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
the common Head and Pastour of the Church or indirect when he standeth peremptory against the Church either obstinately against her Doctrines or contumaciously against her Commandes For such an one is hocipso cut of and cast away out of the Church in the sight of God and the sentence of the Church doth declare him to be such an one and makes him knowne for such an one to them of the Church This supposed I come to prooue that they who separate or oppose against the Church of Rome are Schismatiques The first Conuiction 5. YOu say Cap. 5. n. 36. initio For men to forsake the external Communion of them with whome they agree in fayth is the most formal proper crime of schisme very true Thus you But Protestants agree with the visible vniuersal Church in all fundamental points of fayth as you pretend and yet they haue forsaken her externall Communion For cap. 5. n. 52. initio you speake thus to your aduersary Whereas you say that Protestants diuided themselues from the externall Communion of the visible Church adde which externall communion was corrupted and we shall confesse the accusation and glory in it And cap. 5. n. 55. As for the externall Communion of the visible Church we haue without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it Ergo it is very true that Protestants in separating from the Church of Rome did commit the proper and for mall crime of Schisme 6. This Syllogisme doth consist of propositions which are formally verbally yours yet because you falter and halt in the assertion of them contradicting your selfe to make this demonstration conuincing I will proue both the Premises cleerely by such truths as you are forced to acknowledge The maior Proposition that it is formall Schisme to forsake the visible Church or her externall Communion which you grant in the words I cired you deny cap. 5. n. 25. lin 3. in these words to your aduersary Whereas you take for granted as an vndoubied truth that whosoeuer leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church are Schismaticall I tell you Sir you presume to much vpon vs and would haue vs grant that which is the maine point in question Behold now that is false which before you sayd was very true Which also to be absolutely true I proue by what you write cap. 5. n. 45 lin 16. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Prouided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church doth consist And c. 3. n. 66. lin 9. You may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be This you Now I subsume but externall Communion that is externall Society fellowship and vnity of the members of the Church in their subordination to the common Head and supreme external Authority therof is one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist one of the thinges which make it to be a Church This is cleere because as it is of the essence of an human organicall Body not only to haue a multitude of members locally layd together in one heape but also that they be knit and compacted together in the vnity of one Body by ioint subordination to the head so it is of the essence of euery morall or mysticall body not only to haue a multitude of members or persons but also that the persons members and subiects be knit together and vnited in the Society of one Communion that is of one common vnion of subordination to the Head 7. And this Communion or common subiection must in the members of the Church be external and visible because it is of the essence of the Church to be an externall and visible Society or Body which is proued because you say Cap. 3. n. 78. That it is of the essence of the Church to be the rocke and pillar that is still in fact a proposer mantayner and teacher of all necessary truth But it is of the essentiall necessity of a teaching Church to be visible and externall as you suppose Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 23. A Church that were inuisible so that none could repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible guide that is a teacher of truth yet it might be in it selfe infallible Wherfore external Communion or common Vnion of the members of the Church in their subiection to one common Head or visible supreme gouerning Authority is of the essence of the Church it is one of the thinges which make the Church a Church But Protesters forsooke the externall Communion the common Vnion knot with their fellow-members in the vnity of subiection to one visible gouerning Church-Authority and made to themselues new Conuenticles and Churches vnder new Gouernours and formes of gouerment as is notorious It is therefore manifest that they forsaking the externall Communion of the visible Church because in their iudgment corrupted forsooke the Church of God in one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist in one of the thinges which make the Church a Church and consequently are Schismatiques The second Conuiction 8. IT is you say of the essence of the Church of Christ to be by office the pillar and ground that is the teacher of truth of all truth alwayes in fact the teacher and guide of men in all truth necessary to Saluation Consequently it is of the essence of the Church to be able to performe this office Cap. 3. n. 7â— and to be still in act a Direstour of men to heauen But you say Pag. 163. lin 6. That Church alone can performe the office of Guide or Directour which is of one denomination that is a setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for their guide in Fundamentalls Ergo it is of the essence of the visible Catholique Church of Christ to be of one denomination adhering to one common Bishop as to their guide in Fundamentalls This supposed that Protestants be seuered from the way of Saluation Schismatiques aliens from the only Church that can be the guide to heauen I shall not need to proue you grant it (a) Cap. 5. n. 27. versus finem Pag. 264. lin 4. Put case I should grant of meere fauour that there must be alwaies some Church of one denomination free from all errors in Doctrine and that Protestants had not alwayes such a Church it would indeed follow that I must not be a Protestant but that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence then this If you will leaue England your must of necessity goe to Rome Thus you From which saying I argue If there must be alwayes some Church of one denomination free from all errors in doctrine subiect to one visible head and guide then you must
(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
Christian a wilfull obstinate opposer of diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed to him how can any man possibly be an Hereticke 3. Some may say if he see the doctrine to be contayned in Scripture and yet disbelieue it then is he an Hereticke I answere then he is not an heretique but a Heathen openly and formally an Infidell For you say (a) Sec. edition cap. 4. n. 4 post medium Pag. 194. lin 14. To disbelieue any doctrine which one knowes to be reuealed in Scripture is for a Christian not only impious but also impossible D. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 5. 4. Some may also pretend that an Hereticke is one that erreth about some truth which doth directly and essentially concerne matter of Saluation though he ioyne not obstinacy to his errour But this is manifestly false An Hereticke is one hatefull horrible and detestable but a man that erreth in matters of saluation ignorantly for want of sufficient instruction and proposition is commiserable and to be pittied not to be abhorred He that being in the darke seeth not the meate that is neere him and so starueth for want of food cannot be said to be a blind man or a wilfull staruer of himselfe so the Christian who doth erre about some essentiall points of Saluation the necessary food of the soule so perisheth because the light of credibility doth not shine vpon it in respect of him cannot be said to be an Hereticke or an Infidell but only in this respect an vnhappy wretch though this case among Christians can hardly happen Finally an Hereticke is one that erreth through inward indisposition to belieue but the man that doth disbelieue a truth only because he is not sufficiently in structed may want no good disposition and readines of mind to belieue Ergo he cannot be an Hereticke 5. Now this mayne and last principle for resolution of the Controuersy which be diuine Reuelations is the Christian Catholique Church deliuering perpetuall Traditions from the Apostles or which is all one as you confesse (a) Cap. 2.155 Vniuersall Tradition is the rule to iudge all controuersies by (b) Cap. 2 n. 28. being a thing credible of it selfe and therefore fit to be rested on Other principles and rules though they be not euident of themselues yet are good stayes of our fayth because euidently (c) Cap. 2. n. 8. That Scripture cannot be proued to be a perfect rule by its owne saying so but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe conioyned with this principle of Tradition credible of it selfe against all which your Protestants or Protesters directly oppose and so erre fundamentally and are Heretickes as these Arguments conuince The first Conuiction 6. FIrst I prooue them to be Heretickes against their owne last Principle and rule their rocke pillar and ground the Scripture euident of it selfe and known to be the word of God by its owne glorious beames rayes Though somtimes you reiect this Principle as not onely false but also (a) Cap. 6. n. 55. Cap. 2. n. 47. fond ridiculous vnworthy to be the conceyt of any wise man yet to keepe your good purpose of contradicting your selfe in euery thing you approue it also c. 4. n. 53. lin 25. where to the question What assurance is there that the Scripture is the word of God you answere The doctrine it selfe is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat What is this but to make the Scripture credible and worthy of credit for it selfe seeing the credibility or worthines of credit Scripture hath from its owne doctrine stile language it hath of it selfe But howsoeuer Scripture be not the last stay of your beliefe in the question Whether it be the word of God yet in respect of your Fayth of the sense of Scripture you make Scripture the last Principle yea the onely rule thereof cleere manifest euident of it selfe This supposed I subsume but Protestants disbelieue doctrines proposed cleerly and plainly by Scripture through preiudices and passions instilled into them by education Cap. 3. n. 19. lin 18. Second Edit pa. 21. lin 4. as you confesse pag. 137. lin 6. and there be millions of them that are betrayed into errour not by ignorance but by the sinfull and damnable passions of their will pag. 21. lin 40. Ergo Protestants erre fundamentally and are prooued Heretickes by their owne fundamentall rule and last Principle of fayth for if they be not Heretickes who contradict a doctrine which is propoposed vnto them by cleere plaine and euident texts of Scripture it is not possible there should be any Hereticke by their grounds 7. This is confirmed because the same Protestants belieue truths proposed vnto them by texts not so cleer and euident as those are the true sense whereof they disbelieue Ergo the cause why they do not belieue other more plainly and cleerely proposed Truths is not want of credibility in the proposition nor of faculty in their vnderstandings but want of disposition to belieue in their wils This you confesse saying Pag. 137. lin 6. That truths reuealed in Scripture plainly inough in the mselues be not plainly reuealed to such and such men into whome passions and preiudices against such truths haue beene by education instilled Now to disbelieue truths proposed sufficiently and inough by plaine texts of Scripture that is in your way with the vttermost light and euidence of credibility any Christian proposition can possibly haue not to belieue I say truths so proposed through passion and preiudice is the formall crime of Hereticall obstinacy wilfull blindnes 8. Hence we may further conclude that disagreeing Protestants are Heretiques to ech other and their dissensions Hereticall on the one side or on both As to say of one he wants light to see the sunne shining at noone day is to say he is starke blind To say of one he wants wit to appehend the truthes that are euident of themselues is to say he is a foole so to say of one that he wants disposition to belieue Christian doctrine proposed by cleare and manifest Scripture is to say he is an Infidell and voyd of Fayth if doctrine proposed by cleere texts of Scripture be hoc ipso proposed to Christian belieuers sufficiently and inough as Protesters teach and must teach else no doctrine can be in their Religion proposed sufficiently and inough What you so often (a) Pag. 336. n. 19. and else where a hundred times obiect that then the Dominicans should be Heretiques vnto Iesuites because in the opinion of Iesuites their opinion is cleerely repugnant to Scripture is friuolous and vaine For to Iesuits and Dominicans the sole euidence of the text of Scripture is not sufficient proposition because many plaine texts are not to be vnderstood in the plaine and litterall sense but that the proposition of Scripture be sufficient the euidence of the text must be backt and strengthned by the Tradition
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
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
you to do vs courtesies impossible which are I confesse troublesome things to be done and the doing of them requires time longer then Eternity only we will beseech you as you tender the good of your soule to do a courtesy to your selfe very possible to be done That you will reflect that you being a man witty and brought vp in learning it were not possible you should fall into such contradictions as these are were not the hand of diuine permission therin for the eure of your capital euil which is Confidence in your owne wit and contempt of the Whole Catholique Church as of a company of only blindmen and beasts It is not weaknesse of wit but dizzinesse of pride which makes you thus reele in your writing as euen here you do againe You auerre that to some more is fundamental to others lesse to others nothing at all Which is not only against D. Potter but your selfe haue in your booke contradicted it I am sure more then twenty times as Cap. 3. n. 20. lin 9. Points fundamental be those only which are reuealed by God and commanded to be prach't to all and to be belieued of all If fundamentall points be those only which are to be (b) D. Potter p. â—11 preacht vnto all and to be belieued of all how is it possible that there should be some points fundamental for some only and not for all The seauenth Conuiction 30. VVIth this Conuiction I meane to conclude this first Chapter and answere your chiefe argument against our grounding Fayth on the authority of the Church for say you the infallibility of the Church the Principle we build on is not euident of it selfe and therfore needeth proofe It cannot be proued by tradition because none can be shewed for it nor by Scripture because the Scripture is receaued vpon the authority of the Church and so the Church must be belieued infallible before we belieue Scripture wherefore it cannot be proued by Scripture except we will runne round in a circle saying We belieue the Scripture to be Canonical because the Church which is infallible sayth so and We belieue the Church to be infallible because the Scripture Canonicall sayth so To get out of this circle we must say that we belieue the Scripture to be the word of God because the Church infallible in all her proposalls doth so affirme and the Church to be infallible we belieue because our natural reason guided by the motiues of credibility and prudential motiues doth persuade vs that it is so This argument by the repetition whereof your booke is growne into a great bulk I could answere by retorsion and shew that you are forced to dance the round in a circle though many times you runne in and out by contradicting your selfe But I will not goe so far about I answere directly that the Church may be considered either as deliuering Traditions receaued from the Apostles or as defining Controuersies of fayth which for the present arise The infallibility of the Church as deliuering Traditions is not proued by Scripture nor by tradition but is euident of it selfe for the authority of the Church deliuering Traditions by liuely voyce is nothing else See conuict 1. n. 7. but the authority of vniuersall tradition which Authority you graunt to be euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on And on what principle can Christian Fayth rest but on that which is infallible by relying wheron we cannot be deceaued 31. You are a man so courteous and kind to the Church of Rome as for her sake you will deny your selfe you will destroy your owne writing you will grant this infallibility of the Church in plaine termes to do her a pleasure Cap. 2. n. 44. lin 6. There is no repugnance but we may be certaine inough of the vniuersal Tradition of the ancient Church c. and not certaine inough of the definitions of the present Church vnlesse you can shew which I am sure you neuer can do that the infallibility of the present Church was alwaies a Tradition of the ancient Church Now your maine businesse is to proue the present Church infallible not so much in consigning ancient traditions as in defining emergent controuersies Thus you In which words I note how you shuffle and imply in saying We cannot shew tradition for the infallibility of the present Church for tradition is a liuely voyce to be heard and belieued of such as haue eares to heare not a thing of sight to be shewed in books Do not you say nothing is proued true by being written in a booke but only by tradition of liuely voyce which is credible for it selfe Why then do you require proofe of that which you say nedeth (a) Cap. 4. n. 53. l. 24. Tradition is such a principle as may be rested on and which requires no other proofe no proofe And how can you deny the tradition for the infallibility of present Church against emergent Heresies seing it is consigned to her Children by the present Church which you do not deny to be infallible in consigning ancient traditions It is true you do not in this place make vs of this truth an absolute deed of gift you are afrayd it goes something against your heart but you will be presently more kind-hearted For in the next Cap. 3. n. 45. you speak thus to your aduersary You were to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as vniuersal as the tradition of the vndoubted bookes of Scripture c. not therfore in her vniuersall traditions were you to proue the Church infallible but in all her decrees and definitions of Controuersies Behold now you grant willingly and with all your heart that the present Church is infallible in her vniuersall Traditions but not in all her definitions With this your grant we remaine content for the present and for the grant of the second we shall expect your leasure for you will grant it in the end as shall be shewed in the 7. Chapter 32. This grant of the Churches infallibility in deliuering Traditions you confirme vnto vs by the authority of S. Austine cap. 3. n. 43. For to his testimony broght by Charity mantayned That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwais been kept is most rightly belieued to be deliuered by Apostolicall authority you answer Very right and what then therfore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controuersies Thus you and then you fall to skoffe at your learned Aduersary saying You are at your wits end to find some glue or soder or cement or chaine or thred or any thing to tye togeather the Autecedent and the Consequent of his Enthimemes and so wish him when he writes againe to write nothing but syllogismes I belieue what you say that in writing thus scornefully and crakingly you were at your wits end that is at that end of your wit you prefixed vnto it when
is as euident to your vnderstanding as it is euident that God is true Your fayth then in this place is most infallible but in other places it standes vpon weake leggs vpon Tradition which is fallible vpon (e) Cap. 2. n 154 Highly credible but not infallible motiues onely probable motiues Fourthly Prudent foolish Foolish because you say cap. 6. n. 10. many of yours belieue a right which are not wise And cap. 6. n. 74. in fine The imprudent fayth of Protestants may proceed from Diuine motion Is not this to say your Faith is prudent foolish Prudent because they that follow it goe to heauen and follow therein the spirit of wisedome Foolish because you say they be not wise their belieuing is iustly (f) Cap. 6. n. 9. in fine condemned of leuity and rashnesse (g) Cap. 2. n. 49. lin 35. a foolish and imprudent action Fiftly your assent is naturall vnnaturall Naturall because (h) Preface n 12. resolued by Logicke finally determined (i) Cap. 2 n. 3 in fine by natural reason Vnnatural because it cā against nature against the prime rule of natural reason discourse stand with the contradictory assent at the same tyme (l) Pag. 215. lin 4. 2. Edition pag. 206. lin 6. your fayth I say of this truth Christ is the eternall sonne of God with your beliefe of this Socinian Heresy Christ is not the eternall sonne of God Is not your fayth then naturall unnaturall noble base Catholicke hereticall reasonable vnreasonable all at once Finally vndernaturall supernaturall which is proued by what you write Cap. 6. n. 62. Reason will conuince any man vnlesse he be of a peruerse mind that the Scripture is the word of God and then no reason can be greater then this God sayes so therefore it is true From these words I gather first that your faith of the Scripture is vndernatural and inferiour in certainty to naturall reason for you say by naturall reason the same is conuincingly proued to be the word of God but in the same Cap. 6. n. 60. you say we must be surer of the proof then of the thing proued by it Ergo your fayths certainty of Scripture is vnder naturall reason and not so sure and infallible as your reason And yet it is also supernaturall certainty because you say no reason can be greater then this God sayes so therefore it is true And preface n. 2. pag. 2. lin 14. I submit all other reasons to this one God sayes so therefore it is true Now that one reasou to which all other naturall reasons yield and submit themselues must needs be supernaturall and superiour in certaynty to all naturall reason so that I haue proued by your owne playne expresse words that your Religion of Wit is contradictious free enforced euident obscure certayne vncertayne prudent foolish naturall vnnaturall vndernatural supernaturall wherby one may see your assertion that Christian faith is not certayne and infallible but onely highly credible what a mayne and mighty contradiction the same is and what a world of grosse absurdityes and repugnances are inuolued therein The seauenth Conuiction 20. CAP. 2. n. 154. lin 8. you giue this reason why the assent of Christiā fayth is not certayne and infallible and why God cannot require it of Christians because say you No man can giue and so cannot be required to giue a greater assent to the conclusion then the premises deserue And Cap. 6. nu 7. ante finem Nothing is more repugnant then that a man shold be required to giue most certayne credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare most certaine credible But c. 5. n. 8. to the contrary you write Of this that we are to belieue Christian Religion we are may be made infallibly certaine And c. 6. n. 9. Arguments so credible that though they cannot make vs see what we belieue yet they euidently connince that in true wisedome and prudence the articles of it deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things reuealed of God Thus you And are you so dull as not to see how frō these your two sayings ioyned together in discourse vild blasphemy may be concluded The mysteries of Christian Religion cannot you say by the motiues of credibility be made certayne or fit to be credited with infallible fayth But the mysteries of Christian Religion can be made credible and fit to becredited as things reuealed of God Ergo things credible as reuealed of God are not credible with infallible faith And consequētly to things reuealed of God a most certayne and infallible assent is not due Is not this to deny the infinit verity and veracity of God and his word Hence grounding vpon the contradictory I dispute in this manner What we may must belieue as the word of God that we may and must belieue with a most certayne and infallible assent for nothing can be more certayne and so nothing can more deserue to be vndoubtedly credited then the word of God But we are as you say infallibly certayne and arguments euidently conuince that we may and must belieue the articles of our fayth as the Word of God or as things reuealed of God Ergo we may and we are bound by Christian duty to adhere to the articles of our Fayth with a most certayne and infallible assent The eight Conuiction 21. IN your Preface n. 2. you say I am most apt and most willing to be lead by reason alwayes submitting al other reasons to this one God sayes it Ergo it is so This saying doth imply of necessity that the adherence of fayth vnto Gods word is more certaine then that of sense or any knowledge grounded on reason Because if all other reasons must yeld submit to this one reason Gods saies it therefore it is so then this reason I see this with my eyes Ergo it is so must yeeld to this God sayes it is not so Ergo it is not so But if the assent due to the word of God were not more certayn and infallible then that of sense the conclusion from the euidence of sense were not to yield to the conclusion from the certainty of Gods word Ergo by your owne profession you are conuinced to be false in saying the adherence by fayth to the word of God is not more certayne then that of sense or else you cogge and dissemble to hide your infidelity when you say I submit all other reasons to this one God said so Ergo it is so 22. Hence I further inferre that Christians ought you are bound to belieue the mysteries reueased in Scripture though they seeme implicatory and impossible to your human reason which you deny Pag. 215. 2. Edit pag. 206. lin 18. lin 16. For if all other reasons must yield to this one God sayes so therfore it is so then also this reason The mysteries of the Trinity of Hypostaticall vnion of two natures in Christ of the Real Presence seeme manifestly
be the only rule of fayth First That cannot be a rule of belieuing with is incredible it selfe But Scripture being seemingly contrary to it selfe and contradicting it selfe is by it selfe incredible therefore it cannot be a rule of fayth by it selfe but to be a rule of fayth it must be made credible by some extrinsecall Authority with is so worthy of credit as vpon the warrant therof we may belieue things incredible which is as you grant the rule of vniuersall Tradition 18. Secondly that cannot be the only rule or by it selfe a rule of Christian fayth with is not able to assure vs about the chiefest articles of our fayth as the Trinity Incarnation Reall presence the knowledge whereof is for Christians essentally necessary vnto saluation For if Christ Iesus be the true God consubstantiall to his father then Heretiques to wit Socinian and Arian Protesters against the Church of Rome cannot be saued by Christ seeing they refuse to belieue and worship him as the true God On the other side if Christ be not the true God then Roman Catholiques cannot be saued by the true God seing they were worshippers of a false God Now this article that Christ Iesus is the true God so absolutely necessary cannot be proued vnto them by Scripture only for about this poynt (a) Arius did alleage against the God head of Christ 40. places of Scripture and Catholiques alleage no fewer Scriptures are alleaged with so great probability on both sides that of learned Christians honest and vnderstanding men estemed pious religious true louers of God and his truth Pastours and guides in the Christian Church some haue gone one way some another as is notorious Wherefore what you say that this so probable allegation of Scriptures on both sides is a sure signe of a poynt not necessary implies Atheisme to wit that it doth not import Christians to know whether in worshipping Christ Iesus as the true God they be not worshippers of a false God And if this be Atheisme thē is it blasphemy to say that Scripture onely is the rule of Christian fayth and that Christians cannot be assured of any doctrine whereof they be not assured by the rule of Scripture onely For it is euident truth and vndeniable though other Protesters against vs will not confesse it so cleerely as you doe that where there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture where Scripture is alleadged on both sides with so great probability that learned vnderstanding and indifferent men differ about it it is cleere I say that about such points there cannot be any decision of controuersyes by Scripture onely 19. Thirdly by defending the Scripture to be the onely rule besides this blasphemy that Christians by their rule of fayth cannot be assured that they be not worshipers of a false God you are forced to adde another that on God and his word the fault lyeth that there be so many factions of fayth and so great dissenssion amongst vpright hearted Protestants for that these your true louers of God and his truth stand for contrary beliefe that in matters of Religion Christendome is deuided into Factions and Sects that some go one way and some another cursing and damning ech other to Hell is no doubt a great fault a mighty scandall an huge mischiefe which must of necessity lye heauily either vpon such Dicisioners or vpon God But you excuse the Diuisioners saying that (b) Cap. 1. n. 13. they goe some one way some another without any fault at all Ergo the whole fault must rest on God who gaue to these true louers of him his truth the Scripture for their onely rule which being it selfe as you say seemingly factious contradictious and one part therof fighting agaynst another set these innocent honest vpright hearts togeather by the eares one with the other in good earnest and implacably Thus to excuse Protestāts you protest against God that he is not the God of peace but of dissension and the authour of all the discord among Christians in matter of Religion and of all the mischiefs that are consequent thereupon by giuing a Scripture so full of seeming conflicts for the sole rule of their fayth The day will come that these boasters of their honest and vpright heart of their true loue to God and his truth shall sind the Apostles saying true Not who commendes himselfe but whome God commendes he is approued They shall see that in their trusting onely the Scripture and their owne reason in expounding it contemning the Tradition of the Church they were not louers of God his truth but fast freinds to their owne fancy and fond conceits louers of themselues adorers of their owne poore miserable wit The sixt Conuiction 20. THough we were sure that the Scripture is the word of God that we haue the incorrupt text the true translation thereof cleered from seeming contradictions yet for all this Scripture could not be to vs a rule of fayth alone by it selfe by reason of the high senses of Scripture incredible and incomprehensible to humane reason This I proue by your owne writing wherin you deliuer a grand Catholique verity which ouerthrowes the Scriptures being the onely rule Protestants pretend they know their doctrine and interpretation of Scripture to be the word of God by the diuine light and euident certainty thereof you will not belieue this resolution to be theirs and affirme the contrary cap. 6. n. 5◠That the Scripture is not euidently certaine nor of it selfe disuested of the motiues of credibility euidently credible For Protestants say you are not so vaine as to pretend that all men do assent to it which they would do if it were euidently certaine nor so ridiculous as to imagine if an Indian who had neuer heard of Christ should by chance find a Bible in his owne language that he would by reading it without miracle certainly belieue it to be the word of God which he could not choose if it were euidently credible Thus you and hence I thus argue 21. That Authority cannot be of it selfe and by it selfe alone the rule and guide of Christian sauing fayth in the vnderstanding and belieuing of Scripture which is not of it selfe euidently credible and worthy of all credit This I proue because the rule and reason to belieue the Scripture must be able to conuince the vnderstanding and to resolue it to belieue many high and incomprehensible mysteries For these are taught and deliuered in Scripture and must be belieued by euery Christian that will be saued But an authority which of it selfe is not euidently credible or worthy of all credit is not of it selfe a sufficient reason or a good rule for me to belieue incredible things incomprehensible to my humane reason as is manifest to euery man that hath wit to apprehend the sense of this speach Ergo the Scripture alone by it selfe not ioyned with the euidently credible authority of some other witnesse cānot be the rule of
fayth This may be made manifest by examples as by this What the Scripture sayth Asonne of thirty yeares was Dauid when he began to reigne and he reigned fourty yeares I easily belieue in the plaine sense because there is no incredibility therin But whē the Scripture sayth a sonne of one yeare was Saul when he began to reigne and he reigned two yeares the incredibility of the sense the Scripture in other places assuring me that whē he began to reigne he was higher by head shoulders then any man in Israel makes me presently stagger and to seeke for some stronger pillar then the euidence of the text in my priuate seeming and finding none my reason is presently ouercome and wone to forsake the seeming euidence of the the text The same no doubt would happen in other texts of Scripture about the B. Trinity Incarnation and other mysteries of fayth My fayth I say would giue backe had I no stronger rule and reason of belieuing them then the euidence of the text in my priuate Iudgement But whē I perceaue the euidence of the text in my priuate Iudgment to be vpheld and confirmed by the Iudgement of the Catholique Church which did euer vnderstand belieue such texts in that incredible and incomprehensible sense then am I fully confirmed and Christianly resolued to belieue those high senses though neuer so impossible to the seeming of my reason because tradition or traditine Interpretation as you speake that is the perpetuall doctrine and beleefe of Christians in all former ages is able to ouercome all incredulity which the incredibility of the thing may represent vnto reasō For it is as you are forced to confesse the rule to iudge all controuersies by Cap. 2. n. 25. ca. 3. n. 45. being Gods infallible word euidently credible of it selfe and so a fit rule whereon Christian fayth may rely for what witnesse can be more illustrious and knowne and of more eminent credit then the Church founded by Christ Iesus and his Apostles bathed with the blood of innumerable Martyrs adorned by the glorious liues and miracles of millions of holy men 22. I confesse the Protestants opinion that the doctrine of Scripture is to them euident that they see the truth thereof as cleerely as they do the light of the sunne to be absurd fond ridiculous as you tear me it But also I must acknowledge that they speake consequently other wise they could not say their fayth doth finally rest on the Scripture nor pretend the Scripture to be their onely rule And you who reiect this Protestants conceit of the intrinsecall light of Scripture do not onely harbour Infidelity in your heart but also professe it openly in words pag. 330. lin 28. I deny not 2. Edit n. 318. lin 24. but I am bound to belieue the truth of many texts of Scripture the sense whereof is to me obscure and the truth of many articles of fayth the manner whereof is obscure and to humane vnderstanding incomprehensible But then it is to be obserued that not the sense of such texts nor the MANNER of such things is that which I am bound to belieue but the truth of them for that I should belieue the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot be made euident to me with an euidence proportionable to the fayth required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is vniust and vnreasonable because to do it is impossible Thus you professe that you neither do nor can belieue the incomprehensible mysteries of Christian Religion For when the manner is the very substance of the mystery then the very substance is incomprehensible For example in the B. Trinity that Three Father Sonne and Holy Ghost be One the mystery is not that these three names signifie one thing as Sabellians and Socinians vnderstand it but that in the vnity of the Godhead there be three Persons distinct of one substance But you professe not to belieue the manner of these mysteries because it is incomprehensible Ergo you do not belieue the substance of the mysterie the substance thereof being a manner of being incomprehensible Moreouer he is no faythfull Christian who belieues not the articles of Christianity according to the Christian manner and sense But the Christian manner of belieuing them is according as they are incomprehensible to humane vnderstanding and seeme to prophane Wit and Gentilisme follies and absurdities as S. Paul doth declare 1. Cor. 1. 23. Ergo you are no Christian who openly shew your selfe a shamed to belieue any MANNER of things reuealed by Christ vpon his word that is incomprehensible except he make it euident to your vnderstanding and then if you belieue him he shall be much beholding vnto you for belieuing him so farre as you see he speakes truth and no further that is so farre as you will trust any liar whatsoeuer The summe of all is that seeing you reiect the Puritanical conceipt that Scripture is knowne to be the word of God by its owne light as a foolerie for so really it is you must either deny the Scripture to be the only rule or else continue to professe vnbeliefe of Christianity and of all manner of incomprehensible mysteries The seauenth Conuiction 23. YOur Aduersary often vrgeth you to set downe an exact Catalogue of fundamentalls or necessary truths without the particular and distinct beliefe of which you contend that it implyes contradiction that any man be saued You hauing vsed many tergiuersations to diuert the mind of the Reader at last confesse (a) 2. Edit pag. 22. lin 13. 2. Edition Pag. 129. lin 15. Pag. 23 lin 8. That it is an intricate peece of buisinesse of extreme great difficultie and of extreme little necessitie almost impossible And pag. 134. lin 28. This variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls And (b) 2. Edition cap. 4. n. 19. pag. 193. l. 10. Cap. 4. n. ◠pag. 201. lin 23. A Catalogue of Fundamentalls because to some more is fundamentall to others lesse to others none at all had been impossible By this confession you ouerthrowe your Principle that Scripture is the only rule wherein all necessary things are euidently conteyned For fundamentall points being the essentiall parts of the Ghospell Doctrines intrinsecall to the couenant betwixt God and man Cap. 4. 〈◊〉 4. lin 29. not only cleerely reuealed and so certaine truths but also commanded vnder payne of damnation to be distinctly knowne and belieued of all and so necessary truths I demand whether these diuine fundamentall and essentiall lawes about the distinct knowing and belieuing of these points in particular be cleerely deliuered in Scripture or not If not Ergo there be some diuine Lawes necessary vnto saluation without the obseruance of which it implyes contradiction any man should be saued Cap. 6. in fine not cleerely deliuered in Scripture If they be cleerely deliuered then points fundamentall be cleerely discernable from
points not fundamentall as being not only cleerely reuealed in Scripture as some points not fundamentall may be but also cleerely commanded vnto the beliefe of all vnder paine of damnation as vn-fundamentall points cannot be What more easy for a man that hath eyes then to discerne the places of a garden on which the Sunne shineth from those on which it shineth not but are shaded from his beames When light from heauen shined on the howses and habitations of the Israëlites Exod 10. and not on the houses and habitations of the Aegyptians was it an intricate peece of businesse for a man not blind to haue discerned the one from the other But you affirme often and earnestly that it is a thing of extreme great diffieulty yea morally impossible to distinguish in Scripture things fundamentall from things not fundamentall Ergo they are not cleerely commaunded in Scripture and consequently some things necessary to wit Cap. 4. n. 42. some diuine commandes of fayth the obseruance of which is fundamentall to the couenant betwixt God and man for their Saluation are not contayned in Scripture at all or else only intricately and obscurely (a) Cap. 4. n. 40. n. 43. lin 4. The eighth Conuiction 24. BY the discouery of this contradiction your cheefe or rather onely argument for the sufficiency of Scripture is answered (a) Cap. 4. n. 40. n. 43. lin 4. Pag. 210. lin 28. pag. 212. lin 1. you affirme that in the sole Ghospell of S. Lake all necessary things are contayned so that in other bookes of Scripture (b) Cap. 4. n. 42. namely in the Ghospell of S. Iohn whatsoeuer is reuealed ouer and aboue that in S. Luke is indeed profitable truth but not necessary or fundamentall This you proue because S. Luke in the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles sayth The former treatise haue I made O Theophilus of all that Iesus began to do and teach This argument you of ten inculcate and prosecute with great vehemency and according to your almost perpetual ridiculous manner of disputing with a cart load of interrogations but in fine the substance of all the difficultie is how could S. Luke truly say that he had written a treatise of all that Iesus began to do and teach if he haue left some necessary doctrines and fundamentall matters vnwritten 25. In this argument you contradict in plaine tearmes both S. Iohn and your selfe shewing your want of Christianity in the one your want of wit memory consideration in the other The Eternall Generation of Christ whereby he is the only begotten of God in the bosome of his Father is no where cleerely deliuered in the Ghospell of S. Luke yea your Socinians collect out of his Ghospell many strong arguments as they conceaue against this article of our fayth And yet the same is cleerely deliuered in the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the beliefe thereof commanded vnto all expressely vnder payne of damnation Iohn 3.18 He that belieueth is not iudged he that belieueth not is already iudged because he hath not belieued in the name of the only begotten Sonne of God (a) Also ver 36. He that belieueth not the Sone shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth in him How can you belieue in the Ghospell of S. Iohn not belieue the Eternall Generation of the Sonne of God and the eternal damnation of the disbelieuers thereof and consequently that there is some necessary commanded truth in S. Iohns Ghospell aboue the Ghospell of S. Luke 26. You also contradict your selfe and ouerthrow this your so often asserted plenitude of S. Lukes Ghospell by obiecting out of the Ghospell of S. Iohn the Precept of Communion in both kinds as a thing necessary to be knowne belieued yea practised of all aswell of the Clergy as Laytie for in proofe of this in your conceite so necessary truth you produce not any text word or syllable out of S. Luke Yea S. Luke is so farre from teaching the necessity of both kindes as he signifies the contrary cleerely inough Luke â— 22. v. 19. For in his narration of the Eucharist how it was instituted he doth expressely note that our Lord deliuering the Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread said Do this in remembrance of me but in deliuering the Chalice he makes no mention of any such command To this institution coÌ„formable was our Lords practice recorded by (c) Luke 24.21 S. Luke that in Emmaus he gaue the two difciples that were laymen the Eucharist in the forme only of consecrated bread Nor is S. Luke his saying that he had written his former treatise of all things Iesus began to do and teach to be restrayned to necessary things onely his words being all thinges absolutely without limitation He writ then all thinges not only necessary but also profitable which he iudged fit for the end purpose of his writing which was not as you fondly imagine to set out a Catechisme or briefe Summe of Christian doctrine but to write such a History of the whole life of our Lord as might serue to confirme and assure (d) Luk. cap. 1. v. 4. That thou mightst know the certainty of these things wherein thou hast beene instructed Christians in the beliefe of that forme of Doctrine in which they had been instructed catechized and christened by the Apostles and other Apostolicall men 27. I coÌ„clude this Chapter with noting the extreme misery pouerty futility of your whole booke Do not you say in your Preface n. 34. that this Principle all things necessary are euidently contayned in Scripture is not onely the corner stone and chiefe pillar but euen the base and adaequate fouÌ„dation of your answer Now this Principle not being prime immediate or euident of it selfe you haue not brought for it any solide argument or proofe The plenitude of the other Ghospels besides S. Lukes you dare not so confidently maintayne you (e) Pag. 210. lin 25. Of all the foure Euangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent Cap. 4. n. 43. say no more but that it is very probable that in ech of them all necessary things are deliuered you (f) Pag. 212. lin 2. stand absolutely only vpon the Ghospel of S. Luke that therein all is contayned which is so false and vayne as it is contradicted euen by your selfe nor do any Protestants hold it but onely Socinâ—aâ—s who by pretending this fulnes of S. Luke his Gospell would put off the necessity of belieuing the Gospell of S. Iohn and the high mysteries therof and so you had good reason to terme this principle by you so stoutly and perpetually auouched so poorely and miserably proued the adaequate Base of your Booke That there is one visible Society of Christians infallible in all her Proposalls knowne vnto all by subordination to one visible Head or Pastour CHAP. V. IN proofe of this Title omitting many other I produce only two or
Communion in one kind for Laymen was not practised by our Lord and Sauiour giuen vnto the two (a) Luc. 24.30.31 lay Disciples in Emmaus Was not the Latin seruice euery where in vse during the Primitiue tymes I meane (b) Ang. lib 2 de doctrine Christ. c. 11. in all Countryes of Europe and Africke which did pertayne to the Latin part of the word Was not Purgatory belieued and (c) Machab l. 2. c. 12. prayer for the reliefe of the dead practised by the people of God euen before the Ghospell was written Do not (d) Morton of the Sacramēt lib. 2. c. 1. pag. 91. If the words of Christ be certainly true in proper and literal sense then are we to yield Transubstantiation c. Protestants professe that Transubstantiation is as true and ancient as the Ghospell if the words of our Lord be certainly true in the plaine and proper sense And be not his words true in that sense he spake them though the same be neuer so high obscure to human vnderstanding incomprehensible But your discourse though alwayes without hornes of Conuiction of what you obiect to vs you will be sure it shall neuer be without hornes of stiffe and direct Contradiction against your selfe for euen this short period hath two hornes of this kind First where you say We damne all to Hell fire that any way differ from vs whereas more then fourty times in your booke you say you (e) pag. 404. lin 7. We censure your errours as heauily as you do ours damne vs to Hell as much as we do you and that we grant (f) Pag. 283. n. 74. lin 15. You your selfe affirme that ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may be saued Saluation to Protestants as much as they do to vs. Secondly you say heere that the Scripture is the sole and adaequate obiect of your faith but else where you say often that it is no obiect of your fayth at all but only the meanes of belieuing Cap. 2. n. 32. lin 5. Scripture conteynes all materiall obiects of fayth whereof the Scripture is NONE but ONELY the meanes of conueying them to vs. 14. Now to our purpose I take out of your dunghill this gem of cleere and manifest truth worthy of S. Austin his diuine wit and fayth that the Church which preferreth authority which is euidently credible of it selfe the pillar and ground of truth must not consist of a few but be diffused and spread ouer the world nor of turbulent persons that are full of discord and contention one against another but all agreeing in full vnity about matters of fayth not a new Church founded in after tymes but instituted by the blessed Apostles adorned with an illustrious succession of knowne Bishops to this present which is the very Maior proposition of my Argument which was that the Church which is the pillar and ground that is the teacher alwaies without fayle of all necessary truth must be both of one Denomination and Catholique that is vniuersally Apostolicall by succession of Bishops from them one and the same euery where for matters of faith For if it be not such but a company of a few in one corner of the world deuided into innumerable factions and sectes founded not by the Apostles but only yesterday or within the memory of men it can preferre no authority 15. Now Ecclesia totum poffidet quod a viro accepit in dotem quaecunque congregatio cuiustibet haeresis in angulis sedet concubina est non matrona Augustin l. 4. de symb c. 10. what more euident then the Minor of my former argument No Church of the World but the Roman is adorned with these glorious markes she wing the euident credibility of that Church in which they are For dare you say your Protesting Church is dilated ouer the word Is it not confined to one corner of Europe and reigneth most in the climate which is most North Quod latus mundi nebulae malusque Iupiter vrget Can you say that your Church is one the same euery where and not deuided into turbulent factions and iects Do not you say (a) Pag. 90. lin 12. there is among them infinite variance and King Iames (b) Against D. Vorstius pag. 65. an infinite diuersity of Sects agreeing in nothing but in vnion against the Pope Can you say it is Apostolicall hauing succession from the Apostles Do not you confesse it began but yesterday by deuiding themselues from the externall communion of the Roman and whole Catholique Church 16. On the other side can you deny the Roman to be spread ouer the world to be in Europe Africke Asia America almost in all countries of these foure quaters of the world euery where famously knowne that euery man that will be saued may come to this rocke be built thereon vnto euerlasting saluation For what you say cap. 6. n. 53. That the Roman Church is like the frog in the fable who thoght the ditch he liued in to be all the world is a speach not of truth and reason but of preiudice passion which education hath instilled into you the passion I say and custome of lying and vttering any falshood or scornefull reproach that may disgrace the Roman Church This you do without remorse of Conscience because you say you are sure without doubt Pag. 137. n. 19. God will not enter into Iudgement with you for such passions which custome and education haue made to you vnauoydahle Which I will belieue if you can make me sure that God did not damne to Hell Nero Domitian and such other Monsters for their pride and contempt of God and preiudices against Religion which by education and custome were to them all things considered vnauoydable 17. The Church of Rome is also Apostolicall by a notorious succession of Bishops from S. Peter that we may with S. Austyn (c) Aug. in Psal contra partem Donati say to you Number the Bishops succeeding in the sea of Peter this is the Rocke the proud gates of Hell do not conquer This Church is also the same euery where in all the professours thereof for matters of Fayth This you confesse pag. 129. and very wittily and prettily contradict your selfe within few lines In that pag. 129. n. 4. you speake to vs If you say you do agree in matters of Fayth I say this is ridiculous For you define matters of Fayth to be those things wherein you agree so that to say you agree in all matters of fayth is to say you agree in those things wherein you do agree But you are all agreed that onely those things wherein you agree are matters of Fayth And Protestants if they were wyse would do so to Sure I am they haue reason inough to do so seeing all of them agree with explicite fayth in all those things which are plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Thus you Is not this a wise discourse of a man who