we are to choose the lesse when we cannot auoid both because a lesser Euill considered as necessary to auoyd a greater is endued with the quality of goodnesse and is not so much euill as good But to professe against ones conscience an errour small vnfundamentall (f) Cap. 3 n. 10. What else do we vnderstand by an vnfundamental errour but such a one with which a man may be saued Which doth not ouerthrow Saluation wherewith one may be saued is a lesse euill then separation from the vnity of Gods Church from subordination to the authority there of for this is most formall and proper Schisme Hence it is false what you with (g) D. Potter pag. 77. D. Potter so much auerre and lay as the fundamentall stone of your building that it is damnable sinne to professe any the least veniall errour against ones conscience and that it were better to depart from the Church and erect new Conuenticles as Protesters did then hypocritically to professe (h) Cap. 5. n. 59. versus finem that there be no Antipodes should the Church enforce you eyther to professe there be none of else forsake her Communion This is a false and pernicous principle and as I sayd agaynst the light of reason and common notion written in the hearts of all men that of two Euils we are to choose the lesse if of necessity we must do the one or the other The light of the truth seene of euery man was not hidden from you when you were not blinded with actual reflexion that by the light thereof your separation from the Church is shewed euidently to be Schismaticall For Cap. 4. n. 18. in fine you say I willingly confesse 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 afford it OVTWARD submission for publique peace sake Now what is outward submission to definitions which you do not receaue in your heart but outward Profession to belieue what in your conscience you thinke to be false If it be lawfull and men may be bound vnder sinne to professe outward submission vnto what they iudge erroneous for publique peace-sake that is for the auoyding of Schisme who doth not see that the doctrine whereon the iustification of your reuolt from the Catholique Church resteth to be false to wit that it is always impious and damnable to professe outward submission to any the least errour which in conscience you thinke to be errour The fifth Conuiction 15. TO forsake the visible Church without any cause vpon a meere fancy is damnable sinne This you affirme a thousand tymes in your fifth Chapter But Protestants abandoned the Church of Rome without any iust cause this you allow and iustify seeking to answere the obiection How may a Protestant who is at least as fallible as the Church be sure that the Church erreth and that he hath hitt on the truth that he may with a good conscience forsake her Communion you say cap. 5. n. 63. in fine Hemay be sure because he may see the doctrine forsaken by him to be repugnant to Scripture and the doctrine imbraced by him consonant to it AT LEAST this he may knowe that the doctrine which he hath CHOSEN to him SEEMES TRVE and the contrary which he hath forsaken SEEMES FALSE And therefore without REMORSE of Conscience he may professe that but this he cannot O houw true is the Prouerbe What aboundeth in the heart will out at the mouth yea out of the quill which is ruled by an vnconsidering Writer You harbour in your heart that Socinian impiety that men may be saued in any Religion but you would fayne hide it and therefore make great shew (h) Pag. 392. fine 2. Edit pag. 373. lin 26. to abhorre it as most impious and execrable doctrine by foule calumny imputed vnto you And yet in this passage you do cleerely professe it and so fully that irreligion it selfe could not do more saying absolutely without any limitation That if a man know that a doctrine to him seemeth false he may without remorse forsake it and the Church which teacheth it and go to another Society which teacheth the contrary so that if a man know that to him Christianity seemeth false and Iudaisme or Turcisme true though he haue no certaine ground so to thinke he may without scruple without remorse of conscience leaue Christianity and become a Iew or Turke Puritans Brownists Anabaptists Arians Socinians Tritheists know that to them the Religion of the Church of England seemeth false and the contrary which destroyes Christianity true may they with a good conscience without scruple or remorse leaue the Church of England and ioyne themselues to their most impure Familian Cōuenticles Churches 16. When the Maintayner of Charity layes some testimonies of Fathers in your way you fall a singing In nonafert animus (i) Cap. 5. n. 43. telling him that the Fathers be not the rule of your Faith that their testimonies be no more pertinēt thē that semi-verse Verily you could not haue found a ditty more proper and fitting the tune of your soule so fertile and full of nouelties Nor is there any man lyuing I know that can better then your selfe out of his owne experience mutatas dicere formas What you haue done your selfe you allow vnto others that by your principles they may change Religions as they do their linnen and forge new formes of fayth as often as they make new suites of apparell Being questioned about the ground of their change they may answer In noua fert animus I know that this nouel choyce to me seemeth good and that the doctrine of the Church of England to me seemeth false M. Chillingworths booke which goes for current in England assureth me that this alone without further assurance sufficeth that without remorse of consciēce I may forsake her and goe to some other Congregation in the world which pleaseth me better and whose Religion I know to me seemeth true The sixt Conuiction 17. COntradicting the leuity of your former assertion that a man though he do not euidētly know his cause to be iust may forsake the Church if at least he know that her doctrine to him seemeth false you write very grauely soberly to the contrary saying Cap. 5. n. 53. initto It concernes EVERY MAN who separates from any Churches communion euen as much as his saluation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be iust and necessary for vnlesse it be necessary it can hardly be sufficient Vnder the wings of this most true propositiō I shroud this assumptiō to be made good by your principles But Protesters had no iust or sufficicient cause to rent themselues from the Roman and visible Catholique Church This I proue for their pretēce is Cap. 5. n. 107. lin 3.
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
you vndertooke to answer Charity mantayned For it appeareth by your vntaught base manner of answering that your end was only by petulant abusing the modesty of the Authour to obscure as much as you might the cleere truth of that excellent Worke. So you doe here forging an Enthimeme he neuer thought on making a conclusion which he did not intend to proue in this place and yet would you turne your wit the right way and vse it to that end for which God bestowed the same on you you would easily find a proposition which doth tye the Antecedent and Consequent euen of this by you so scorned Enthymene with an vnsoluble knot 33. But to my purpose you grant with S. Austin that whatsoeuer the whole Church holds and deliuers not as a thing ordayned by Councels but as alwaies kept is most righty beliened to be an Apâ—stolical Tradition so that the testimony of the present Church in deliuering traditions is credible and most worthy to be belicued for it selfe without other proofe and (p) Edit pag 113. n. 163. li. 26. pag. 119. n. 12. you say S. Austen sayes that Christ hath recommended the Church to vs for a credible Witnesse of ancient Tradition not for an infallible Definer of all emergent CoÌ„trouersies which supposed I would know how with this truth that can consist which you write (q) 2. Edit p. 61. lin 1. Pag. 63. lin 30. The truth is that neither the Scripture nor the present Church hath any thing to do in this matter for the question which be Canonical bookes cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Church How hath the present Church nothing to do in deciding the question which be canonical bookes if her testimony be infallible in this matter if herein she do the part of a credible witnesse Haue you any glue or sodder or cement or chayne or threed to tye these your two sayings togeather Or rather haue you any chaine to kepe them asunder that they come not to fight and mutually to murther ech other Also what you say (r) 2. Edit pag. 147. lin 1. Paeg. 152. lin 44. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical c. who can secure vs that human inuentions might not in a short time gayne reputation of Apostolique how doth this agree with what you say in the next lines after Cap. 3. n. 45. That the Church in her vniuersall Traditions is as infallible as Scripture Do not you also affirme That Tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by credible for it selfe fit to be rested on how can this be true if we can haue no warrant no security but that the vniuersal Traditions of the Church may be false and forged not deliuered by the Apostles but à quocunque traditore inuentions of men and if there be no warrant but that vniuersal Traditions may be false what warrant is there that you haue the true vncorupt text of Scripture not depraued by the secret creeping in of damnable errours Do not you say Pag. 55. n. 8. that these bookes cannot be proued Canonicall but only by Tradition and cap. 2. n. 114. It is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue men to belieue Scripture If then vniuersal Tradition be fallible if there be no warrant no security of the certainty therof how are you secure that you haue the true text of the true Canonical bookes of Scripture But of this more in the next Chapter 34. By what hath bene said your so often repeated yea perpetuall and only argument of the circle is shewed to be friuolous and you running about therin haue made your head so dizzy as you forget your selfe For in arguing you alwayes presume without any proofe that the infallibility of the present Church deliuering Traditions or which is all one that the credibility of the vniuersal Tradition of the Church is not euident of it selfe A supposition which you neuer would haue presumed had not that bene out of your mind which you often affirme and confirme that the authority of vniuersal Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on No lesse vnproued yea more worthy to be reprou'd is your other b presumption that we do not so much as pretend that there are certaine euident notes to know the true Church and discerne it from all others nor that it is euident of it selfe that those notes agree only to our Church all men will wonder how you could be so ignorant or not being ignorant how you would be so bold For who doth not know we teach that the Church is knowne by visible markes euen euident to sense as succession Vniuersality and Vnity and that these markes do shine manifestly and conspicuosly only in the Roman Christianity Which truth is a necessary sequele of your doctrine That tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by fit to be rested on and euidently credible for it selfe Behold the deduction therof 35. That Church only is the true christian Church which hath vniuersall Tradition of Doctrines euidently credible for it selfe This is cleare because if Tradition credible of it selfe be the rule to iudge all Controuersies by and the only meanes to know which be Canonicall Scriptures then the Church which wants Tradition credible of it selfe wants the fundamentall Principle and ground of all Christianity and so cannot be the true christian Church But that Church only hath Tradition of doctrines credible of it selfe whose Tradition of Doctrines is euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles euidently vniuersall by diffusion ouer the world euidently one and the same in the mouth of all the reporters therof For Tradition which is not perpetuall from the Apostles but hath a knowne after-beginning wants credibility that it is Christian Tradition which is not vniuersall and notorious to the whole world but clancular and in a corner wants credibility that it is from the Apostles and the sound of their vniuersall preaching Tradition which is not one and the same but dissonant in the mouth of diuers reporters wants credibility that it is from truth and not a deuise of human fiction or of deceiued discourse from Scripture Ergo the Church whose Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe must be euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles Vniuersall by the notorious preaching of her Tradition diffused ouer the world One and the same and vniforme in all her Professours so that they all agree in the beleefe of all doctrine deliuered vnto them by the full consent of Tradition For they who of Traditions deliuered by full consent choose some and reiect others are Choosers that is Heretiques Nor can such Choosers choose but there will be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ variety of choyce and consequently dissension wherby they will appeare a company voyd of all authority and credit to testify what is the true Christian Tradition from the Apostles These be
Tradition of Christian doctrine from age to age from Father to sonne cannot be a fit ground but of morall assurance Cap. 3. n. 44. lin 55. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall Thus you 9. This is your discourse to proue your Paradoxe that the assent of Christian fayth is fallible and only morally certaine But the foundation wheron you build your maine Principle Vniuersall Tradition is not infallible you your selfe ouer throw and establish the contrary ground that tradition vnwritten is as infallible as Scripture Cap. 4 n. 13. lin 19. Vniuersall and neuer-fayling Tradition giueth this testimony both to the Creed and Scripture that they both by the workes of God were sealed and testified to be the word of God Behold the Hypothesis that the articles of Christian Religion that is of the Christian Creed and Scripture are reuealed of God standes vpon a pillar firme and neuer failing If you say morally certaine and neuer failing not absolutely I reply obiecting vnto you another place where you expressely suppose your certainty of the Scripture to be absolute to wit of those bookes of which there was neuer doubt made Pag. 69. We do not professe our selues so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those bookes with haue been doubted as of those that neuer haue How cleerly and in expresse termes do you professe that your certainty of the Scriptures that were neuer questioned is not only probable and morall but absolute certainty vndoubted And how can it be otherwise seeing Tradition by liuely voyce conueyeth vnto vs what the Apostles deliuered about the Canon of the Scripture to wit which bookes were to be held as the word of God For no man can doubt but the Apostles deliuered what they had by diuine reuelation from Christ Iesns and the holy Ghost consequently that these bookes be the word of God is a diuine reuelation vnwritten as certaine as if it were written For as D. Field (b) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 238. sayth It is not the writing that giueth thinges their authority but the worth and credit of him that deliuereth though by word and liuely voice only 10. Perhaps you will tell me as you do Charity maintayn'd vpon another occasion cap. 2. n. 86. If D. Field were infallible and these wordes had not slipt vnaduisedly frō him this had been the best argument in your Booke Well then I must I see bring an Authour infallible in proofe that Tradition is equall in certainty vnto Scripture one so aduised as all Catholiques compared to his wisdome be but a company of blind vnconsidering men What if I find this Doctrine in your booke proued euen by the same argument D. Field vseth because being written giues not Authority to God's word then I hope you will say without any if that this is the best argument in my booke But where is this passage to be found Perchance if you were to find it your selfe you would be to seeke more to seeke if you goe about to reconcile your contradictions In which case you who vaunt your selfe for the witty Oedipus in soluing the Sophismes and Knots of Charity maintayned will perhaps be at a stop and be forced to say with Oedipus being to solue his owne riddle Ego ille victae spolia qui Sphyngis tuli Haerebo * Scripti fati tardus interpres mei 11. The place is Pag. 153. n. 45. where you speake thus to your Aduersary No lesse say you is S. Chrysostome for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to proue the Church infallible not in Traditions which we willingly grant if they be vniuersall as the Traditiō of the vndoubted bookes of Scripture is to be AS INFALLIBLE AS THE SCRIPTVRE is For neither doth being written make the word of God more infallible or being vnwritten make it lesse infallible In these words you affirme that Traditions vniuersall namely and principally that Tradition that the vndoubted bookes of the Scripture be the word of God are as infallible as Scripture You proue it because Neyther doth being written make the word of God more infallible or being vnwritten make it lesse infallible In which proofe you suppose that as Scripture is the written word of God so Tradition is the word of God vnwritten and therefore equall in certainty and infallibility to Scripture 12. Now the ground of your errour being by your contradiction thereof and by your confession yea by your demonstration of the contrary truth ouerthrowne I proue the assent of Christian fayth to be absolutely certaine in this manner Christian faith is an assent to this conclusion The doctrine of Christianity is true This conclusion is deduced from this Thesis Whatsoeuer God reueales for true is true and this Hypothesis The Christian Creed and Scripture be the word of God So that if both these propositions be absolutely certaine then the assent to the conclusion is infallible and absolutely certaine Now that both these Premises or Propositions be absolutely certaine I proue The Thesis Whatsoeuer God reueales is truth you grant to be absolutely and metaphysically certaine But the Hypothesis The Christian Creed and Scripture is diuine reuelation and the word of God is also absolutely certaine First because it is as you grant an vniuersall Traditiō as infallible as Scripture But Scripture is absolutely and metaphysically certaine truth because it is doctrine reuealed of God Secondly whatsoeuer God reueales whether it be deliuered in writing or by liuely voyce only is absolutely and metaphysically certaine But the Tradition That the Creed and Scripture is the word of God is diuine reuelation which the Apostles deliuered by liuely voyce sealing and confirming the truth thereof with workes of God as you confesse Ergo the Tradition that the Christian Creed and Scripture is of God is absolutely certaine and infallible Finally you say cap. 1. n. 8. in sine 2. edition cap. 2. n. 8. infine If a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit by a messenger that is not so my confidence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the relatour This you I subsume But the message of the Gospell is brought to me and to euery Christian from a man of absolute credit Christ Iesus the Eternall Sonne of God in whome are all the treasures of Diuine wisedome by a messenger of absolute credit to wit by the Church deliuering vniuersall Tradition which is as you confesse as infallible as Scripture Therefore our faith of the Creed and Scripture is not rebated or lessened by being deliuered by the perpetuall visible Church of Christ but is as infallible as if we had had the message immediatly from the mouth of our Lord and Sauiour 13. Iadde Tradition vniuersall is not only as infallible as Scripture but also more certaine in respect of vs. This I ground
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.
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
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
holdes his discourse to be infallible and (a) Preface n. 12. By discourse no man can possibly be lead into errour that thereby he cannot possibly be lead into errour Protestants all of them great and little men women belieue with explicite fayth all things whatsoeuer are plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Is not this ridiculous Credat Iudaeus Apella Non ego You say it is ridiculous that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree and then say we agree in all matters of fayth And yet presently you say that Protestāts if they were wise wold do so too to wit agre that those things onely wherein they agree be matters of fayth then stop our mouthes when we reproach them with disagreements by saying they agree in all matters of fayth because matters of fayth be those onely wherein they agree Is this discourse coherent If it be ridiculous in us to do so how were it wisedome for Protestants to do the same And how haue they reason reason inough why they might do so Though also it be false that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree We define matters of fayth to be all doctrines proposed by the Church as her traditions or definitions wherein all Catholiques must agree The fourth Conuiction 18. I proue directly by the word of God the Roman Church that is the Church subiect to S. Peter and his successour to be the Church of one denomination which is the pillar and ground of truth There was alwayes as you haue confessed by force a Catholique visible Church by duty in deed the teacher of necessary truth that no Church is fit or able to performe this office which is not of one denomination Ergo this church was built dependently vpō one Rocke subordinately to one visible head by Christ Iesus our Lord because such a Church could not be instituted but by him as is manifest But Christ did not institute or build any Church of one denomination but onely on S. Peter Thou art Peter a Rocke and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church Math. 16. Ioan 21. To the I will giue thee keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen Doest thou loue me feed my lambes feed my sheepe What can be more cleere Now this power of Rocke to vphold this authority of Pastour to guide this Superiority of Head to gouerne the vniuersall Church of one denomination was to descend and did descend to S. Peters successours This cannot be denied because this Church was to be alwayes successiuely in the world Ergo the Rocke sustayning it the Pastour guiding it the Head ruling it was to be alwayes successiuely in the world which is to say that S. Peter must alwayes haue a successour in the Headship of the one Church which I further more prooue in this manner 19. If the institution of the Apostles to be Priests by these wordes do this in remembrance of me do import that the Apostles should haue successours in their Priesthood then this institution of S. Peter to be the one Pastour and Guide of the Church doth import that he should haue a successour in that office of Pastour For as Priesthood was not instituted for the Apostles sake but for the diuine worship which was to continue in the Christian Church till the world ended So the Pastourship of S. Peter ouer the one Christian Church flocke was not instituted for S. Peters sake but for the good of Christians that by adhering to one guide they might all vnitedly be lead into all truth But the Institution Do this in remembrance of me doth import successours in Priesthood Ergo this Institution feede my sheepe Cap. 2. n. 23. doth import the office of Guide and Pastour was to go to S. Peters successours vntill the consumamtion of the world But you say pag. 62. n. 23. If our Sauiour had intended that all Controuersies in Religion should be by some visible Iudge finally determined who can doubt but in playne tearmes he would haue expressed himselfe about this matter He would haue sayd playnly The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all controuersies Thus you 20. And this is your perpetuall impertinency of arguing by interrogations supposing that to be vndeniable truth which is manifest falshood for which you can say nothing This manner of arguing you vse often through whole pages and leaues togeather that should I transcribe the places I might set downe more then halfe of your booke But now to your question Who can doubt but Christ would haue said plainely the Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all Controuersies I answer euery man that hath any braines or wit in his head For such an one cannot but see that Christ our Lord could not haue said as you would haue him to haue spoken without vntruth For though he did appoint that S. Peter and his successour should be the Guide and Pastour of his flocke yet that S. Peter or his successour should be the Bishop of Rome more then of Hierusalem or Antioch this he did not appoint at the least whiles he liued on earth Why may it not suffice you that by cleere Scripture and by what you your selfe grant S. Peters successour is to be for euer the guide and Pastour of the Church of one denomination the pillar and ground of Truth Do you doubt whether the Roman Bishop be S. Peters successour or no Of this you cannot doubt if you will not stagger at your owne principle which you deliuer as vndeniable Cap. 4. nu 53. li. 20. All wise men for the assurance of truth in all matters of beliefe relye vpon the consent of ancient Records and vniuersal Tradition Now vniuersal Tradition doth deliuer by full consent that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome is his successour Or if you doubt of this you may as well doubt whether euer Iulius Caesar was at Rome The fifth Conuiction 21. THat the Bishop of Rome is appointed of God to decide all emergent Controuersies I proue by Principles acknowledged and set downe by your selfe For whereas the Mainteyner of Charity sayth that Protestants depriue S. Peter and his successours of the Authority which Christ our Lord conferred vpon them ouer his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which they reproue diuers of the most holy Ancient Fathers as Brerely sheweth at large you c. 5. n. 98. first question the worth and authority of the holy Fathers as no certaine rule of fayth then write in this sort lin 14. Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point for the point here issuable is not Whether S. Peter were head of the Church nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church nor whether he had any authority ouer it giuen him by the
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
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
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