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
pure and pions Christian fayth did hold against this conceyt of Christs earthly Kingdome 8. More false you are about the Communicating of Infants for you are not able to name so much as one Father of the second age which holds it The words of Dionysius Arcepagita the only witnesse produced in this cause being short of this sense as Vasquez (r) Tom. 3. in 3. p. Disput 212. c. 2. n. 13. sheweth S. Cyprian (s) Serm. delapsis is the first that mentioned this custome to communicate sucking Infants vnder one kind to wit giuing them to (t) Paruulis saltem sub specie vini tradatur drinke of the Chalice which custome was good lawfull as all Catholiks defend (u) Concil Trid. sess 21 c. 4. It is cleere that Pope Innocentius with (w) Nisi manducauerint carnem cius non habebuÌ„t vitam significat Baptizatos vitam habere non posse praeter Christi corpus cui vt incorporentur Sacramento baptismatis imbuuntur de poceat merit râ—â— miss lib. 5. c. 4. vide serm eiusdenâ— citatum a Beda in cap. 10. ad Cor. Claud. Sanchez Rep. 6. c. 7. S. Austine and other Fathers disputing against Pelagius who denied Originall sinne and taught that Children were saued dying without Baptisme did by the eating of the body of Christ and drinking his bloud necessary for Infants vnderstand no more then incorporation into the mysticall body of Christ which was done by Baptisme And this was in Infants to eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud not with their owne (x) QuaÌ„uis suo corde ore id non agant August de peccat merit remiss lib 1. c. 20. mouth but by the mouth of the body wherof they are members to wit of the Church 9. I haue cleared the Catholick primitiue Church shewed her innocent of your slanders now I come to the second that mentitus es in caput tuum your owne false accusations light vpon your owne head that by your depositions you are proued more impudent then impudencieit selfe For c. 2. n. 163. in fine you say That it is euident and to impudence it selfe vndentable that vpon this ground of belieuing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Errour was held For example the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants and that by S. Austen himselfe and therefore certayne this is no certayne ground of truth Thus you Now what you here prononce vndeniable by impudence it selfe your selfe deny contending that S. Austin held the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants vpoÌ„ the warrant of the Tradition of all ages since the Apostles which is a proofe distinct from the doctrine and practice of the present vniuersall Chusch as you say cap. 2. n. 53. lin vlt. The credit of Tradition is not the Tradition of the present Church which we pretend may deuiate from the ancient Now that S. Austen did ground vpon the credit of Tradition Apostolicall or of all ages you say cap. 3. n. 47. in fine The pactice of communicating Infants had euen then in the tyme of S. Augustine got the credit and authority not only of Vniuersall custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition Behold the necessity of Communicating Infants is held by S. Augustine vpon the warrant not of the present Church but of the Church of all ages and places which you euen in that very place allow to be a good warrant Yea you affirme that S. Augustine in thinking the necessity of giuing the Eucharist to Infants to be a Tradition of all ages since the Apostles to his tyme was not deceiued saying pag. 152. lin 32. The doctrines of the Millenaries and the Eucharist necessity for Infants haue beene taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages you meane the. 2.3.4.5 without any (y) A manifest falshood They were contradicted by Dion Areop de Eccles Hierar c. 7. By Clem. Alex. 3. Strom. in the secoÌ„d age By Caius S. Cyprian Dionys Alexan. Euseb in the 3. opposition from any of their contemporaries and were deliuered by them not as Doctours but as Witnesses not as their owne (z) Another impudent falshood For they deliuered their Millenary doctrine as an exposition of Mille Anni of the Apocalyps c. 20. v. 3. Opinions but as Apostolick Traditions Thus you Who now is more impudeÌ„t then impudence it selfe Do not you deny S. Austins persuasion of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants to haue beene grounded on the bare vniuersall custome of the present Church And yet it is also false that S. Austine grounded the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants on the custome of the present Church or on the Tradition of all ages For though there were an vniuersall perpetuall custome of communicating Infants yet that doth not enforce that it was a thing necessary but only lawfull and godly because all vniuersall customes vsed in the primitiue Church were not necessary but pious S. Austine then his persuasion that the eating of the body of Christ was necessary for Infants he did build on the Scripture only the euidence thereof vpon this text (a) Ioan. 6.36 Except you eate the flesh and drinke the blooud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in your which testimony he termeth (b) De peccat merit remiss lib. 1. c. 20. Nisi pertinacia pugnaces neruos aduersus constantiamperspicuae veriatiâ— intendat diuinâ luce clarissimum diuinâ auctoritate certissimum so cleere as it cannot be resisted but by pertinacity it selfe 10. You contradict your selfe so farre as to proue your selfe to be a formall Heretike against God and his Word For you say (c) cap. 1. n. 13. cap. 4. n. 11. it is most impious for one to deny that to be true which he knowes or belieues to be Gods word In so much that if one be persuaded though falsely euen by the Diuell himselfe that it is the word of God if he disbelieue it you say he is (d) cap. 2. n. 122. a formall Heretike But you professe your selfe not only persuaded but conuinced not by the Diuels discourse but by the (e) cap. 2. n. 25. euident credibility of the thing that vniuersall Tradition since the Apostles is the word of God vnwritten as certaine and infallible as Scripture (f) cap. 3. n. 45. the rule of fayth to iudge all controuersies by And yet you say that this Tradition this word of God vnwritten is fallible yea false and erroneous in some particulars Could you haue professed greater impiety or more formall emnity agaynst God and his word 11. Thirdly by your contradictions and diuisions agaynst yourselfe you deuide your selfe from Christ saluatioÌ„ cap. 6. n. 1. you say that it is most absolutely indispensablely destructiue of saluation to deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the word of God But you are conuinced by your owne words to doe this by charging
with fallibility and falshood euen the Tradition of the primitiue Church of the very first age since the Apostles For you confesse that the Scripture cannot be proued to be the word of God by the diuinity light of the matter nor by any Apostolicall writing but by tradition c. 2. n. 8. lin 9. and cap. 2. n. 27. lin 33. ONELY by the testimony of the ancient Church Now if the only meanes to know that the Scripture is the word of God be the testimony of the anccient Church and of the primitiue Christians if you make as you do their testimony to be fallible obnoxious to errour and in many things false you make all assurance of this necessary poynt that the Scripture is the word of God impossible You contend our Catholicke Roman Church to be fallible and to haue erred in many things and thence conclude you can rely on her authority in nothing I might say you cap. 2. n. 25. lin 9. as well rest vpon the iudgement of the next man I meet or vpon the chaunce of a Lottery for it For by this meanes I only know I might erre but relying on your Church I know I should erre Thus you of the Roman church which agrees to Tradition vniuersal of the primitiue Christiās for if it be as you say it is fallible we cannot be possibly warranted that it doth not giue quid for quo a scorpion for an egge an errour in steed of Apostolicall doctrine for she hath done so you say in some other vniuersall Traditions and what was done in some was possible in others The primitiue Church as you contend did by vniuersall Tradition and full consent deliuer the doctrine of the Millenaries and of the Communion of Infants for Apostolicall which you say be errours and so it may be that the same consent of primitiue Christians hath deliuered vnto vs the Ghospell of S. Luke and of S. Marke as approued by (g) Cap. 1. n. 7. Wrote indeed by some but approued by all all the Apostles though there were neuer any such thing nor haue we any possible meanes to know whether heerein we be deceaued or no. You say cap. 2. n. 93. lin 11. It was necessary that by his prouidence he should preserue the Scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things he would haue knowne otherwise they could not haue beene knowne the onely meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished Now the onely meanes to know which Scriptures be the word of God and rule of sayth is as you confesse the testimony of the ancient Churches since the Apostles and yet you say God hath not preserued the same from vndiscernable corruption for the Church hath beene corrupt in some of her vniuersal Traditions from the Apostles so that there is no meanes to be sure that her Tradition about Scripture is incorrupt For you say what was done in some was possible in others and so we haue no warrant that the canon of Scripture is not corrupt vniuersall Tradition of the Church since the Apostles You see that I sayd true that by being a false witnesse against the incorrupt purity of the Primitiue Church you haue beene false agaynst your owne Saluation and haue lost all meanes to be assured of Sauing fayth The fourth Conuiction 12. FROM the second age you proceed affirming that still the mystery of iniquity wrought more openly in the ensuing ages and that in the dayes of S. Austin (h) Pag. 155. lin 20. cap. 3. n. 47. Second Edition pag. 149. 150. the Catholike Church it selfe did tolerate and dissemble vayne superstitions and human presumptions suffer all places to be full of them suffer them to be more seuerely exacted then the Commandements of God (i) Pag. 156. lin 1 doing therein directly against the command of the holy Ghost (k) Ibid. lin 11. permitting the diuine precepts euery where to be layd aside so that these superstitious Christians euery where might be said to worship God in vaine as well as Scribes Pharises Great variety of superstitions in this Kind were then already spread ouer the Church being different in diuers places That (m) Pag. 156. li. 36. this vniuersal superstition in the Church nourished cherished strengthened by the practise of the most and vrged with great violence vpon others as the Commandements of God might in tyme take deep roote and passe for vniuersall custome of the Church and an Apostolique Tradition he that doth not see sees nothing Finally that in S. Austins dayes the Church did not tolerate only such superstitions for but a part only and farre the lesser did tolerate them in silence but the Church or the farre greater part publiquely allowed them practised them and vrged them vpon others with great violence c. 13. Thus you write and make the face of the Church in S. Austines dayes to haue been most miserable full of superstition in which not so much as one could be saued but by repentance and leauing their superstitions which they neuer did But as it is your fury against Gods Church to vtter whatsoeuer comes into your mind to her disgrace without any care of truth so your folly is to forget presently what you haue said and speake the contrary For Cap. 6. n. 101. lin 12. you say that in S. Austin's tyme the publike seruice wherin men are to communicate was impolluted and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion which was so true as euen the Donatists did not deny it And c. 6. in fine you say The Church which then was a Virgin now may be an harlot Now if a man would haue studied to contradict your slaunder against the Church of S. Augustins tyme could he haue done it more directly The Church being then as you say it was in her communion and diuine seruice an impolluted virgin how can it stand with what you said before that Christians in all places were vrged with great violence to communicate in superstitions and vaine worships and to lay the commandments of God aside Againe you cleere the Church of that age cap. 6. n. 101. versus finem The Donatists in S. Augustines tyme were separated from the whole world of Christians vnited in one communion professing the same fayth seruing God after the same manner which was a great argument they could not haue cause to leaue them according to that of Tertullian that where there is erring there is variety of errings And is not this a variety yea a direct contradiction in your writing an vnanswerable argument that you erre and wander from the truth Now you say there was then euery where the same fayth the same communion one manner of seruing and worshipping God without any variety of superstitions and errours wheras before you said that in S. Austins dayes all places were full of vaine superstitions vaine worships with great variety of them spread ouer the Church being different in diuers places vrged with great seuerity and
you vndertooke to answer Charity mantayned For it appeareth by your vntaught base manner of answering that your end was only by petulant abusing the modesty of the Authour to obscure as much as you might the cleere truth of that excellent Worke. So you doe here forging an Enthimeme he neuer thought on making a conclusion which he did not intend to proue in this place and yet would you turne your wit the right way and vse it to that end for which God bestowed the same on you you would easily find a proposition which doth tye the Antecedent and Consequent euen of this by you so scorned Enthymene with an vnsoluble knot 33. But to my purpose you grant with S. Austin that whatsoeuer the whole Church holds and deliuers not as a thing ordayned by Councels but as alwaies kept is most righty beliened to be an Apâ—stolical Tradition so that the testimony of the present Church in deliuering traditions is credible and most worthy to be belicued for it selfe without other proofe and (p) Edit pag 113. n. 163. li. 26. pag. 119. n. 12. you say S. Austen sayes that Christ hath recommended the Church to vs for a credible Witnesse of ancient Tradition not for an infallible Definer of all emergent CoÌ„trouersies which supposed I would know how with this truth that can consist which you write (q) 2. Edit p. 61. lin 1. Pag. 63. lin 30. The truth is that neither the Scripture nor the present Church hath any thing to do in this matter for the question which be Canonical bookes cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Church How hath the present Church nothing to do in deciding the question which be canonical bookes if her testimony be infallible in this matter if herein she do the part of a credible witnesse Haue you any glue or sodder or cement or chayne or threed to tye these your two sayings togeather Or rather haue you any chaine to kepe them asunder that they come not to fight and mutually to murther ech other Also what you say (r) 2. Edit pag. 147. lin 1. Paeg. 152. lin 44. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical c. who can secure vs that human inuentions might not in a short time gayne reputation of Apostolique how doth this agree with what you say in the next lines after Cap. 3. n. 45. That the Church in her vniuersall Traditions is as infallible as Scripture Do not you also affirme That Tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by credible for it selfe fit to be rested on how can this be true if we can haue no warrant no security but that the vniuersal Traditions of the Church may be false and forged not deliuered by the Apostles but à quocunque traditore inuentions of men and if there be no warrant but that vniuersal Traditions may be false what warrant is there that you haue the true vncorupt text of Scripture not depraued by the secret creeping in of damnable errours Do not you say Pag. 55. n. 8. that these bookes cannot be proued Canonicall but only by Tradition and cap. 2. n. 114. It is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue men to belieue Scripture If then vniuersal Tradition be fallible if there be no warrant no security of the certainty therof how are you secure that you haue the true text of the true Canonical bookes of Scripture But of this more in the next Chapter 34. By what hath bene said your so often repeated yea perpetuall and only argument of the circle is shewed to be friuolous and you running about therin haue made your head so dizzy as you forget your selfe For in arguing you alwayes presume without any proofe that the infallibility of the present Church deliuering Traditions or which is all one that the credibility of the vniuersal Tradition of the Church is not euident of it selfe A supposition which you neuer would haue presumed had not that bene out of your mind which you often affirme and confirme that the authority of vniuersal Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on No lesse vnproued yea more worthy to be reprou'd is your other b presumption that we do not so much as pretend that there are certaine euident notes to know the true Church and discerne it from all others nor that it is euident of it selfe that those notes agree only to our Church all men will wonder how you could be so ignorant or not being ignorant how you would be so bold For who doth not know we teach that the Church is knowne by visible markes euen euident to sense as succession Vniuersality and Vnity and that these markes do shine manifestly and conspicuosly only in the Roman Christianity Which truth is a necessary sequele of your doctrine That tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by fit to be rested on and euidently credible for it selfe Behold the deduction therof 35. That Church only is the true christian Church which hath vniuersall Tradition of Doctrines euidently credible for it selfe This is cleare because if Tradition credible of it selfe be the rule to iudge all Controuersies by and the only meanes to know which be Canonicall Scriptures then the Church which wants Tradition credible of it selfe wants the fundamentall Principle and ground of all Christianity and so cannot be the true christian Church But that Church only hath Tradition of doctrines credible of it selfe whose Tradition of Doctrines is euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles euidently vniuersall by diffusion ouer the world euidently one and the same in the mouth of all the reporters therof For Tradition which is not perpetuall from the Apostles but hath a knowne after-beginning wants credibility that it is Christian Tradition which is not vniuersall and notorious to the whole world but clancular and in a corner wants credibility that it is from the Apostles and the sound of their vniuersall preaching Tradition which is not one and the same but dissonant in the mouth of diuers reporters wants credibility that it is from truth and not a deuise of human fiction or of deceiued discourse from Scripture Ergo the Church whose Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe must be euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles Vniuersall by the notorious preaching of her Tradition diffused ouer the world One and the same and vniforme in all her Professours so that they all agree in the beleefe of all doctrine deliuered vnto them by the full consent of Tradition For they who of Traditions deliuered by full consent choose some and reiect others are Choosers that is Heretiques Nor can such Choosers choose but there will be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ variety of choyce and consequently dissension wherby they will appeare a company voyd of all authority and credit to testify what is the true Christian Tradition from the Apostles These be
the markes wherby the true Christian Catholique Church is knowne which to be found in the Church of Rome only shall be shewed in the seauenth Chapter though I cannot but presume the thing is to euery considering man euident inough Wherefore Catholiques and all true Christians do not choose their Church or Religion by their owne naturall reason and witt but Tradition notorious and euident of it selfe Perpetuall Vniuersall Vniforme shewes them the Church and with her and in her that Religion which was for them chosen ordayned deliuered by the wisedome of Christ Iesus brought by him from the bosome of his heauenly Father You see then that in granting Tradition to be the ground of all Christian beliefe you haue graÌ„ted as much as we can desire and howsoeuer you be pleased to terme vs vnconsidering men yet we haue considered the sequels of your assertions perchance more deeply then you haue done your selfe That the assent to Gods VVord of Christian sauing Faith is not meere human morall and probable but Diuine infallible and certainly vnerring CHAP. II. THE contrary errour cozen german to the refuted in the former Chapter consequent therupon is often inculcated by you in your booke That an infallible faith (a) Cap. 6. n. 6. is not necessary vnto saluation nor for our walking vnto happinesse through a world of oppositions backt by the strength of flesh and blood A weake probable and credible assurance that there is an Heauen sufficeth though (b) Cap. 1. n. 8. versus finem vndiscernable from the beleefe we giue to other human hystories It is inough men belieue the Gospell and mysteries of faith (c) Cap. 6. n. 5. l. 28. as much as Cesars Commentaries or the history of Salust That men are not bound nor is it possible they should belieue (d) Preface n. 8. in fine thinges impossible in human reason (e) Cap. 6. n. 7. in fine That we should belieue the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot be made euident with euidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of vs this for any man to be bouÌ„d to is vniust because to do it is impossible As sure as God is good he will not require impossibilities of vs but (f) Cap. 6. n 7. circa medium infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it selfe yet is not made to appeare to vs to be infallible certaine is an impossibility These and the like nullifidian Pardoxes you often vtter and endeauour to proue which are plausible and applauded by those S. Peter termeth vnlearned and vnstable heads Varro who now passe vnder the name of Gallant wits whose life we may feare is sutable to the leuity and vanity of their Faith Nam quae venustas hic adest Gallantibus Quae casta vestis These doctrines I say be welcome to such as groane vnder the (g) Nam vera Religio omnino sine graui Authoritatis imperâ—o intri rectè nuilo pacto potest August de vtil Cred. Cap. 9. yoke of humble obedience to Gods word vnder Christian duty of belieuing things inuisible the reuealed manner whereof is incomprehensible to humane vnderstanding who because they find difficulty to do it will not endeauour by Gods grace to rayse their erring and wandring thoughts and stay them by firme and fixed faith on high and heauenly obiects For as (h) Ser. 2. de Asconsione S. Leo saith it is the vigour only of generous mindes to belieue without doubt what comes not within sight and there to rest with our heart whither we cannot reach with our eye And because you accuse Catholiques that they require men to yield vpon only probable prudentiall (i) Pag. 79. n. 70. Vpon prudentiall motiues fallible and vncertaine grounds motiues (i) Pag. 79. n. 70. Vpon prudentiall motiues fallible and vncertaine grounds most certaine assent to thinges impossible in human reason that the falshood of this slaunder may be made apparent I must briefly declare our Catholique doctrine together proue it which shall be of this your errour The first Conuiction 2. TO the constitution of an assent absolutely infallible fiue thinges concurre all which by the consent of Catholique Deuines are most certaine and infallible in the assent of Christian faith 1. The Obiect with is doctrine reuealed of God 2. The motiue and reason of belieuing which is the Authority of God reuealing whose veracity is altogether infallible 3. Because we belieue Reuelations not made immediatly to our selues but to the blessed Apostles it is necessary there be a Proponent of Gods word that is a Witnesse worthy of all credit an Authority whereon we may securely rely that those Christian doctrines were deliuered and preached by the Apostles as Diuine Reuelations This Proponent and Witnesse is the present Catholique Church deliuering what she receaued by full vniuersall tradition from her Ancestours or which is the same in effect vniuersall Tradition Now we hold tradition to be altogether as infallible as Scripture and that it ought to be receaued with the same reuerence with the same submissiue deuotion of pious beliefe as Scripture as you acknowledge that we do chap. 2. n. 1. 3. Fourthly that an assent be infallible it is necessary that the thing belieued be represented and proposed to the Vnderstanding of the belieuer in such manner as he may know the same to be infallible and that in belieuing it he cannot possibly erre For the manner of belieuing if it be not knowne to the belieuer to be infallible though it be infallible in it selfe will not make him sure and infallible This condition is found in the assent of Christian fayth for the things to be belieued are represented as cleer by noted and marked with diuine and supernaturall proofes that is confirmed with innumerable manifest miracles which the belieuers haue seen with their eyes or else know them by the report of whole worlds of those that beheld them by report so full constant brim as it is equiualent to the euidence of sense These Diuine proofes and markes euidently shew that the things marked with them are vnder the speciall care of God and of his infinite goodnesse that he cannot but prouide that the pious belieuer be not deceaued about them 4. Hereby is concluded that the Christian manner of apprehending the mysteries of faith is infallible more sure and certaine then any manner of naturall representation and apprehension of things can possibly be Naturall knowledge is eyther Physicall whereby we apprehend things as true because represented as such by the euidence of sense or Metaphysicall whereby we apprehend things as true by the light of vnderstanding which cleerly beholds the necessary connexion the thing apprehended hath with truth As in this proposition Euery whole thing is greater then any single part thereof our vnderstanding by the notion of the single wordes presently without discourse sees and belieues the truth of the speach Neyther of these
representations is so certaine infallible that it implies contradiction that men should be deceaued by it eyther by some extraordinary working of God to men vnknowne or through the infinity of the thing apprehended which men cānot comprehend For example men see the Chymnies of a Towne smoake thence they conclude with Physicall certitude that there is fire in those Chymnies wherein they may be mistaken seing God may haue raysed that smoake without any fire We are better assured by the light of vnderstanding about vniuersall principles which appeare manifestly true by the very notion of the single wordes yet not so vniuersally sure but we may be deceaued by them about infinite and incomprehensible thinges That Principle I before named Euery whole thing is greater then any single part thereof we are not sure thereof in infinite whole thinges yea many learned men do maintaine that in an infinite multitude the whole multitude is not greater then a single part thereof That knowne rule and principle of all discourse The thinges with be one and the same with a third thing are one and the same betweene themselues Fayth assures vs that the same fayles in the diuine Nature which being infinite and incomprehensible may be and is identified with three diuine Persons really distinct Nor is this to destroy all certitude of naturall knowledge but only to make the same finite and limited within the compasse of its weake reach and capacity infinitly inferiour to diuine wisdome and altogether subordinate to his most infallible word 5. Now deception cannot possibly happen in our belieuing of doctrines represented to our vnderstanding cleerly marked with euident miracles and other supernaturall notes shewing they are reuealed of God For God working by his power aboue nature to mooue men to belieue such Diuine and miraculous doctrine cannot also worke aboue nature what may be the cause of our deception therein for then he should be contrary to himselfe with is altogether impossible Nor can there be feare danger or possibility that in this beliefe we may be deceaued through weaknesse of iudgment caused by the finite capacity of humane wit because in this beliefe the light of natur all reason is not our guide but the word of God discouering high mysteries and hidden secrets conforme to his infinite and vndeceiuable vnderstanding Hence a late learned Writer our Countryman sayth excellently to this purpose (a) P. Thomas Baconus Southellus in sua Regula viua seu Analysi fidei Dispat 3. cap. 6. n. 122. Haec motiua conuincunt necessarió metaphysice quod si vlla vera sit in mundo Religio c. ea alia esse non possit quám baec nostra his motiuis insignita That the motiues of Christian Catholique credibility are most certaine and infallible in themselues and do most manifestly and euen with metaphysicall euidence conuince our Christian Catholique Religion to be the true way of saluation as certainly as that there is any true religion in the world or any diuine prouidence about the saluation of mankind Who can desire greater certitude and euidence then this 6. The fifth thing is firme adherence to the doctrine proposed so that the belieuer cannot at all or else very hardly be driuen from his persuasion of the truth thereof This adherence in Christian Catholiques is so firme that they are ready not only to giue their life in testimony thereof but also will deny their owne senses their reason and all naturall euidence rather then admit any doubt of doctrine in this manner represented to them as Gods infallible word 7. If any obiect that the assent of Christian fayth is often shaken with doubts sometimes ouerthrowne wheras the assent of naturall knowledge stands constant and vnmooued without danger of falling I answere this is true but the reason hereof is not because the assent of naturall knowledge is more certain and firme of it selfe but because Christian fayth is more exposed to the blasts of temptation An Oake on the top of an high mountayne is shaken with wind and storme and many times beaten to the ground wheras a tender sprig growing low out of the wind is not subiect to this danger yet no man will say that the sprig is more firme and deeply rooted in the ground then the Oake Christian fayth standeth on high hauing for matter and subiect high inuisible and incomprehensible mysteries which though they are by the belieuer sufficiently seene to be reuealed of God yet not seene at all by naturall reason to be true in themselues yea still in themselues they remaine darke obscure difficill and seemingly impossible in humane reason Hence though fayth be firmely grounded and deeply rooted on the authority of God reuealing Christian doctrines yet stronge apprehensions of the seeming impossibility thereof like violent blasts cause the same sometimes to shake wauer with inuoluntary doubts whereas the assent of naturall knowledge is neuer or seldome tempted to doubt because there is no seeming impossibility in such truth By this explication of our Catholique Resolution of fayth it is manifest you haue done vs wronge in saying that we require That men build a most certaine assent on fallible vncertaine and only probable groundes The second Conuiction 8. YOur ground to make the assent of Christian fayth fallible and only probable is because it is an assent to a conclusion deduced from two premises whereof the one is fallible and only probable Cap. 1. n. 8. lin 28. Our fayth is an assent to this conclusion The doctrine of Christianity is true which being deduced from the former Thesis All which God reuealed for true is true which is metaphysically certaine and the former Hypothesis All the articles of our fayth are reuealed of God whereof we can haue but morall certainty we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of it then of the weaker of the Premises for the conclusion still followes the worser part if there is any worse and must be negatiue particular contingent or but morally certaine if any of the propositions from whence it is deriued be so Neither can we be certaine of it in the highest degree vnlesse we be thus certaine of all the principles whereon it is grounded As a man cannot stand or goe strongly if either of his legs be weake or as a building cannot be stable if any one of the necessary pillers be infirme and instable Thus you And then to shew this Hypothesis All the articles of our fayth that is all the doctrines of the Christian Creed and Scripture be reuealed of God to be only morally certaine you bring this reason because it is proued only by tradition vniuersall only by the testimonie of the ancient Churches an argument only probable Cap. 6. n. 40. The ioint tradition of all Apostolique Churches with one mouth and with one voice teaching the same doctrine was vrged by the Fathers not as a demonstration but only as an argument very probable Cap. 6. n. 8.
violence How different are you from your selfe in diuers places To bring in your new Religion of the Bible and only the Bible you accuse the Ancient Fathers that they are with full consent opposit one to another ages against ages but in your so wisely chosen Religion there is such a perpetual fighting that there is more difference betwixt two of your pages then betwixt all Christian ages 14. I must note in this place to answere a seely calumniation against our Church the only argument in your Booke that may trouble an ignorant Reader because it requires some litle historical erudition to confute it that though you feigne the Church in the dayes of S. Augustine full of great variety of superstitions yet you say that the Donatists did falsely calumniate Catholikes that they did set Images vpon their Altars and (n) Cap. 6. n. 101. S. Austine doth not iustify the Church saying as we would haue done in that case Those pictures were worshipped not for their owne sake but for them who were represented by them but doth abhorre the thing and deny the imputation Behold here a tale of a Tub or of I know not what For cap. 6. n. 16. you acknowledge that S. Augustine makes no mention of any picture but by a Rhetoricall figure calles it I know not what but say you compare him with Optatus and you shall plainly perceaue that this I know not what pretended to be set vpon the Altar was indeed a picture Behold in this your second telling the tale of a Tub or of I know not what you are fallen from pictures to a picture granting that the Donatists did not accuse Catholicks for setting vp all kind of pictures in the Church or vpon the Altar but for a picture I will not stand to note and shew the ridiculous vanity of the inference you tacitly make It was a picture Ergo the picture of Christ or of some Saint but tell the Reader what that picture was and of whome to wit of Constans the Emperour Sonne to Constantine the Great This most pious Christian Emperour as Optatus relates sent two chief noble men of his Court Paulus and Macarius eminent for Christian piety and wisdome in Ambassadge into Africke with (o) Cum elee mosynis quibus subleuata per Ecclesias singulas possit respirare vestiti pasci gaudere paupertas great liberalities to bestow on poore Christians Donatists especially hoping by this courtesy to win their hearts vnto vnity with the Church The Bishops of the Donatists fearing the successe of this Imperial liberality did mightily maligne the two Noblemen especially Macarius whome they somtimes assaulted in his iourneys put him in danger of his life sought to take from him by force that Imperial treasure because in one assault they made some two Donatists were slayne they presently proclaymed them Martyrs (p) Aug. contr liter as Pitil l. 2. c. 39. Macarius a Persecutour a Pagan and called Catholiques Macarians of him Amongst other tales and slanders they gaue out that (q) Falsa opinio omnium populorum aures oppleuerat Dice batur enim venturos Paulum Macarium qui interessent sacrificio vt cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur preferrent illi imaginem sic Sacrificiū offerretur Optat. lib. 3. circa finem 2. Edition pag. 331. lin 9. 2. Edition pag. 322. lin 15. Paulus and Macarius when they were present at the Christian sacrifice vsed to set vp the image of the Emperour on the Altar and that before it sacrifice was offered and the oblations of the people made wherof the Reader may be more fully informed in Baronius Anno 348. Behold the best argument erudition of your Booke what a poore snake it is being brought to light out of the lurking hole of your darke and dimidiate narration of the fact The fifth Conuiction 15. YOu often affirme that the whole Church cānot vtterlyperish nor loose its Essence and Being cap. 3. n. 78. You know we grant must grant that the Church still holdes all necessary truths for it is of the essence of the Church to doe so But pag. 347. l. 21. You fay the cōtrary The Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also nay the whole Church of the Gentils might fall if they lookt not to ther standing Pag. 338. lin 11. speaking agaynst the priuiledge of infallibility of the Roman Church Me thinks you say S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but haue congratulated this their priuiledge to them bad he acknowledged that their sayth was the rule for all the world for euer But then sure he would haue forborne to put them in feare that they nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not looke to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Iewes had done Cop. 3. n. 30. in fine It is in the power of she Church to deuiate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which euery one has free will is subiect to passion and errour This your reason conuinceth if your suppositiō be true to wit that the Church is NOTHING else but meere men left to their ntture hauing freewill subiect to passion and errour But for my part I did euer and shall still belieue that no true Christian will be so profane as to thinke that in the Church there is freewill without diuine grace nothing but nature subiect to passion and errour without the spirit of God guiding them into all truth the Church being the mysticall Body animated with his spirit which she shall neuer abandone 16. Nor doth S. Paul fright the whole Church of Rome much lesse the whole Church of the Gentils with possibility of falling away into Infidelity but sayes in the singular number (r) Rom. 11. thou standest by fayth be not high minded but feare to shew that he speaketh of euery single Christian that he may fall away from the faith on the other side he sayth in the plurall nūber (s) Rom. 1.4 Your fayth is declared in the whole world which words the Fathers (t) Hieron Apolog aduers Ruf. Scito Romanam fidem huiusmodi praestigias non recipere Pauliauthoritate munitam non posse mutari vnderstand to signify that the fayth of the Romans shall euer be an infallible rule of Fayth to the rest of the Christian Church But more cleerly afterward in the end of his epistle (u) Rom. 16.17 Note such as make dissensions against the doctrin you haue receaued signifying that the Church of Rome hath the office to note censure all Hereticks that shall rayse discord in the Church agaynst the Roman Tradition of fayth And incontinently he sheweth the priuiledge of Diuine efficacions assistance not to erre in this office saying And the God of peace shal crush Satan vnder your feet with speed What is this but the God of peace hath made the Church of Rome the head and roote of peace and vnity as
(x) Radicem matricem Eeclesiae Catholicae Cyp Ep. 45. the Fathers terme it to the rest of the Church to crush Satan that is sayth Origen euery contradictious spirit that teacheth agaynst the doctrine of Tradition vnder their feete Which speach hath no small allusion to the Reuerence vsed by Catholicke Christians to the feete of S. Peters Successour If you had any text in Scripture but halfe as cleere agaynst the infallible authority of the Roman Church and Bishop as this is for it your triumphing vociferations that the text is cleere as the sunne would hardly be contayned vnder the cope of heauen This appeareth by your vrging the place Be not high minded but feare as threatning the whole Church of Rome with possibility of falling from Christ which seing you could not do without inuoluing in the same damnation and defectibility the whole Church of the Gentiles you professe the whole Church of God may fall away into Infidelity agaynst the promises of Christ (z) Infra c. 7. conu 9. yea agaynst what your selfe affirme an hundred tymes That scripture is not the onely Meanes or Rule to know all necessary truths or that all necessary things are not euidently contayned in Scripture CHAP. IIII. 1. IN this Chapter I lay the axe to the roote of your vnfruitfull tree couered with greene leaues of assertions without any branch or bow of strong proofe I digge vp the ruinous foundation of your Babilonicall building of confused language full of doctrines different yea opposit the one to the other I shall demonstrate that you mistake the Protestant sense of this their principle The Scripture is the onely Rule o◠All necessary poynts of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture that you vnderstand not the state of the Controuersy betwixt vs and them about Tradition vnwritten that you runne headlong on with this principle in your mouth without any bit of true sense or Christian beliefe stumbling agaynst all the Articles of Christianity whereby you get many new noble victories ouer your selfe by falling downe in flat contradiction vpon your selfe 2. To vnderstand this we must obserue that a thing may be contayned most cleerely to the seeming in some text of Scripture taken singly by it selfe which yet if places of Scripture be conferred and all things considered is but darkely and doubtfully deliuered therein For example by the saying of S. Luke that Ioseph the husbād of the Virgin Mary was the Sonne of Hely it seemes most cleere and euident that Hely was his true and naturall father neyther would any Christian haue doubted thereof had not S. Matthew written that Iacob begat Ioseph the husband of Mary so that the two texts which taken by themselselues seeme most cleere being conferred together do mutually darken obscure ech other This truth supposed the doctrine of Protestants about the question whether all poynts of necessary fayth be contayned in Scripture consists in two assertions in the one they agree in the other they disagree from vs. 3. First they teach that all necessary things of Fayth are not contayned cleerely in Scripture vnderstood by conference of places but for the cleering of ambiguytyes the Rule of fayth deliuered by Traditiō is necessary which Rule comprehends all poynts of fayth which haue beene alwayes notoriously knowne and explicitely belieued of all Christians Thus farre they and we consent There is (y) D. field of the Church lib. 4. c. 16. item c. 14. sayth D. Field betwixt our Aduersaries and vs no difference in this matter for we confesse that neyther conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the Originals ARE OF ANY FORCE vnlesse we find the things we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of fayth c. neyther is there any of our Deuines that teach otherwise Thus he 4. Secondly Protestants teach that all necessary points of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture in some text or texts of Scripture cleer and conspicuous taken by themselues so that though we need the rule of Tradition that we may assuredly vnderstand the Scriptures cōferred together yet not to deliuer vnto vs some necessary matters of fayth (z) D. Field lib. 4. c. 14. We do not so make Scripture the rule of our fayth as we neglect the other of Tradition nor so admit the other as to detractany thing from the plenitude of Scripture in which al things are contayned that must be belieued which are no wayes deliuered in Scripture Heerin there is some disagreement betwixt them and vs because we hold that some verities of necessary beliefe cannot be proued by any text of Scripture sufficiently to be a matter of fayth by that sole proofe without the help of Tradition Now you agree neither with Protestants nor with vs you maintayne that all necessary things are euidently certayne in Scripture expounded by conference of places without any rule of Traditiue interpretation yea you contend that no such rule is extant This you do not as Protestants do to establish the totall sufficiency clarity of Scriptures about the receaued articles of Christian fayth but to ouerthrow totally all explicite belief of any Christian mystery whatsoeuer as by the ensuing Conuictiō of your errour from your owne sayings will manifestly appeare For whiles you endeauour to spread this Infidelity couertly vnder the maske of a Protestant or of a Christian for want of consideration memory and wit you euery where contradict your selfe affirme and deny say and vnsay build and vnbuild The first Conuiction 5. THus you write cap. 2. n. 159. lin 9. The bookes of Scripture are not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine as requisit to the well being thereof men may be saued without belieuing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without belieuing it to be a rule and perfect rule of fayth And cap. 2. n. 33. lin 7. If men aid belieue the doctrine contayned in Scripture it would no way hinder their saluation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations S. Irenaeus speakes of were in this case yet no doubt they might be saued Yea say (b) Cap. 2. n. 159. lin 20. you though they had reiected the bookes of Scripture proposed vnto them by all the rest of the Church which receaued them I do not doubt but they might be saued God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation onely to belieue the verityes therein contayned and not the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contayned Thus you destroying your Principle that Scripture is the onely rule and the onely safe way to heauen as I proue by three arguments from these words which indeed are euident truths The first argument Christian fayth cannot be ruled and guided to saluation and attayne to heauen without the onely rule without the onely guide without the onely meanes No man in his wits can deny this Now
Diuinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it selfe alone but by some extrinsicall authority you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of vniuersall Tradition not of your Church From this truth by you granted I thus argue That cannot be the onely rule or by it selfe alone a rule of fayth with is not of it selfe able to proue and shew that which it contaynes to be the word of God For the matter of Christian Faith being the word of God onely that which caÌ„not shew it selfe to be the word of God cannot shew it selfe to be matter of Christian fayth But Scripture alone by it selfe cannot proue it selfe nor consequently the doctrine it contaynes to be the word of God but to this end needeth the extrinsecall Authority of Tradition Therefore not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned with the extrinsecall authority of Tradition is the rule of fayth 10. This defect of Scripture in respect of being the onely rule or by it selfe alone any rule of fayth you lay open cap. 2. n. 8. lin 7. Though a writing could not be proued to vs to be a perfect rule of fayth by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being said or written in a booke but onely by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe Thus you I would gladly know how can Scripture be the onely rule of fayth or by it selfe any rule of fayth if nothing be proued true nothing shewed to be the word of God barely by being written therein but onely by the light of Tradition ioyned vnto Scripture 11. Hence I inferre if Scripture by it selfe without Tradition cannot be a rule of Fayth nor shew any doctrine to be of God how much lesse can it be a rule of fayth against the vniuersal Tradition of the Church It is deep vanity in you and dull inconsideration of the consequences of your doctrine to boast as you do cap. 3. n. 40. that by Scripture you can confute the Church which taught you Scripture to be the word of God aswel say you as of my Maister in Physicke or the Mathematickes I may learne those rules and principles by which I may confute his erroneous Conclusions Thus you who verily are such a maister you speake of For you deliuer rules and principles by which you may be confuted your selfe For do not you often inculcate this Principle that the Scripture is knowne to be the word of God only by Tradition onely by the testimony of the ancient Churches If then you proue by Scripture any TraditioÌ„ of the ancieÌ„t Church to be against Scripture you shall not proue that TraditioÌ„ of the Church to be against the word of God but that you haue no sure ground to belieue the Scripture to be of God and that you were vnwise to belieue it vpon the warrant of Tradition as you say you do For the rule which may be false in one thing caÌ„not be a sure ground of beliefe in any thing May I learne this lesson of my good Maister your booke which being your scholler hath taught me many rules and principles by which I might confute his maister Pag. â—5 lin 23. The meanes to decide Controuersies in Fayth and Religion must be endued with vniuersall infallibility in whatsoeuer it propoundeth as a diuine truth For if it may be false in one thing of this nature we can yeld vnto it but a wauering and fearfull assent in any thing Thus you Wherefore if Tradition be not endued with vniuersall infallibility if it may be false in any one thing it proposeth for diuine truth it cannot be belieued with firme assent in any thing at all Now the principles of Physicke or Mathematicks are belieued because euident of themselues and not vpon the bare word tradition and authority of the maister For a scholler if he be not assured of those rules principles otherwise then by the word of his maister cannot by the authority of these rules and principles proue any thing against his maister but onely against himselfe that he is a foole eyther in belieuing these rules vpon his Maisters bare word or else in thinking he can by those rules conuince his maister of falshood In like sort you shew small iudgement discretion who persuade your selfe you are able to proue some Church-TraditioÌ„ to be against the word of God by Scripture which Scripture you belieue to be the word of God onely vpon the warrant of vniuersall Church Tradition for this is a thing impossible and implicatory as any considering man will see wherfore not only Scripture but Scripture ioyned with Tradition is a rule of Fayth consequently it is not possible to confute any Church-Tradition by Scripture The third Conuiction 12. THis conuiction is grounded on this truth that vnlearned men cannot be assured they haue the incorrupt text or the true TranslatioÌ„ of Scripture but onely by the word of the Church This you affirme pag. 79. lin 7. 2. Edit pag. 75. lin 36. It were altogether as abhorrent from the goodnesse of God and repugnant to it to suffer an ignorant lay mans soule to perish meerly for being mislead by an indiscernable false Translation which yet was commended vnto him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he hath reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired absolution Thus you from which I conuince two thinges First that the Scripture is not the rule Secondly that the Church must of necessity be still visible and infallible in guiding men to heauen The first I proue in this fort The only rule of fayth must be for the capacity of all men aswell vnlearned as learned simple as iudicious occupied in worldly affaires as disoccupied The only rule I say must be able to assure all men of the Scripture that the Text and the Translation thereof is not corrupt in any substantiall matter But Scripture is not able to do this as you do confesse and consequently there is a necessity that men vnlearned men of meane capacity men occupied in worldly affaires trust the Church Ergo not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned vnto the authority of the Church is the rule of fayth 13. Secondly that the Church is visible and an infallible guide I proue You say It is repugnant to the goodnesse of God to suffer the soules of men to perish for their trusting the Church which they had reason to trust aboue all other being of necessity to trust some If this be true and it is most true then God is bound in his goodnesse to prouide that the Church which is to be trusted aboue all other be not so bidden as it cannot without extreme difficulty be found nor fallible that it cannot without extreme danger be trusted 2. Edit cap. 6. n. 20. pag. 322. li.
4. For as you say pag. 337. n. o. lin 23. A doubtfull and questionable guide is as good as none at all Is it then impious to thinke that men being in necessity of a guide to heauen and for want of one in termes of perishing eternally God hath commended and commanded vnto them for their guide a doubtfull questionable Church which men neyther know where to find nor being found how to trust 14. What you say of a penitent sinner that God will not damne him for the secret defect in his desired absolution because his Ghostly Father was perhaps an Atheist and could not or a villaine and would not giue him absolution First you are deceaued in thinking that a secret Atheist cannot giue absolution for he may if he haue intention to do what Christ instituted and this intention he may haue though he esteeme of that institution no better then of a foppery As for a Villaine it is not credible that any Christian Priest will be such a villaine as not to giue his Penitent absolution in which case if perhaps it fall out we thinke God of his goodnes will not permit such a Penitent to perish yet the case being rare extraordinary he hath appointed no ordinary meanes of succour but he will supply such defects as he many wayes may easily do by his speciall prouidence Now the necessity of Christians for the defect in their assurance of the true text of Scripture and vncorrupt translation is continuall ordinary and it implies incertainty in all matters of fayth in respect of all Christians For there be scarre any that can assure themselues of the true Text or of the truth of the Translation they vse by searching into the Originalls and ancient coppies Wherefore God hath prouided for them an ordinary meanes of assurance continually at hand and for the capacity of all to wit a Church infallible and so conspicuous as shee may be seene of all The fourth Conuiction 15. ANother Principle you deliuer c. 3. n. 33. li. 10. wherin you cōtradict your selfe depriue Scripture of being the only or the prime Christian rule of fayth I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cānot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a man as Christ that he taught such doctrine that he his disciples did such miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is the word of God vnlesse I be taught it So that the Church is though not a certain foundation and proofe of my Fayth yet a necessary introduction to it Thus you and in like manner you make the Creed contayning all Fundamental articles of simple beleefe independent of Scripture Cap. 4. n. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and contaynes the principles of fayth I ground it not vpon Scripture c. But the contrary to this in formall termes your affirme Cap. 3. n. 37. lin 9. saying of Protestants They ground their beleefe that such and such thinges only are Fundamental on Scripture only goe about to proue their assertion by Scripture only Behold contradiction vpon contradiction For to say you ground your beliefe of the Fundamental articles or Principles of fayth not vpon Scripture and you ground it on Scripture only is direct contradiction What you say that you belieue such and such thinges only to be fundamental proue it by Scripture is repugnant with what you contest more then in an hundred passages of your Booke that you neyther know nor can know exactly which points be Fundamental 16. But omitting your contradiction I conuince that Scripture cānot be the rule of our faith about Fūdamentalls Cap. 2. n. 48 circa finem which must of necessity be knowne and belieued before Scripture I proue by what you write Pag. 70. lin 29. If our vnderstanding did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed how is it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a sonne that he hath already or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can be made againe before it be vnmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of errour will easily perceaue that iam factum facere and factum infectum facere be equally impossible These be your wordes from which I thus argue The Scripture cannot be the rule and reason of belieuing such points of fayth which must of necessity be belieued before we can receaue Scripture But before we belieue Scripture we must belieue the fundamentall articles of Christianity that Christ was and taught such and such doctrine essential to the Gospell that he chose Apostles to preach it who confirmed it with new miracles and left it vs written in these bookes of Scripture These thinges and the like you confesse must of necessity be knowne vpon the Tradition and Authority of the Church before we can belieue Scripture Ergo the assent we yield vnto the truth of these articles is not by Scripture but by the Churches Tradition precedently to our beliefe of Scripture And so the Church teaching vs the Christian Tradition is the fundamentall and essentiall rule of fayth and the Scripture is requisite not to the being of Christian fayth nor for the begetting thereof but only ad melius esse to the wel being thereof to confirme vs more more in what we are taught by the Church The fifth Conuiction 17. CAp. 2. n. 19. (a) For so should it be though it be in the booke n. 9. lin 15. you write In all the Controuersies of Protestants betwixt themselues there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture reason with reason authority with authority which how it can subsist with manifest reuealing of the truth I cannot well vnderstand And cap. 1. n. 13. lin 25. The contrary beliefe may be concerning points wherin Scripture may with so great probability be alleadged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and vpright hrearts true louers of God and the truth such as desire aboue all thinges to know Gods will and to do it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another and some and those as good men as any of the former suspend their iudgment and expect some Elias to solue doubts and reconcile repugnances And Preface n. 30. There is no more certaine signe that a thing is not euident then that honest vnderstanding and indifferent men after a mature deliberation of the matter differ about it From this your confession that there be seeming contradictions and conflicts of one part of Scripture with another which set good and honest men of your stampe together by the eares I gather three arguments which conuince that Scripture by it selfe cannot
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
saying of S. Augustine I would not belieue the Gospell vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me I would more easely persuade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I belieued him this Profession I say though most euident truth caÌ„not without impiety be applyed to any church which is not indefectible and infallible in all her Proposals It is euident truth because the proofe must be to vs more manifest and we surer of the truth there of then the thing proued thereby otherwise it is no proofe as you say Cap. 6 n. 59. in fine But the only proofe the only motiue and reason we haue to belieue Christ that he liued on earth and that his doctrine and Religion is contayned in the Christian Scripture is the Catholique Church and her word and Tradition as you often grant Therefore as S. Cap. 5. n. 64. lin 8. Augustine sayth how can we haue euidence of Christ if we haue not euidence of the Church that she cannot erre in her Proposals And if true Christians be surer of the Tradition of the Church then of Christ then according to reason they may sooner disbelieue Christ then the vniuersall Church But you Protest against the visible Catholique Church that she is not free from damnable errours in fayth and damnable corruptions in practise that Church by whom you haue belieued Christ if you do truely and Christianly belieue in him How then can you be Christians or haue any grounded assurance of fayth concerning him You will say that you haue belieued in Christ not by this present Catholique Church but by the Church of all ages This is vaine because you can haue no assurance of the Church of all former ages and of what they belieued and taught but by the word and testimony of the present Nor do you hold the Church of all ages infallible Cap. 5. n. 91. post medium yea you expressely teach that the same was presently vpon the Apostles death couered with darkenesse and vniuersall Errours how then be you not heretiques and false Christians who belieue Christ and Christianity vpon no other or better ground then your owne fancy The ninth Conuiction 35. PRotesters destroy by their doctrine the being essence of the Catho Christian Church But the doctrine destructiue of the Church or the deniall of the holy Catholique Church is a damnable blasphemous heresy Ergo Protesters be Heretiques of the worser and more damnable sort You deny both Propositions of this Argument yet you teach principles by which they are demonstratiuely cleered against you The maior is proued because you often teach and it is the mayne point of your Religion that the whole Catholique (a) Pag. 291. lin 9. or c. 5. n. 88 in â—edio Church is subiect to errours to damnable errours yea (b) Cap. 5. n. 7. Cap. 3. n. 36. li. 12. to fundamentall errours in some kind But this doctrine doth totally and essentially ouerthrow the being of the Church For you grant that the Church is alwayes by essence the Rocke and ground c that is alwayes the actual Teacher of all necessary truth so that they who take this from her take her essence from her Cap. 5. per to â—uÌ„ and essentially destroy her being But he who sayth that the Church is subiect to errours in matter of fayth maketh the Church not to be the pillar and ground of truth for you say An authority subiect to errour cannot be a firme and stable foundation a pillar and ground of beliefe in any thing Ergo they that make the Church fallible and subiect to some errours in some proposalls of fayth destroy her essence Hence your distinction of a true Church and of a pure Church free from errours and that there was euer shall be a true Christian Catholique Church in the world but not a pure vnspotted Church from all errours this distinction I say by you repeated many hundred of times is vayne for I haue demonstrated that impurity in matter of fayth yea possibility to be impure and erroneous in any Proposals of Fayth is against the very essence of the Church The minor also you deny See Edit 6 n. 9. circamed Cap. 2. n. 13. lin 12. If Zelots had held that there was not only no pure visible Church but none at all surely they had said more then they could iustify but yet you do not shew nor can I discouer any such vast absurdity or sacrilegious Blasphemy in this assertion Thus you And this fancy then did so occupy the short capacity of your brayne that the contrary declaratioÌ„s which you make in your Booke were driuen quite out of your mind Pag. 336. lin 25. Into such an heresie which destroyeth essentially Christianity if the Church should fall it might be said more truly to perish then if it fell only into some errours of its owne nature damnable for in that state all the members of it without exception all without mercy must perish for euer Thus you teaching that if the Church perish essentially and remayne Christian not in Truth but only in name that all the members thereof without exception all without mercy perish with it Can any absurdity be more vast and full of horrour then this You teach this immanity to be consequent vpon the totall destruction of the Church and yet say that you cannot discouer any such vast absurdity in that destructiue doctrine So small a matter it seemes to you to grant that all Christians since the dayes of the Apostles perished euerlastingly 36. Is it not sacrilegious blasphemy to make Christ a false Prophet who sayd that the gates of Hell should neuer preuayle against is Which promise doth import as you acknowledge cap. 3. n. 70 that she shall alwayes continue a true Church and bring forth children vnto God and send soules to Heauen Now they who contend that there was for many ages no Church make this promise of our Lord to be false Therefore they are guilty of most sacrilegious Blasphemy as the Maintayner of Charity said and none will deny that hath in him any sparke of Charity towardes Christ The Conclusion 37. ANd now giue me leaue Courteous Reader to make an end For what hath been said may more then abundantly suffice to shew the vanity of this mans enterprize who would cut out a safe way to Saluation through the flint of Heretical obstinacy If any thinke this cannot be performed against such a volume by a Treatise so small as this is for bignesse not comparable vnto his let him examine comparatiuely the strength the pith the arguments of the one with the other and I do not doubt but in this comparison the Prouerbe will also be found true A Cane non magno saepe tenetur aper 38. The Crocodile that vast venemous Serpent of Nilus is conquered and made away by a litle fish tearmed Ichneumon which watching an
be decided for Christians affirmatiuely by another principle or direction besides naturall wit and iudgment to wit by the testimony of the primitiue Church or by tradition which is a rule to iudge all Controuersies by 3. If you reply that the question which Scriptures be canonicall is indeed determined by the testimony of the primitiue Church but not only by it without the concurence of naturall reason this euasion is stopt by what you write cap. 2. n. 2◠lin 26. The question whether such or such a booke be Canonicall Scripture though it may be decided negatiuely out of Scripture by shewing apparent and inreconcileable contradictions betweene it and some other booke confessedly canonicall yet affirmatiuely it cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Churches Behold the controuersie wherein Scripture is the subiect cannot be decided affirmatiuely by any rule or principle but by tradition only that is by the testimony of the ancient Church a rule distinct from that of naturall wit and iudgement 4. You will say yea you do say that Tradition though a principle distinct from reason yet is not able to stand by it selfe without the support of naturall reason cap. 2. n. 31. Though Scripture be a principle most knowne in Christianity yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a principle more knowne then Scripture but to say it is a principle not in Christianity but in reason not proper to Christians but common to all men And cap. 2. n. 114. You would haue men follow authority on Gods name let them we also would haue them follow authority for it is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue them beleiue the Scripture But then as for the authority you follow you will let them see reason why they should follow it And is not this to goe a little about to leaue reason for a short time then to come to it againe and to do that which you condemne in others It being indeed a plain impossibility to submit reason but to reason for he that does it to authority must of necessity thinke himselfe to haue greater reason to beleiue that Authority Thus you And though you often iterate this falshood that tradition is not rested vpon for it selfe but proued by reason yet you do as often inculcate the contrary truth that it is a principle euident of it selfe independently of any reason besides that credit it hath of it selfe Cap. 2. n. 155. The Scripture is not an absolutely perfect rule but as perfect as a written rule can be which must alwayes need something else which is euidently true or euidently credible to giue attestation to it and that in this case is vniuersall Tradition so that vniuersall Tradition is the rule to iudge all controuersies by Cap. 2. n. 25. lin 3. We belieue not this the bookes of Scripture to be canonicll vpon the authority of your Church but vpon the credibility of vniuersall tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe and therefore fit to be rested on Cap. 4. n. 53. lin 26. you say That Charity maintayned though he differ from D. Potter in many things yet agrees with him in this that tradition is such a principle as may be rested on and requires no other proofe 5. By these later texts of cleere Truth I conuince the falshood of the former that Tradition vniuersall is not a principle in Christianity but in reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men How can tradition vniuersall that is deriued from the Apostles by the full consent of all former Christian ages to this present be a rule to determine all controuersies amongst Christians and yet not be a rule in Christianity but in preason only And whereas you say That tradition is a principle not proper to Christians but common to all men I wonder what mist of disaffection against this truth could be so thicke betweene your vnderstanding and it as to hide it from your sight Is not tradition vniuersall frō the Apostles a rule of beliefe proper to Christians that is for Christians only Do any men in the world but Christians belieue Doctrines to be true Institutions and Lawes holy and pious because they are deliuered as such by full consent from the Apostles who but Christians admit Scriptures to be the word of God because receiued from the Apostles by tradition as such How then is not Apostolicall tradition a principle proper to Christient but common to all men You will say Infidels also belieue the tradition of their Ancestours and so tradition is a principle which Christians haue common with them I answere in like manner Infidels belieue the Scriptures and writings of their ancestours will you then say that Apostolicall Scripture is not a principle proper to Christians but common to all men If not I hope then you will easily vnderstand that though prophane tradition be a principle with Infidels yet Apostolicall tradition may be is a principle proper to Christians 6. The Principle whereby you proue that the authority of Tradition is resolued into Reason because It is impossible that any man should submit his reason but to reason for he that does it to authority must of necessity thinke himselfe to haue greater reason to belieue that authority This principle I say is not onely false but impious For according to it it is impossible that any man should belieue the mystery of the most blessed Trinity except he haue greater reason to belieue it then the authority of God reuealing it For if he haue not then he submits his naturall reason not vnto reason but vnto the authority of God reuealing things farre aboue the reach of reason 7. I conclude the principall intent of this Chapter with a demonstration from your contradictions that with Christians the authority of Apostolicall tradition is not a principle in reason but of Christian faith aboue Reason able to command Reason to belieue euen what may seeme repugnant to reason You affirme that in Scripture there are many irreconcileable contradictions to the seeming of reason ca. 3. n. 19. In all the controuersies of Protestants there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture And cap. 1. n. 13 lin 26. The contrary beliefe may be concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alleaged on both sides that true louers of God and truth may without any fault some goe one way and some another and some and those as good as either of the former suspend their iudgement and expect some Elias to reconcile the repugnancies Now reason cannot but feele much difficulty and repugnance to belieue a book full of seeming contradictions to be the word of God and to containe nothing but infallible truth And yet all true Christians and you professe with them do vpon the authority of Tradition belieue Scripture to be Gods word euery word sillable thereof to be infallible truth notwithstanding all the seeming contradictions which most of
Christians know not how to compose but must expect some Elias to reconcile them Ergo they hold and you professe to hold Tradition as a Principle aboue reason and so high in authority aboue it as it is able to command reason to belieue what to the seeming of reason cannot possibly be true Thus by your owne contradictions the resolution of faith that Scriptures be the word of God is conuinced to rest finally not on Reason but on Tradition a Principle superiour to all human Reason The second Conuiction AS the text of holy Scripture so likewise the sense thereof is proued to be Diuine and true not because congruous and conforme to the rule of natural Reason but because deliuered by Tradition vnwritten This truth I am to make good by your sayings wherein you contradict your selfe leauing the victory to that part of your contradiction which standes for the Catholique side 8. Cap. 2. n. 1. lin 24. you reprehend the Roman Church Because we settle in the minds of men that the sense of Scripture is not that which seemes to mens reason and vnderstanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome declares to be so by tradition vnwritten seeme it neuer so vnreasonable and incongruous Your saying contradictory of this and whereby this may be refuted you deliuer some three pages after to wit Cap. 2. n. 8. (k) Lon. Edit p. 55. in 8. Though a Writing could not be proued to vs to be a perfect rule of faith by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being sayd or written in a booke but only by tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe c. By this saying the former is proued to be false that the Scripture is to be vnderstood according to the seeming of mans reason and not according to Tradition or doctrine vnwriten If nothing be proued true by being writen in a booke but only by Tradition vnwritten then no doctrine or sentence is proued true because written in a booke of Scripture according to the iudgment of mans vnderstanding but only because deliuered by Tradition as diuine doctrine the true sense of Scripture Consequently not Scripture vnderstood according to human sense and reason but Scripture vnderstood in the sense of perpetual tradition from the Apostles is the rule of Christian truth and fayth 9. This you also suppose preface n. 12. Where you say That Discourse guiding it selfe only by the principles of Nature is by no meanes the guide of Christian faythin the vnderstanding of Scripture and drawing consequences from it but the rule is right Reason grounded on diuine Reuelation Now right Reason not guided by the principles of Nature but by the light of diuine Reuclation is not natural wit nor human vnderstanding but dunne fupernaturall sense and Reason Nor can our Reason precedently vnto Scripture be grounded on and guided by the light of Diuine Reuelation written as is cleere Frgo the rule to proue any doctrine to be Diuine truth is not Scripture vnderstood according to mans vnderstanding according to the light of natural Reason but Scripture vnderstood according to the wisedome of God knowne by the light of Diuine Reuelation vnwritten to wit by Tradition which is you say credible of it selfe 10. This resolution of Fayth finally and lastly not into natural Reason but into diuine Reuelation vnwritten is gathered from the saying of S. Peter 2. Pet 1.20 No prophesy of the Scripture is made by priuate interpretation for not by the 〈◊〉 of man Prophesy came in at any time but holy men of God spake inspired by the Holy Ghost This discourse of S. Peter is demonstratiue and may be redueed to this syllogisticall forme The Scripture cannot be interpreted by any spirit wit or mind inferiour to that from which it did originally proceed For an inferiour spirit as is the naturall wit and spirit of man 1 Cor. 2.14 is not able so much as to conceaue the thinges of God Yea that which is wisedome with God is folly with men But all holy Scripture proceedes originally from the spirit wit and mind of God Ergo it is not to be interpreted that is the sense therof is not to be iudged true or false by the seeming of naturall reason or wit but by the spirit and wisedome of God which spake in Christ Iesus and his Apostles the sound of whose voyce hath been by perpetual tradition continued and conueyed vnto the present Catholique Church 11. Nor do you pag. 95. lin 1. sufficiently excuse your course of Resolution frō being priuate interpretation condemned by S. Peter where you say Is there not a manifest difference between saying the spirit of God tels me that this is the meaning of such a text which no man can possibly know to be true it being a secret thing and between saying these and these reasons I haue to shew that this is the meaning of such a Scripture Reasōn being a publique and certaine thing and exposed to all mens trial examination But if by priuate spirit you vnderstand the particular reason of euery man your inconueniences against resoluing by the priuate spirit will be reduced to none at all Thus you vnderstāding by priuate a thing that is hidden secret insearchable not exposed to the sight and examination of all But this notion of priuate is against the meaning of S. Peter in this place because in this sense euen the Holy Ghost is priuate the true sense of Scripture is priuate because hidden and secret not to be discerned nor iudged by the naturall man S Peter then by priuate interpretation vnderstands interpretation made by priuate men who haue no publique authority nor power to command in the Church of God Now your particular reason I William Chillingworth haue this reason that this is the meaning of such a Scripture is priuate not endued with publique authority nor with any right to command priuate men to submit their priuate reason and iudgment vnto yours Ergo your rule of interpretation I william Chillingworth haue these reasons for this sense is priuate and cōsequently of no authority in Gods Church I adde that interpretation by the priuate spirit that is by the spirit of God speaking in priuate men is not so abhorrent and exorbitant from truth as yours by the naturall wit of euery man For extraordinarily it may fall out that that may be the true fense of Scripture which is taught by the Holy Ghost vnto some priuate and particular person but it is impossible that that should be the true sense of Scripture about the mysteries of fayth which seemes reasonable and congruous to human vnderstanding because the wisedome of God reuealed in Scripture seemes folly vnto the natural man So that of necessity in many texts of Scripture that must be the true sense which seemes vnreasonable incongruous to mans naturall vnderstanding 12. I must here finally note that in saying that
vpon what you write Cap. 6. n. 59. We must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued thereby otherwise it it no proofe that is the certainty of the proofe must be better knowne and more euident to vs then the thing proued But cap. 2. n. 8. you say the Scripture cannot be proued to be the word of God and a perfect rule of faith but onely by Tradition which is credible for it selfe Ergo the certainty of Tradition is surer that is better knowne and more euident to vs then the Scripture Yea further Tradition is a Rocke of our beliefe a principle so euident that it needes no further proofe This I proue by this argument grounded vpon your sayings That which is credible for it selfe and fit to be rested on must be so euident that it need no further euidence This you suppose Cap. 2. n. 45. lin 8. where you say I will neuer cease multiplying demaunds vpon demaunds vntill you settle me vpon a Rocke I meane giue me such an answere whose truth is so euident that it needs no further euidence But Cap. 2. n. 25 lin 5. you say The credibility of vniuersall Tradition is a thing credible of it selfe and therfore fit to be rested on Ergo the Authority of Tradition vniuersall or of the Catholique Church is a Rocke a rule a reason of belieuing so euident and credible of it selfe as it needes no further euidence The third Conuiction 14. VVE haue conuinced your errour by the ouerthrow of the ground thereof Now I proue the absolute infallibility of Christiā faith by the proper cause shewing why it is so and must of necessity be so grounding my proofes on truthes so cleere as they are by you granted Cap. 6. n. 9. lin 2. you say If we were required to belieue with certainty I meane a morall certainty thinges no way represented as infallible and certaine I meane morally an vnreasonable obedience were required of vs. And so likewise were it were we required to belieue as absolutely certaine that which is no way represented to vs as absolutely certaine Thus you Now I subsume But the Articles of our faith are represented vnto you as absolutely infallible not only as morally but as metaphysically and mathematically certaine in themselues This I proue by what you write Cap. 6. n. 3. lin 6. I do heartily acknowledge and belieue the articles of our faith be in themselues Truthes as certaine as the very common principles of Geometry and Metaphysickes But that there is required of vs a knowledge of them an adherence to them as certaine as that of sense or science that such a certainty is required of vs vnder paine of damnation this I haue shewed to be an errour c. Thus you Here you professe that you do heartily belieue the articles of our faith to be in themselues truths altogether infallible euen metaphysically certaine But you could not belieue them heartily as absolutely certaine Truth were they no wayes represented to your vnderstanding as absolutely metaphysically certaine What more cleere then this For how can you apprehend that truth by firme hearty faith which you do not apprehend at all Or how can you apprehend that truth at all with is no wayes represented to your vnderstanding Ergo the mysteries of Christian Religion are by the reasons and motiues of Christian Tradition represented to your vnderstanding as truthes most certaine and infallible in themselues How then are you not bound to belieue them as Truth absolutely and metaphysically certaine in themselues with an hearty adherence to them as certaine as that of sense and science The mysteries of Christian faith being represented to you as morally certaine you are bound as our confesse vnder paine of damnation to belieue them with morall assurance Ergo if they be represented to your vnderstanding as truth absolutely certaine you are bound to belieue them with absolute certainty equall to the certainty of mathematicall and metaphysicall science But they are so represented to your vnderstanding and you heartily apprehend them as absolutely infallible in themselues The fourth Conuiction 15. I conuince the absolute infallibility of Christian fayth by what you write Cap. 4. n. 11. lin 20. Which of vs euer taught that it was not damnable eyther to deny or to so much as doubt of the truth of any thing whereof we either know or belieue that God hath reuealed it Thus you I do not know of what sect you are and so I not say which of you but I cā say that you of what Sect soeuer you be haue taught that it is not damnable for men not to doubt of that doctrine which they belieue to be reuealed for you accuse Catholiques as blind as peruerse enemies of truth and of many the like crimes and in proofe thereof you say Cap. 6. n. 72. lin 15. My owne experience assures me that in this imputation I do you no iniury but it is very apparent to all men by your ranking doubting of any part of your doctrine among mortall sinnes Here you reprehend our doctrine that to doubt deliberately of the doctrine we belieue to be reuealed of God is a mortall sinne that is damnable for I hope your owne experience assures you that we belieue our Catholique doctrine and euery part thereof to be the word of God written or vnwritten With what reason and congruence then can you reprehend vs for holding that it is a mortall sinne to doubt of any part of our Religion which we hold to be the word of God Especially seeing you say Cap. 2. n. 122. lin 12. That if you be persuaded by the Deuil though falsely that it is diuine reuelation you are bound not to disbelieue it vnder paine of formall heresy But to our purpose we will take of your contradictions that part which is manifest truth that it is damnable to doubt of the truth of any doctrine we belieue to be reuealed of God and then I dispute thus There can be no more certaine nor stronger adherence to any doctrine then that which is so firme and vndoubted as the belieuer esteemeth it damnable and an heynous crime so much as to doubt thereof But this adherence to Christian doctrine you require as necessary damning all those that admit any voluntary doubt of the verity thereof Ergo an adherence to Christian doctrine most certayne equall to that men giue to the principles of Metaphysicke is required of Christians vnder paine of damnation yea stronger adherence seing a Christian is ready and ought to be ready to deny the principles of Metaphysicke rather then doubt of Christian doctrine proposed to him as Gods word by perpetuall Christian Tradition Finally it is vnreasonable that men should be bound vnder paine of damnation neuer to doubt of that doctrine which is not so much as represented vnto them as vndoubtedly and absolutely certaine It is a burthen intollerable to maintayne a thing without any staggering and doubting which is proposed only as
4. What you say that they erred and continued in errour through inaduertence and preiudice you contradict els where saying cap. 2. n. 155. that the Apostles in their persons while they were liuing were the only iudges of Controuersies And c. 2. n. 17 you say In matters of Religion none are fit to be iudges but such as are infallible And cap. 4. n. 88. lin 20. It is necessary for the constitution of infallible iudges that though they neglect the meanes of auoiding errour yet certainly they shall not erre Now can you put these propositions togeather in discourse The Apostles were whiles they were liuing the infallible guides iudges of fayth so made and ordained by the comming downe of the holy Ghost vpon them Iudges and guides infallible certainly shall not erre though they through inaduertence or preiudice neglect the meanes of auoyding errour Ergo the Apostles certainly did not erre nor deliuer errour through negligence inaduertence or preiudice And yet more to the same effect you write C. 2. n. 34. The Apostles infallibility was in a more absolute manner the Churches in a more limited sense The Apostles were lead by the Spirit into all truth efficaciter The Church is lead also into all truth sufficienter So that the Apostles and the Church may be fiftly compared to the Starre and the Wisemen The Starre was directed by the fingar of God and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was But the Wisemen were lead by the starre to Christ lead I say not efficaciter or irresistibiliter but sufficienter so that if they would they might follow it if they would not they might choose 5. But you stay not long in this conceyte of their absolute infallibility and being irresistably lead into all truth for within two or three pages you say that the promise of not erring was made them but vpon condition if they were not negligent and if they kept their station And. cap. 3. n. 77. Our Sauiour sayd to his disciples Yea are the salt of the earth not that this quality was inseparable frō their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue beene so of necessity could not haue beene otherwise in vaine had he put them in feare of that which followes If the salt lose the sauour wherwith shall it be salted Behold how you faulter before they were lead into all truth of necessity efficaciter irresistibiliter now not infallibly not of necessity they were in possibility to erre Neyther yet do you take vp your standing heere (a) Cap. 6. n. 〈◊〉 you runne into the contrary extreme that the Apostles could not lose the sauour of sanctity or charity and truth because it is certayne they could not haue any worldly or sinister intentiō in their preaching And then agayne to the contrary cap. 2. n. 93. This were to crosse the end of our creation which was to be glorifyed by free obedience To conclude for I am weary with the following of your light-headed guide fetching frisks euery way you iumpe at last vpon a truth the direct contradiction of that you sayd of the Apostles erring for a tyme about the Churches Vniuersality For you say cap. 6. n. 14. The Apostles who preached the Ghospell in the beginning did belieue the Church vniuersal though their preaching in the begining was not so They did belieue the Church vniuersall euen in your sense that is vniuersall de iure though not de facto Thus you Now this proposition The Apostles euen in the beginning before their preaching was vniuersall when they preached to Iewes only did beleeue the Church vniuersall de iure by diuine law is it not a direct contradiction of this The Apostles in the beginning before their preaching was vniuersall did not belieue the Church vniuersall de iure by diuine law yea they erred thinking it was against the diuine law to preach vniuersaly or to any but Iewes It is well that your wit the guide of your fayth doth professe that it can belieue contradictions at once this Heresy and this Truth otherwise it could not be the guide of that Religion you maintayne in your booke The third Conuiction 6. FRom the Apostles you passe to the second age after Christ accusing the vniuersal Tradition of that Primitiue Church as stayned vniuersally with impure and corrupt doctrine Cap. 5. n. 91. lin 41. seeking to answere what Charity Maintayn'd obiects that sundry Protestants acknowledge many of our doctrines to be taught by the ancient Fathers you say No antiquity except it be absolute and primitiue is a certaine signe of true doctrine For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption as we pretend it was who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption might not get in and preuaile in the 5. or 4 or 3. or 2. age Especially seing the Apostles assure vs that the mistery of iniquity was working though secretly euen in their times If any man aske how could it become vniuersal in so short a time let him tell me how the errour of the Millenaries and the Communicating of Infants became so soone vniuersal and then he shall acknowledge what was done in some was possible in others Thus you Which you repeate and inculcate more then fourty times at the least wherein you are like to the false witnesses to one of the which Daniel said very well Thou hast spoken falsely against thy owne head for the Angell of God shall deuide thee with a sword in the middes and doe thee away You are false against the spouse of Christ the holy primitiue Church as that witnesse was against Susanna and the same punishment of diuision and contradiction against your selfe is by God's iust sentence fallen on your head 7. You are false in saying so many times that the doctrine of the Millenaries to wit of Christs earthly Kingdome in the earthly Ierusalem full of all earthly felicity for a thousand yeares was deliuered as you say pag. 347. lin 24. as an Apostolicall Tradition that it was vniuersally receaued taught by all the Doctours and Saints and Martyrs of or about that time whose iudgement in this point is any way recorded This to be false is proued by your falsification of S. Iustine Martyr whome you make say that all good and orthodoxe Christians in his time belieued it and only hereticks denied it for his words are I and the Christians who are rightly persuaded in all things belieue the Resurrection of the bodies a thousands yeares in the new Ierusalem It is true all good Christians belieue the Resurrection of the body which you skippe ouer because Socinians do not belieue it in the Christian sense and a thousand yeares of felicity in the new Ierusalem in heauen not vpon earth Yea S. Iustine in that place doth plainly confesse that Many (q) Multos qui purae piaeque sunt Chriistianorum sentētiae hoc non agnoscere tibi significan◠who are of the
truth to be sayd together but that it made not against you this is Charity with all my heart You will suffer vs to speake truth if you are willing it should be truth a great fauour But if you hate that truth we speake because it presseth your pride which will not let you stoope to submit your wit to the word of God proposed by his Church you will rage storme against it deny it impugne it seeke to darken the light thereof to make the same hatcfull by vttering any vntruth against it 28. For example you are not willing the Roman Church should be the true Church therefore to hide the light of this truth you heape lyes togeather and fill whole pages and leaues with rage and fury without any the least lucidum interuallum To giue the reader a little tast of your bitternes and one draught of your salt sea you pag. 90. thus declaime against vs. See edit cap. 2. n. 101. pag 26. lin 26. You who haue wronged so exceedingly Christ his miracles and his doctrine by forging so euidently so many false miracles for the confirmation of your new doctrine who with forging so many false Stories and false Authours haue taken a fayre way to make the fayth of all Stories questionable who haue brought in doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confesse to be the word of Christ which for the most part make for the honour and proffit of the teachers of them who make profession of corrupting al sorts of Authours whose questioned doctrines none of them came from the fountayne of Apostolique tradition but haue insinuated themselues into the streames by little and little some in one age some in another c. and men are told they were as good belieue nothing at all as not to belieue these things to haue come from the Apostles which they know to haue been brought in but yesterday whether this be not a ready way and likely way to make men to conclude with themselues I will belieue nothing at all and whether this conclusion be not to often made in Italy and Spaiue and France and England too I leaue it to the Iudgment of those who haue wisedome and experience Thus you And is not this a good proofe of your profession that you will suffer no truth if you be vnwilling it should be truth but will load it with all manner of vnprooued and vnprobable falshood 29. As for the last point of your inuectiue whether there be not too many in Italy Spaine France and England who because they are vrged to belieue more then they list thereupon conclude to belieue iust nothing at all with firme Christian fayth you leaue it to be determined by men of wisedome and experience I thinke euery man may resolue it by the experience which you will not let them want to wit that in England certainly there is one such and that is too many by one for you hate and abhorre to belieue the reuealed (a) Pag. 330 lin 24. manner of Christian mysteries which is incomprehensible to your human and carnall reason and in this respect also hate and abhorre the Church of Rome which will not allow Saluation without beliefe thereof vnto any Christian to whome it is proposed by her preaching Yea you do both by word and deed further professe that you will not suffer any truth which crosseth this your impious fancy though it be truth neuer so much you will deny it impugne it disgrace it by all kind of fictions and lyes And whereas you say that some other answerer of your Crew would not haue been so good to the Mainteyner of Charity for they would not you say haue suffered him to haue said so much truth together whereas to you it is sufficient that the truth makes not to the purpose Pardon me Sir I tell you plainely I do not belieue you For why should they deny knowne truth and rage against it if they be willing it should be truth as not being against them It may well be that they may hate some knowne truth which you do not hate and againe you may hate some truth as the mysterie of the B. Trinity which they do not hate but for malignity and wilfull opposition against knowne truth for not enduring it for being rebells against the light for being in the number of them in whome S. Pauls Prophecy is verified That in the later dayes there should arise many who would not SVFFER or enaure wholesome doctrine but turne away their hearing from truth to the belieuing and venting of fables tales lyes villanous slaunders In this respect Isay they cannot be worse then you are as appeareth by your profession practise set downe in this argument from which we will passe to the next wherein you assure Protesters of their Saluation notwithstanding their liuing and dying in these kind of direfull passions and preiudices instilled by education against the truth The eight Conuiction 30. THey who against the saluation of that Church from which they separate protest through extreme want of charity partiality and manifest imustice through hatred of that Church not out of Iudgment are damnable Schismatiques That Protestants of your stampe be such is manifest by your wordes and deedes Cap. 3. n. 63. circa finem We Protest and proclaime the contrary and that we haue very little hope of their saluation who either out of negligence in seeking the truth or vnwillingnesse to fynd it lyue and dye in the errours and impieties of that Church And c. 5. n. 34. in fine you tell vs That God is infinitely iust and therefore it is to be feared will not pardon Roman Catholiques who might easily haue knowne the tauth and either through pride or obstinacy or negligence would not And (a) Cap. 7. n. 6. in fine Pag. 389. lin 10. To lyue and dye in the Roman Church is as daungerous as to shoote a gulfe which though some good ignorant soules may do and escape yet it may be well feared scarce one in a hundred but miscarries 31. This you make the case of poore Catholiques euen of good ignorant soules if happely they erre and might haue byn rid of their errours by speaking with so learned and Religious a Teacher as you M. William Chillingworth are There is little hope of their saluation because they were vnwilling to conferre with you as supposing for certaine you could be of no credit to oppose and accuse as you do the whole Christian Church of all ages as subiect to vniuersall damnable errours On the other side if your Protestants erre not through negligence onely but through (b) Cap. 3. n. 52. lin 7. Betrayed into and kept in errour by their fault vice or passion by pride obstinacy as most men are pag. 21. lin 40. If any protestāt or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sinne of his will as it is to be feared many millions are passion pride obstinacy