marke wherat it aymeth the worke it laboureth with all might and mayne to bring to passe is the total ouerthrowe of Christianity In the first Chapter I haue shewed that you resolue Christian Religion into naturall reason wherby you destroy the Diuinity therof In the second that you make the same to stand vpon principles and motiues credible but fallible wherby you vndermine the absolute certainty therof In this third Chapter I am to shew you ouerthrow the truth therof and make the same stayned with ignorance and errour not only in the whole current of Tradition from the Apostles but also in the fountayne therof the holy Ghospel and in our Sauiour and Lord Christ Iesus the Authour The first Conuiction 1. YOv thrust a mortall stabbe into the heart of Christian Religion through S. Augustine his side whiles you charge his speach with palpable falshood which is the expresse word of Christ S. Austine say you ca 6. n. 14. in fine as he was in the right in thinking that the Church was extended further then Africk so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it alwayes must be so but most Palpably Mistaken in conceauing that it was then spread ouer the whole earth and knowne to all nations which if passion did not trouble you and make you forget how lately almost halfe of the world was discouered and in what state it was then found you would very easily see and confesse Thus you Vnto whome I say what the same S. Augustine sayd to Maximinus an Arian that is almost the same though not altogether so bad as a Sociniam Aduersu◠Maximinum lib. 2. c. 2. O quam de proximo te corrigeres si timeres credere quod times dicere O how soone would you reclayme your selfe did you feare to belieue in heart what you feare to say in words For although you dare not openly professe with the Samosatenians yet you dare belieue that Christ Iesus is a meere man that he was ignorant that there were any such people as Americans in the world and so out of ignorance vttered a palpable falshood when he said Luc. 24.47 that his Apostles should preach pennance in his name vnto all Nations that they should be witnesses vnto him not only in Ierusalem Iewry Samaria but also vnto thee vt most of the world Hereby he induced the Euangelists to mistake Mar. vlt. and falsely say that the Apostles going preached Euery Where our Lord working with them and confirming the word by signes that followed And S. Paul Rom. 〈◊〉 18. that the Apostolicall Preaching was spread into all Lands and their words vnto the endes of the world If I say S. Augustins saying that the Church was spread ouer all Nations in his dayes be a palpable falshood because it was not then in America then the prophesyes of our Lord that his Apostles should spread his name and plant Christianity in all Nations as also the testimony of the Ghospell that this was performed by the Apostles were also manifest mistakes and if the Ghospell be mistaken in one poynt through ignorance in the Author thereof we can be certayne of nothing 2. For if one confesse that our Sauiour was true God and knew all things and that there were Americans at that tyme he must say that eyther our Lord willlingly spake an vntruth in saying the Apostles should preach to all nations so by admitting on lye to be in one saying of the Ghospell he destroyeth the certainty of all or he must say that the Apostles preached to the Americans and made them Christians and if they were Christians in the dayes of the Apostles how can you tell they were not also in the dayes of S. Austine or finally he must confesse the truth that this speach of the Ghospell that the Church was euery where and in all nations was a most certayne and infallible truth euen when the Americans were not Christians nor had heard of Christ But this you deny and call it a palpable falshood so cleere as euery man not blinded with passiō doth now perceaue the falshood thereof Ergo you deny the Ghospell which you grant to be the word of God and consequently you are a formall Hereticke c. 2. n. 122. you do a thing not only impious but also impossible that any Christian should do as you say cap 4. n. 4. lin 19. a supposition impossible cap. 3. n. 35. lin 21. you do a thing you professe against saying you would not be moued from the truth of the Ghospell or any part of it euen by the preaching of an Angell from heauen So that your last refuge must be ro confesse that to call S. Austins speach which is the expresse word of Christ a palpable falshood you were persuaded not by an Angell from Heauen but by the spirit of errour which makes you hate subiection to the one vniuersall visible Church The second Conuiction 3. YOw do not vndermine but openly digge vp the Foundations of Christianity by teaching that the Apostles through ignorance ouersight or partiality erred in matters of Religion which they were bound to know Erred I say and the whole Church with them euen after the cōming of the holy Ghost for thus you write c. 3. n. 31. That the Apostles themselues euen after the sending of the holy Ghost were through inaduertence or preiudice continued for a tyme in an errour it is as I haue already noted vnansverably euident from the story of the Actes of the Apostles Thus you you auouch the same cap. 3. n 21. But in direct contradiction of this you say cap. 3. n. 74. lin 14. about the perpetuall infallibility of the Apostles according to that promise of our Lord that he would send them the holy Ghost the spirit of truth which should teach them all truth and stay with them for euer It signifyes say you not eternally without end of tyme but PERPETVALLY without interruption during the time of their liues So that the force and fense of the words is that they should neuer want the Spirits assistance in the performance of their function If the holy Ghost leading them into all truth did after his comming perpetually without interruption during the time of their liues stay with them alwayes assisting them teaching them all truth how can it be true that euen after the sending of the holy Ghost they were lead into errour and continued therein for as TIME through inaduertence or preiudice An errour so playne and manifest against the word of God and which they could not fall into without they were stupide seing the very guift of speaking the tongues of all nations which they receaued togeather with the holy Ghost still continued with them Were they so dull and heauy-hearted euen after they had receaued the holy Ghost as not to understand that by the guift of Tongues they were declared and made preachers of Christ vnto all nations vnder the cope of heauen
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
meant by the holy Catholique Church the Churches authority concurrs to the begetting of faith in them together with the illumination of Gods spirit making them to apprehend more deepely and diuinely of the thing then otherwise naturally they could by sole Church proposition You hauing made it necessary vnto saluation that men do not blindely follow blind guides but that by their owne wit and reason euery one choose and frame to himselfe his Religion being his owne caruer iudge hauing I say layd this ground you should in consequence haue maintayned that such as ignorantly and blindely follow a blind Church fall into the ditch and are damned But now making it the word of God that the blind following the blind must needes perish and yet labouring to saue some blind followers of the blind your selfe are fallen into blasphemy by following your owne blind discourse which still through want of light stumbles at euery step contradicting is selfe The fourth Conuiction 17. YOv contradict your selfe againe about simple and ignorant Christians whome you terme Fooles In one place you teach they caÌ„ hardely be saued in another that they cannot erre from the way of Saluation vnlesse they will The first you affirme pag. 96. lin 12. For my part I am certain God hath ginen vs reason to discerne between truth and falshood and he that makes not this vse of it but belieues thinges he knowes not why I say it is by chance and not by choyce that he belieues the truth and I cannot but feare that God will not accept of the sacrifice of Fooles Thus you The second in plain and direct contradiction of this you deliuer (p) Second edit pag. 212. lin 5. pag. 221. lin 17 saying of your safe Way to Saluation This is a way so plaine as fooles except they will cannot erre from it Now by Fooles in matters of Religion you vnderstand such as want strength of vnderstanding and wit to iudge by themselues and to discerne truth from falshood in mattets of Religion and controuersies moued by Heretiques against the Church How then it is true that Fooles cannot misse of the way of Saluation except they will if such only be saued to whome God hath giuen such reason and vnderstanding that of themselues they be able to discerne truth from falshood in matters of fayth controuerted betwixt Heretiques and the Church If God will not accept of the sacrifice of Fooles that is their deuout obedience vnto the doctrine which they belieue to be his vpon the word of his Church without knowing any other why your word that Fooles cannot erre from Saluation vnlesse they will is so farre from being true as the contrary is true they cannot be saued though they would neuer so fayne 18. Your two sayings are cleerely and mainely opposite the one to the other the first being false and the second true For it is against experience and modesty to say as you do that God hath giuen vs that is all Christians reason to discerne truth from falshood in the controuersies of Religion No man huing can do this by the reason giuen him of God without relying for his assurance on the authority of Gods Church Yea your selfe though you much presume of the goodnes of your vnderstanding and excellency of your wit haue not reason inough for this which I conuince by what you write Cap. 3. n. 19. lin 19. Where there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture reason with reason Authority with Authority how it can consist with manifest reuealing of the truth I do not well vnderstand What is I do not well vnderstand but as if you had said God hath not giuen me vnderstanding and reason to discerne assuredly Christian truth from Hereticall falshood in the controuersies about Christian Religion where Scripture reason authority are seemingly alleaged on both sides as in the controuersies betwixt the Roman Church and your Biblists and Gospellers namely Arians and Socinians they are And if you haue not sufficient vnderstanding and reason to diseerne truth from falshood about the fundamentall article of Christianity the Godhead of Christ how hath God giuen all Christians reason to frame an assured iudgment of discretion about this and all other fundamental points debated betwixt any kind of your Protestants and vs 19. The other part then of your contradiction is true that Fooles cannot erre from the way of Saluation except they will because God will without doubt accept of the sacrifice of their humble deuotion firmely to belieue what they haue receaued from the Church as his Word For you say c. 5. n. 64. lin 20. God requires no more of any man to his Saluation but his true endeauour to be saued But Fooles that is such as want strength of vnderstanding to discerne Truth from Falshood in the Controuersies about Religion the best they can do to belieue aright and be saued is to rest on the word tradition of the Church without asking her Why she teacheth this or that Doctrine For what can they do better You will say let them search the Scriptures and looke into the writings of the primitiue Fathers First being ignorant men and of meane capacity they cannot do it and when they haue done it how can they be the wiser seing x you say nothing is proued true because written in a booke but only by Tradition which is credible for it selfe And to what purpose to goe from the Church and her tradition for a short time and then presently to come to it againe For euen as the Doue departing from the Arke of Noe not finding where to settle her foote in such a deluge of waters returned instantly to the Arke so mans reasoÌ„ leauing the Churches Authority to find by Scripture which is the true Religion in the vast deluge of contrary wauing Doctrines will meete with nothing wher on he may firme his beleefe and so will be forced for rest and assurance to fly backe to the Arke of Gods Church 20. Adde that the truth of your second assertion that the way of Saluation in the Law of Grace is so plain that (a) Esay c. 35. v. 8. Via sancta vocabitur hac erit directa via ita vâ— stuâ—ti noÌ„ errent per eam fooles cannot erre from it was foretold by the prophet Esay and he giueth the reason thereof because they should haue a visible Teacher or (b) Esay c. 30. v. 20 Erunt ocult tui videntes preceptorem tunm anres tua andient voceÌ„ post tergum monentis Haec est via ambulate 〈◊〉 ca. Maister should heare his voyce behind them saying This is the way walke therein From this truth I conclude that euery man and woman is not to resolue for his beleefe by his owne reason but by the voyce of the Church Because in the way of Wit and Discourse according to the rules of (p) c. n. 8.2 Logick Fooles may erre against their will as not being able of
mistresse of all necessary truth euen by essence that she can no more depart from teaching proposing and maintayning all fundamentall Christian doctrine then from her owne being Nor do you onely so affirme the Churches essentiall infallibility in teaching all Fundamentals but also prooue the same by the word of God which proposes the Church of Christ as the pillar and ground of truth as built on the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shal neuer preuaile For these words at least euince as you confesse Cap. 3. n. 70. that there shall still continue a true Church and bring forth children vnto God send soules to HeaueÌ„ which could not be vnles she did alwayes without fayle teach all necessary truth so be an infallible guide in Fundamentals 4. Now this being a truth infallible that the Church cannot erre in teaching fundamentals let vs proceed to note and number the doctrines which you openly grant and proue to be consequent thereupon which be such as no more could haue byn desired A Sicilian Nobleman when Scipio Praetor of that country offered him one wealthy and talkatiue but of little wit for aduocate of his cause replyed I pray you Sir giue this man for Aduocate to my Aduersary and then I will be content to haue no Aduocate at all So we may say that the cause of Protestants about the Totall of their Religion and Saluation controuerted with the Church of Rome being abandoned by learned Protestants none presuming to appeare against euident truth so cleerely demonstrated by Charity maintayned it was the Roman Churches good luck you should preferre your selfe and be admitted for their Aduocate for you speake so wisely so pertinently so coherently for ProtestaÌ„ts as the Roman Church needs not any other Aduocate in her behalfe No Catholique Patron no learned man howsoeuer well seene in Controuersies of Religion nay the Author of Charity mainteyned himselfe could not haue spoken more fully grouÌ„dedly vnanswerably in the defence of the Roman Catholique Church then you haue done while you are perswaded that you plead against her as appeareth by these Conclusions the deduction whereof is confessed and expressed by your selfe 5. First there is euer was and shal be a true Church visible and conspicuous to the world that all men according to the will of God may be saued if they please by the meanes of her preaching ouer the world This you grant in saying that if the Church be an infallible guide in Fundamentals then this knowne infallibility must be setled in some knowne Society of Christians by adhering to which guide men may be guided to belieue aright in all Fundamentals 1. Tim. 2.4 No was the Apostle sayth God will haue all men to be saued and to come to the knowledge of truth and consequently he will haue the meanes which proposeth all the truth of Saluation infallibly guiding men to heaueÌ„ to be sisible so diffused in the world as all men may come to see her and learne of her and be saued if they will by the grace of Christ Iesus 6. Secondly this Church being an infallible guide in Fundamentals must be likewyse infallible in all her proposals in matter of fayth This sequell according to your good custome you both deny and grant You deny it pag. 177. saying that the Church though she be the ground and rocke of all necessary truth yet not the rocke and ground or infallible teacher of all profitable truth but may erre and mainteyne damnable errour against it But pag. 105. n. 139. you grant the Consequence saying To grant any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed and Cap. 3. n. 36. you say The Church except she be infallible in all things we can belieue her in nothing vpoÌ„ her word and authority which you proue by this demonstration vnanswerably Because say you an authority subiect to errour can be no firme and stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this authority being one the same in all proposals I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one And therefore must do vnreasonably eyther in belieuing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this authority or else in not belieuing all things aequally warranted by it Behold how earnestly you auerre and forcibly demonstrate what before you did so peremptorily deny that the Church being the pillar and ground of some Truth to wit of Truth necessary to Saluation must of necessity be the pillar ground of all sauing Truth because a Church subiect to errour in some things cannot be the ground and firme foundation of my beleefe in any thing whatsoeuer 7. Thirdly the true Church of Christ the pillar and ground of Truth to which it is essential to propose teach and mayntaine all necessary truth is one Society of Christians notoriously knowne by subordination to one vniuersall visible Head or Pastour This you grant saying that an infallible guide in Fundamentals or which is all one such a Church as shall alwayes without fayle be the pillar ground and teacher of all necessary truth must be one knowne Society of Christians by adhering to which we are sure to be gurded aright to belieue all Fundamentals one certaine Society of men by whome we are certaine they neither do nor can erre in Fundamentals one certayne Society of Christians which may be knowne by adhering to such a Bishop as their Head 8. Fourthly there being such an infallible Church in all her doctrines you suppose that we are not to find out which is the true Church by preexamination of the doctrine controuerted but by euidence of the marke of subordination to one visible Head find the true Church by whose teaching we are lead to all necessary truth if we follow her direction and rest in her Iudgement These foure sequels you teach to be inuolued and contayned in your grant that the Church is alwayes euen by ssâ—nce the pillar and ground of fayth the infallible teacher and maynteyner of all necessary truth whence we shall in the sixt and seuenth Chapter inferre the totall ouerthrow of your cause and shew saluation to be impossible against the Catholique Roman Church The second Conuiction 9. FOr the totall infallibility of the Catholique Church I propose this Syllogisme out of your sayings In matters of Religion none can be lawfull Iudges but such as are for that office appointed of God nor any fit for it but such as are infallible but the Catholike Church is lawfull Iudge endued with authority to determine controuersies of Religion Ergo she is appoynted of God and made by him fit for that office that is infallible In this Syllogisme as in the former both propositions be your owne the Maior you delyuer pag. 60. n. 21. For the deciding of ciuill controuersies men may appoynt themselues a Iudge But in matters of Religion
you in which speach your wordes interfere gall ech others ankles destroy themselues for to say Who can deny according to the exposition of most Catholiques that this text is vnderstood of Sacramentall eating and drinking doth imply that many Catholiques and with them most of Protestants deny it And consequently Who can deny it according to most is as wise a speach as if you should say It is a most vndeniable by many iustly denied truth For do not you write Preface n. 30. in fine There is no more certaine signe that a Point is not euident then that honest and vnderstanding and in different men and such as giue themselues liberty of Iudgment after a mature deliberation differ about it 25. Thirdly you vrge Scripture as plaine against Latin seruice saying Cap. 3. n. 21. n. 71. It is a plaine reuelation of God that the publique Prayers and Hymnes of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification yet these reuelatiōs the Church of Rome not seeing c. I omit that you corrupt the Scripture by adding to the text the word most And pag. 173. lin 3. you cite these as the very words of S. Paul to vse a language which the Assistāts generally vnderstand not is not for edificatiō which is Scripture verbatim coyned and forged in your owne head I pretermit also so many cleere and fully satisfying answeres giuen by Catholiques which you do not mentiō much lesse confute I will shew that you behead this your Argumēt with your owne sword Do not you say Cap. 3. n. 32. that the Apostles in their writings deliuer some things as the dictates of human reason and prudence and not as diuine reuelations and that you see no reason why we should take them to be diuine reuelations This supposed I assume But S. Paul deliuers this order that an vnknowne tongue is not best for edification and decency as a dictate of humane reason and prudence as is manifest by the whole tenour of his discourse Ergo there is no reason why we should take it as a diuine reuelation vpon your word We belieue it indeed as the word of God that the Apostle did iudge that obseruance most for edification and decency in those tymes when Latin Greeke were vulgar languages almost euery where commonly knowne of all Since his tyme the Latin being not knowne and vulgar in euery Country of the Latin Church as it was before whether in this respect the Latin ought to cease to be the Vniuersall language for the Liturgy of the Latin Church is a question not decided by diuine reuelation but to be decided by human reason and prudence for it is different in state and quality from that decided by the Apostle such kind of dictats of human reason being variable according to the diuersity of tymes places persons customes Adde that Latin which most men of better education and quality vnderstand and all Church-men vnderstand cannot be tearmed a language vnknowne in the Church yea rather vulgar tongues are vnknowne and barbarous in the Christian Church 26. Fourthly against infallible Iudges (g) Cap 4. nu 16. lin 23. Ca. 4 n. 53 Cap. 6. n. 61. in many other places in the Church since the A postles you come forth euery foote with this Scripture Be not called Maisters vpon earth for one is your Maistere Christ The vanity of which obiection I demonstrate by this Syllogis me wherein both propositions be your owne and most infallible truths The Apostles (h) Cap. 2. n. 155. were the infallible Iudges of Controuersies about faith so long as they lyued the Maisters Doctours Guides of the Church But the A postles heerin did not transgresse the command giuen them by our Lord be not called Maisters on earth Ergo to be and to be called Iudges and Maisters of the Church in the place of Christ and subordinate vnto him is not against that precept of our Lord. 27. I conclude this Argument requesting you in the sight of the Inspectour of hearts as you belieue there is any such to ruminate and ponder your owne saying It imports euery man who separates from any Churches Communion euen as much as his Saluation is worth to looke most carefully that the case of his separation be iust and necessary The cause pretended of your separation from the Communion of the whole Catholique Church is the euidence of Scripture against her custome The strongest testimonies you do or can pretend are these by me now answered then which you say there cannot possibly be any playner Now can you thinke in cōscience that the former testimonies are cleere euident necessary such as necessitate conuince and compell the vnderstanding to assent Can you presume you shall be so eloquent at the day of Iudgement as to make our Lord belieue you were so simple and of so little Iudgement as you did really and in conscience vndoubtedly belieue that these texts were euident necessary formall expresse as cleere as the Sunne Thinke of it I pray you for by your owne confession it cōcernes you and euery Protestant as much as his eternall saluation is worth The seauenth Conuiction 27. YOu forsake the Roman and the Catholique externall Communion not onely without iust cause but without as much as a seeming cause euen against your conscience out of hatred of knowne truth What is damnable Schisme if this be not that you goe against your conscience and impugne knowne truth though you be very loath this mystery of your heart should be disclosed yet such is your inconsideration as you professe it openly inough in words but practise the same much more openly in deeds cap. 2. n. 47 in fine The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy vnconcerned You might haue met with an Aduersary that would not haue suffered you to haue said so much truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose These be your words in which you lay the inside of your heart outwards and plainly discouer your wifull auersion from knowne truth You suffered Charily mainteyned to speake so much truth togeather Why did you so Not because it was truth but because it was not to the purpose that is it made not against you so you were willing it should be true And doth not this imply that had that part of the Paragraph made against you had you beene vnwilling it should haue beene true you would not haue endured it you would haue impugned it with all might and mayne though it had beene truth neuer so much Had you sayd You might haue met with an Aduersary that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much vntruth together but to mee it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose this had been some courtesy of forbearāce but to say that you would not suffer so much
definition or declaration of the Church Now you and your Protesters hold the sense of Scripture proposed by the meere in ward euidence of the text onely and alone to be the last and vttermost euidence of credibility a Christian doctrine can haue the rocke and pillar of beliefe Ergo when you accuse ech other of disbelieuing euident and plaine Scripture you accuse ech other of the formall proper crime of heresy so that Protesters are according to S. Paul delinquishers of the Church conuinced and condemned by their owne Iudgement The second Conuiction 10. THey that protest against the pillar ground rocke of that Credit and Authority which doth vp hold propose and expose all truth of Saluation vnto Christian beliefe and make the same worthy of all credit in respect of us erre fundamentally and are damned Heretickes This is manifest by what is prooued in the Preface of this Chapter But you protest against such a Rocke for you protest against the Catholique present Church of euery age since the Apostles Cap. 5. n. â—â— circa medium Cap. 5. n. 91. paulo post medium as subiect to fundamentall and damnable errours and euer stayned euen in the second age immediately vpon the death of the Apostles with vniuersall errours whose Catholique externall Communion you haue forsaken because vniuersally polluted with superstitions as you confesse and professe to glory therein Now that the present Catholique vniuersall Church in euery age is the pillar (c) Cap. 5. n. 52. Cap. 3. n. 77. n. 78. ground rocke that is teacher of all Christian truth by duty and office and in fact alwayes the pillar and ground that is the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth which she could not be vnles she were infallible in all her proposals (d) Pag. 108. n. 139. Cap. 2. n. 139. these things you grant as hath bin shewed at large in the fift Chapter Ergo Protesters are guilty of Heresy as ouer throwers of the rocke pillar last Principle of Christian fayth 11. Moreouer you graunt Tradition vniuersall to be the last Principle of Christian fayth euident of it selfe and so the pillar and ground of all truth fit to be rested on But by making the Church fallible and subiect to errour in deliuering Apostolicall Traditions you destroy this Rocke and make the same no ground to be rested on in any kind of truth For say you an authority subiect (e) Cap. 3. n 36. lin 12. to errour cannot be a firme foundation of my beliefe in any thing and Cap. 5. n. 91. lin 40. expressely to this purpose you say If the Church were obnoxious to corruptions as we pretend who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption did not get in and preuaile in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age c. The errour of the Millenaries was you say in the second age vniuersall and what was done in some was possible in others Now seing the authority of the Scripture and of the foure Ghospels and our whole Christian fayth depend vpon the tradition of the primitiue Church you that make the authority of the primitiue Church and Tradition subiect to errour and fallible how do not you erre most fundamentally destroying the last stay and only rocke to be rested on by Christian beliefe Tradition primitiue vniuersall being vncertaine and fallible what certainty can Christians haue of the Scriptures being from God (f) Pag. 63. lin 34. Only by the testimony of the ancient Churches the testimony of the ancient Churches the only meanes of our certainty in this point being vncertaine The third Conuiction 12. IF the Roman Church be the pillar ground rocke that is the teacher both by duty and in deed of all Christian truth then Protesters against the Church of Rome be Heretickes as you graunt and must needes graunt But the Antecedent is true and proued euidently by what you graunt and by what hath been shewed to be consequent of your grants that there must be alwayes a Church of one denomination alwayes in fact euen by essence the teacher of all fundamentall truth visibly discerned from other Christian Societies by this note of Vnity and Subordination to One. Now if there must be alwayes such a one Church the Roman must of necessity be this Church Supra c. 6. conuict 2. This consequence you denied as we noted before which now I make good by this Argument The Church which can must and in fact doth performe the office of guide and directour must be of one denomination subiect to one certain Bishop and also vniuersal Apostolicall one the same euery where for matters of fayth But there is no Church of one denomination in the world noted with these markes but only the Roman Ergo the Roman and only the Roman is that Church of one denomination and obedience Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 18. wherein a knowne infallibility is settled by adhering to which men are guided to belieue aright in all fundamentals The maior proposition of this argument I prooue by what you write pag. 91. (a) Cap. 2. n. 101. where you apply a testimony of S. Austin against vs Euery one may see that you so few in comparison of all those on whose consent we ground our beliefe of Scripture so turbulent that you damne all to the fire and to Hell that any way differ from you c. Lastly so new in many of your doctrines as in the lawfulnes and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramentall Cup the lawfulnes expedience of your Latin seruice Transubstantiation Purgatory the Popes infallibility authority ouer Kings c. So new I say in respect of the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture which contayneth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adaequate obiect of our fayth I say euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deseruing authority 13. This whole discourse though the last two lines only be sufficient to my purpose I haue produced at large that the Reader might see by this patterne for all your Booke is of the same stile methode and pith what a Kilcow-Disputant you are that is a curst Cow with short hornes yea without hornes at all for your Heart is not so curst and fierce in vttering what you conceaue to the discredit of the Roman Church but your Vnderstanding is as weake and faynt in proouing what you say You haue heaped togeather many doctrines of the Roman Church which you traduce as nouelties but in all your discourse there is not any strength of Argument to shew them to be such So we cannot say of you Cornu ferit ille caueto for you strike vs only with the bare forehead of impudent assertion without proofe yea without offer or proffer of proofe Nor could you prooue them these being for the most part all manifest Christian truths which you would haue taken vpon your bare word to be errours For how can you prooue that
be decided for Christians affirmatiuely by another principle or direction besides naturall wit and iudgment to wit by the testimony of the primitiue Church or by tradition which is a rule to iudge all Controuersies by 3. If you reply that the question which Scriptures be canonicall is indeed determined by the testimony of the primitiue Church but not only by it without the concurence of naturall reason this euasion is stopt by what you write cap. 2. n. 2◠lin 26. The question whether such or such a booke be Canonicall Scripture though it may be decided negatiuely out of Scripture by shewing apparent and inreconcileable contradictions betweene it and some other booke confessedly canonicall yet affirmatiuely it cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Churches Behold the controuersie wherein Scripture is the subiect cannot be decided affirmatiuely by any rule or principle but by tradition only that is by the testimony of the ancient Church a rule distinct from that of naturall wit and iudgement 4. You will say yea you do say that Tradition though a principle distinct from reason yet is not able to stand by it selfe without the support of naturall reason cap. 2. n. 31. Though Scripture be a principle most knowne in Christianity yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a principle more knowne then Scripture but to say it is a principle not in Christianity but in reason not proper to Christians but common to all men And cap. 2. n. 114. You would haue men follow authority on Gods name let them we also would haue them follow authority for it is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue them beleiue the Scripture But then as for the authority you follow you will let them see reason why they should follow it And is not this to goe a little about to leaue reason for a short time then to come to it againe and to do that which you condemne in others It being indeed a plain impossibility to submit reason but to reason for he that does it to authority must of necessity thinke himselfe to haue greater reason to beleiue that Authority Thus you And though you often iterate this falshood that tradition is not rested vpon for it selfe but proued by reason yet you do as often inculcate the contrary truth that it is a principle euident of it selfe independently of any reason besides that credit it hath of it selfe Cap. 2. n. 155. The Scripture is not an absolutely perfect rule but as perfect as a written rule can be which must alwayes need something else which is euidently true or euidently credible to giue attestation to it and that in this case is vniuersall Tradition so that vniuersall Tradition is the rule to iudge all controuersies by Cap. 2. n. 25. lin 3. We belieue not this the bookes of Scripture to be canonicll vpon the authority of your Church but vpon the credibility of vniuersall tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe and therefore fit to be rested on Cap. 4. n. 53. lin 26. you say That Charity maintayned though he differ from D. Potter in many things yet agrees with him in this that tradition is such a principle as may be rested on and requires no other proofe 5. By these later texts of cleere Truth I conuince the falshood of the former that Tradition vniuersall is not a principle in Christianity but in reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men How can tradition vniuersall that is deriued from the Apostles by the full consent of all former Christian ages to this present be a rule to determine all controuersies amongst Christians and yet not be a rule in Christianity but in preason only And whereas you say That tradition is a principle not proper to Christians but common to all men I wonder what mist of disaffection against this truth could be so thicke betweene your vnderstanding and it as to hide it from your sight Is not tradition vniuersall frō the Apostles a rule of beliefe proper to Christians that is for Christians only Do any men in the world but Christians belieue Doctrines to be true Institutions and Lawes holy and pious because they are deliuered as such by full consent from the Apostles who but Christians admit Scriptures to be the word of God because receiued from the Apostles by tradition as such How then is not Apostolicall tradition a principle proper to Christient but common to all men You will say Infidels also belieue the tradition of their Ancestours and so tradition is a principle which Christians haue common with them I answere in like manner Infidels belieue the Scriptures and writings of their ancestours will you then say that Apostolicall Scripture is not a principle proper to Christians but common to all men If not I hope then you will easily vnderstand that though prophane tradition be a principle with Infidels yet Apostolicall tradition may be is a principle proper to Christians 6. The Principle whereby you proue that the authority of Tradition is resolued into Reason because It is impossible that any man should submit his reason but to reason for he that does it to authority must of necessity thinke himselfe to haue greater reason to belieue that authority This principle I say is not onely false but impious For according to it it is impossible that any man should belieue the mystery of the most blessed Trinity except he haue greater reason to belieue it then the authority of God reuealing it For if he haue not then he submits his naturall reason not vnto reason but vnto the authority of God reuealing things farre aboue the reach of reason 7. I conclude the principall intent of this Chapter with a demonstration from your contradictions that with Christians the authority of Apostolicall tradition is not a principle in reason but of Christian faith aboue Reason able to command Reason to belieue euen what may seeme repugnant to reason You affirme that in Scripture there are many irreconcileable contradictions to the seeming of reason ca. 3. n. 19. In all the controuersies of Protestants there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture And cap. 1. n. 13 lin 26. The contrary beliefe may be concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alleaged on both sides that true louers of God and truth may without any fault some goe one way and some another and some and those as good as either of the former suspend their iudgement and expect some Elias to reconcile the repugnancies Now reason cannot but feele much difficulty and repugnance to belieue a book full of seeming contradictions to be the word of God and to containe nothing but infallible truth And yet all true Christians and you professe with them do vpon the authority of Tradition belieue Scripture to be Gods word euery word sillable thereof to be infallible truth notwithstanding all the seeming contradictions which most of
themselues to discerne assuredly betwixt sauing truth damnable falshood guilded with many seeming cleere texts of Scripture But the true way of Saluation euen fooles cannot erre from it except they be willfull against the teaching and voyce of the visible Church telling them this is the way walke therein Ergo the way of belieuing simply the voyce of the Church is the sole way of Saluation and your way of Wit and proud Disdayne of the Church is the way to the bottomlesse pit The fifth Conuiction 21. YOVR way of resoluing your fayth by reason is refuted because by this meanes you may be forced vnder paine of damnation to admit the Diuel himselfe to be your Maister bound to receaue his false suggestions as the word of God What absurdity more immane vast horrible then this And yet it doth so necessarely follow vpon your foresayd Doctrine as you are forced to grant it cap. 2. n. 12. lin 22. If by the Discourse of the Diuell himselfe I be I will not say conuinced but persuaded though falsely that it is a Diuine reuelation shall deny to belieue it I shall be a formal though not a materiall Heretique 22. You will perhaps say I do you wrong and mistake your meaning For you do not meane that you are bound to belieue any falshood proposed vnto you by the Diuel in persuasiue or conuictiue discourse but onely if you haue belieued vpon the Diuels persuasion any thing to be Diuine Reuelation you cannot this supposed disbeleeue it or thinke it to be false I answer the drift of your discourse sheweth this could not be your meaning and if it were the same is proued by your owne confession sottish In that place you discourse vpon a difficulty debated betweene D. Potter and the Maintayner of Charity what is required to sufficient proposition obliging men to beleeue D. Potter (a) D. Pot. pag. 247. a Be it by a Preacher or lay man or reading Scriptures or hearing them read that a point be cleered to him thinkes that to be sufficiently proposed as God's Word which is proposed by seeming euident proofe from Scripture whosoeuer the Propounder be The Mantayner iudgeth sufficiency of Proposition to depend not so much on the seeming clarity of Scripture as on the Authority of the propounder that he be worthy of credit and such an one as on his word and proposition we may securely rely You take part with D. Potter affirme that what is proposed by good and sufficient proofe by conuictiue or persuasiue discourse as the word of God is sufficiently propounded vnto fayth though the propounder be the Diuell himselfe Be the meanes of proposal what it will sufficient or in sufficient worthy of credit or not worthy though it were the discourse of the Diuel himselfe yet if I be I will not say conuinced but persuaded though falsely that it is a Diuine reuelation and shall deny to belieue it I shal be a formal though not a material Heretique These be your wordes which shew euidently your mind to be that men are bound to belieue the Diuel himselfe if his discourse be sufficient that is conuictiue or euidently probable and persuasiue 23. For the sense that if you were persuaded by the Diuel that it is a diuine Reuelation yet should refuse to belieue it to be true that then you should be a formal Heretique this sense is idle and sottish not formall heresy but plain impossibility as you say (u) Second edition pag. 10. lin 2. Pag. 10. lin 12. How is it not apparent contradiction that a man should disbelieue what himselfe vnderstandes to be a truth or any Christian what he vnderstandes or but belieues to be testified by God D. Potter might well thinke it superfluous to tell you This is damnable because indeed it is impossible 24. Moreouer this obligation of belieuing the Diuels Discourse and Conference if it seeme to you to be conuictiue or persuasiue is necessarily consequent vpon these your principles 1. That proposition sufficient doth not depend on the authority of the propounder but only on the apparent goodnesse or seeming euidence of his discourse 2. That he who followes God only and his owne reason cannot possibly erre 3. That by discourse no man can possibly be led into errour For all men are bound to belieue that to be the word of God and infallible truth which they iudge sufficiently propounded as such But you iudge that sufficiently propounded which is propounded by conuictiue or persuasiue discourse from Scripture whosoeuer the propounder be though he be the Diuel himselfe Therfore you are by your principles bound to belieue euen the Diuel himselfe when his discourse to you seemeth conuictiue or persuasiue as Luther did and by diabolical persuasion was induced to abrogate the Masse This being so that your way of resolution bindeth you to belieue the Diuells discourse I subsume But in the true Christian way of resolution none can be bound to belieue the Diuel when he knows him to be the Diuel Therfore this your Wit-way of resolution of fayth is the right way to make the Diuell the ruler guide of your wit You say (y) Second Edit pag 340. lin 22. Pag. 357. lin 13. That our Diuells at Lowden doing tricks against the Gospell shall not moue you I am persuaded the Diuell will not giue so much as a false miracle for your soule seing he may haue it at an easier rate For he can easier frame an hundred arguments of conuictiue discourse from Scripture in the behalfe of his falshoods that is such as you with all your wit shall not be able to solue then do such tricks as he is said to be forced to do at Lowden And yet you do not aske so much as a conuictiue Argument for your soule if he can by probable reasons from Scripture hammer into your head that his doctrine is diuine reuelation you are sure his owne The sixt Conuiction 25. WHereas the Directour offers you the perpetuall visible Church descended by neuer interrupted succession from our Sauiour for your guide instred of your natural wit and reason you reiect the offer Preface n. 12. saying He that followeth reason in all his opinions followeth God whereas he that followeth a company of men may oftentimes follow a company of beasts And against the Catholique Romane Church thus you declame Cap. 6 n. 72. If I follow your Church for my guide I shall do all one as I should follow a company of blind men in a iudgment of colours or in the choyce of a way For euery inconsidering man is blind in that which he doth not consider Now what is your Church but a company of vnconsidering men who comfort themselus because they are a great company togeather but all of them either out of idelnesse refuse a seuere trial of their Religion or out of superstition feare the euent of such a triall that they may be scrupuled and staggered by it c.
You are a company of men vn willing and afrayd to vnderstand least you should do good that haue eyes to see but will not see that haue not the loue of the truth and therfore deserue to be giuen ouer to stronge delusions men that loue darknesse more then light in a word you are the blind leading the blind Thus you And this is the flat downe right plain songe you promised your reader without any discords in it for it is rust that tune of concord and harmonious concent which scoldes vse to singe when they rayle at some modest Matrone You will I trust find by experience that we are not all such Cowards blind men and beasts as you make vs you will see that considering we haue considered your Babylon with lights and haue bene bold to enter into the darkest corners and dennes of your booke and find your Lions to be but of the Cuman kind Will not you say I haue made a diligent and seuere search into your booke if I can out of it produce two propositions which ioyned togeather conclude in good forme against your head what I am loath to vtter worse blindnesse then you object to vs wheras the present Church is not capable of such folly 26. None can belieue contradictions at once but such as are Fooles and haue their braynes crackt This you suppose Cap. 6. n. 33. lin 14. vnlesse you will say that they S. Austin and the African Bishop◠were all so foolish as to belieue direct contradictions at once And c. 5. nu 105. lin 40. (a) 2. Edit pag. 292. n. 105. lin 40. Who can ioyne togeather in one brayne not crackt these assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable In the Roman Church there are no errors at all And (b) 2. Edit pag. 10. lin ◠Pag. 10 lin 12. It is an apparent contradiction That a man should dis belieue what himselfe belieues to be a truth And 2. Edit pag. 10. lin ◠Cap. 5. n. 59. That a man who is persuaded that your Church doth erre in these things should together belieue these things true is implicatio in termini as Schoolemen speake a contradiction so plaine as one word destroyeth the other Thus you and yet that foolery that men may belieue contradictions at once you affirme and proue it by your owne experience (d) 2. Edit pag. 20◠lin 6. Pag. 215. lin 3. Though there can be no damnable Heresy vnlesse it cōtradict some necessary truth yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresy and this Truth because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions Thus you wherein you manifestly contradict your selfe and practise what you say no man can do whose braynes be not crakt For what contradiction can be more plaine direct then this betwixt your two sayings It is no contradistion that a man belieue contradictions at once the same doctrine to be heresy and truth It is apparent contradiction so plaine as one word destroyeth another that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions or should belieue that to be Falshood which he belieues to be Truth 27. No man therfore in his wits can belieue contradictions at once only crackt brayns can thinke they do it when they do it not as mad-men imagine they fly when they rest in their bed In which number you ranke your selfe Cap. 4. n. 47. Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions I willingly grant but to say it is impossible is against euery mans experience and allmost as vnreasonable as to do the thing which is said to be impossible Thus you that other men besides your selfe belieue or think they belieue in their heart contradictions at once you cannot say but only by the experience you haue of your selfe that you do in your conceyt hartily belieue contradictions and therupon imagine that other men doe the like Now put togeather your two assertions Whosoeuer thinketh he can belieue contradictions at once is a foolish creature hath his brayne crackt I William Chillingworth know by experience that I can belieue contradictions as the same time What of this O that you would conclude what these premises vrge you vnto Therfore I will neuer more trust my owne wit and discourse in matters of religion I wil abandon those false principles Preface n. 12. He that followeth his owne discourse still followeth God By discourse no man can possibly be lead into errour I will take the Church for my guide which is constant in the truth and cannot oppose herselfe as I my selfe confesse 28. For so you do (f) 2. Edit p. 32. lin 7 Pag. 33. lin 9. It is impossible the Church should oppose the Church I meane the present Church oppose it selfe Now seeing men are naturâmendaces mutable subiect to errour to change and to be contrary to themselues this impossibility of opposing it selfe which you attribute to the Church must of necessity be acknowledged to be a Diuine priuiledge caused by the continuall assistāce of the spirit of Wisdome in whom and his doctrine there is not est and non est 2. Cor. 1.18 as the Apostle sayth Hence I conclude the infallibility of the Church You say Pag. 215. lin 29. that he that belieues the Bible and togeather belieues some errours against the Bible contradicteth himselfe belieuing contradictions at once But it is impossible you say that the present Church should oppose and contradicte it selfe Therfore it is impossible that the present Church belieuing the Bible should hold any errour against the Bible 29. Except perchance you will say that the Church can do thinges impossible as you say your selfe can In proofe wherof I giue one instance insteed of many Your aduersary vrgeth you often hard to set downe a Catalogue of your Fundamentals of fayth You after many tergiuersations say at last (h) 2. Edit 193. lin 10. Pag. 201. lin 25. To set downe a catalogue of Fundamentalls because to some more (g) 2. Edit pag. 206. lin 27. is fundamentall to others lesse to others nothing at all had bene impossible And (i) 2. Edit pag. 129. l. 15. Pag. 134. lin 25. This variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of fundamentalls and proues your request as vnreasonable as if you should desire vs to make a coate to sit the Moone in all her changes Can you make this impossible Catalogue of the Fundamentalls of your Church that is a coate for the moone in all her changes Yes surely you say you can (k) 2. Edit pag. 154. l. 21. Pag. 160. n. 53. lin 25. I could giue you an abstract of the essential parts of christianity if it were necessary but I haue shewed it not so and at this time I haue no leasure to do you courtesies so trouble some to my selfe Thus you Nor will we request
you vndertooke to answer Charity mantayned For it appeareth by your vntaught base manner of answering that your end was only by petulant abusing the modesty of the Authour to obscure as much as you might the cleere truth of that excellent Worke. So you doe here forging an Enthimeme he neuer thought on making a conclusion which he did not intend to proue in this place and yet would you turne your wit the right way and vse it to that end for which God bestowed the same on you you would easily find a proposition which doth tye the Antecedent and Consequent euen of this by you so scorned Enthymene with an vnsoluble knot 33. But to my purpose you grant with S. Austin that whatsoeuer the whole Church holds and deliuers not as a thing ordayned by Councels but as alwaies kept is most righty beliened to be an Apâ—stolical Tradition so that the testimony of the present Church in deliuering traditions is credible and most worthy to be belicued for it selfe without other proofe and (p) Edit pag 113. n. 163. li. 26. pag. 119. n. 12. you say S. Austen sayes that Christ hath recommended the Church to vs for a credible Witnesse of ancient Tradition not for an infallible Definer of all emergent CoÌ„trouersies which supposed I would know how with this truth that can consist which you write (q) 2. Edit p. 61. lin 1. Pag. 63. lin 30. The truth is that neither the Scripture nor the present Church hath any thing to do in this matter for the question which be Canonical bookes cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Church How hath the present Church nothing to do in deciding the question which be canonical bookes if her testimony be infallible in this matter if herein she do the part of a credible witnesse Haue you any glue or sodder or cement or chayne or threed to tye these your two sayings togeather Or rather haue you any chaine to kepe them asunder that they come not to fight and mutually to murther ech other Also what you say (r) 2. Edit pag. 147. lin 1. Paeg. 152. lin 44. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical c. who can secure vs that human inuentions might not in a short time gayne reputation of Apostolique how doth this agree with what you say in the next lines after Cap. 3. n. 45. That the Church in her vniuersall Traditions is as infallible as Scripture Do not you also affirme That Tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by credible for it selfe fit to be rested on how can this be true if we can haue no warrant no security but that the vniuersal Traditions of the Church may be false and forged not deliuered by the Apostles but à quocunque traditore inuentions of men and if there be no warrant but that vniuersal Traditions may be false what warrant is there that you haue the true vncorupt text of Scripture not depraued by the secret creeping in of damnable errours Do not you say Pag. 55. n. 8. that these bookes cannot be proued Canonicall but only by Tradition and cap. 2. n. 114. It is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue men to belieue Scripture If then vniuersal Tradition be fallible if there be no warrant no security of the certainty therof how are you secure that you haue the true text of the true Canonical bookes of Scripture But of this more in the next Chapter 34. By what hath bene said your so often repeated yea perpetuall and only argument of the circle is shewed to be friuolous and you running about therin haue made your head so dizzy as you forget your selfe For in arguing you alwayes presume without any proofe that the infallibility of the present Church deliuering Traditions or which is all one that the credibility of the vniuersal Tradition of the Church is not euident of it selfe A supposition which you neuer would haue presumed had not that bene out of your mind which you often affirme and confirme that the authority of vniuersal Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on No lesse vnproued yea more worthy to be reprou'd is your other b presumption that we do not so much as pretend that there are certaine euident notes to know the true Church and discerne it from all others nor that it is euident of it selfe that those notes agree only to our Church all men will wonder how you could be so ignorant or not being ignorant how you would be so bold For who doth not know we teach that the Church is knowne by visible markes euen euident to sense as succession Vniuersality and Vnity and that these markes do shine manifestly and conspicuosly only in the Roman Christianity Which truth is a necessary sequele of your doctrine That tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by fit to be rested on and euidently credible for it selfe Behold the deduction therof 35. That Church only is the true christian Church which hath vniuersall Tradition of Doctrines euidently credible for it selfe This is cleare because if Tradition credible of it selfe be the rule to iudge all Controuersies by and the only meanes to know which be Canonicall Scriptures then the Church which wants Tradition credible of it selfe wants the fundamentall Principle and ground of all Christianity and so cannot be the true christian Church But that Church only hath Tradition of doctrines credible of it selfe whose Tradition of Doctrines is euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles euidently vniuersall by diffusion ouer the world euidently one and the same in the mouth of all the reporters therof For Tradition which is not perpetuall from the Apostles but hath a knowne after-beginning wants credibility that it is Christian Tradition which is not vniuersall and notorious to the whole world but clancular and in a corner wants credibility that it is from the Apostles and the sound of their vniuersall preaching Tradition which is not one and the same but dissonant in the mouth of diuers reporters wants credibility that it is from truth and not a deuise of human fiction or of deceiued discourse from Scripture Ergo the Church whose Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe must be euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles Vniuersall by the notorious preaching of her Tradition diffused ouer the world One and the same and vniforme in all her Professours so that they all agree in the beleefe of all doctrine deliuered vnto them by the full consent of Tradition For they who of Traditions deliuered by full consent choose some and reiect others are Choosers that is Heretiques Nor can such Choosers choose but there will be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ variety of choyce and consequently dissension wherby they will appeare a company voyd of all authority and credit to testify what is the true Christian Tradition from the Apostles These be
Tradition of Christian doctrine from age to age from Father to sonne cannot be a fit ground but of morall assurance Cap. 3. n. 44. lin 55. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall Thus you 9. This is your discourse to proue your Paradoxe that the assent of Christian fayth is fallible and only morally certaine But the foundation wheron you build your maine Principle Vniuersall Tradition is not infallible you your selfe ouer throw and establish the contrary ground that tradition vnwritten is as infallible as Scripture Cap. 4 n. 13. lin 19. Vniuersall and neuer-fayling Tradition giueth this testimony both to the Creed and Scripture that they both by the workes of God were sealed and testified to be the word of God Behold the Hypothesis that the articles of Christian Religion that is of the Christian Creed and Scripture are reuealed of God standes vpon a pillar firme and neuer failing If you say morally certaine and neuer failing not absolutely I reply obiecting vnto you another place where you expressely suppose your certainty of the Scripture to be absolute to wit of those bookes of which there was neuer doubt made Pag. 69. We do not professe our selues so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those bookes with haue been doubted as of those that neuer haue How cleerly and in expresse termes do you professe that your certainty of the Scriptures that were neuer questioned is not only probable and morall but absolute certainty vndoubted And how can it be otherwise seeing Tradition by liuely voyce conueyeth vnto vs what the Apostles deliuered about the Canon of the Scripture to wit which bookes were to be held as the word of God For no man can doubt but the Apostles deliuered what they had by diuine reuelation from Christ Iesns and the holy Ghost consequently that these bookes be the word of God is a diuine reuelation vnwritten as certaine as if it were written For as D. Field (b) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 238. sayth It is not the writing that giueth thinges their authority but the worth and credit of him that deliuereth though by word and liuely voice only 10. Perhaps you will tell me as you do Charity maintayn'd vpon another occasion cap. 2. n. 86. If D. Field were infallible and these wordes had not slipt vnaduisedly frō him this had been the best argument in your Booke Well then I must I see bring an Authour infallible in proofe that Tradition is equall in certainty vnto Scripture one so aduised as all Catholiques compared to his wisdome be but a company of blind vnconsidering men What if I find this Doctrine in your booke proued euen by the same argument D. Field vseth because being written giues not Authority to God's word then I hope you will say without any if that this is the best argument in my booke But where is this passage to be found Perchance if you were to find it your selfe you would be to seeke more to seeke if you goe about to reconcile your contradictions In which case you who vaunt your selfe for the witty Oedipus in soluing the Sophismes and Knots of Charity maintayned will perhaps be at a stop and be forced to say with Oedipus being to solue his owne riddle Ego ille victae spolia qui Sphyngis tuli Haerebo * Scripti fati tardus interpres mei 11. The place is Pag. 153. n. 45. where you speake thus to your Aduersary No lesse say you is S. Chrysostome for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to proue the Church infallible not in Traditions which we willingly grant if they be vniuersall as the Traditiō of the vndoubted bookes of Scripture is to be AS INFALLIBLE AS THE SCRIPTVRE is For neither doth being written make the word of God more infallible or being vnwritten make it lesse infallible In these words you affirme that Traditions vniuersall namely and principally that Tradition that the vndoubted bookes of the Scripture be the word of God are as infallible as Scripture You proue it because Neyther doth being written make the word of God more infallible or being vnwritten make it lesse infallible In which proofe you suppose that as Scripture is the written word of God so Tradition is the word of God vnwritten and therefore equall in certainty and infallibility to Scripture 12. Now the ground of your errour being by your contradiction thereof and by your confession yea by your demonstration of the contrary truth ouerthrowne I proue the assent of Christian fayth to be absolutely certaine in this manner Christian faith is an assent to this conclusion The doctrine of Christianity is true This conclusion is deduced from this Thesis Whatsoeuer God reueales for true is true and this Hypothesis The Christian Creed and Scripture be the word of God So that if both these propositions be absolutely certaine then the assent to the conclusion is infallible and absolutely certaine Now that both these Premises or Propositions be absolutely certaine I proue The Thesis Whatsoeuer God reueales is truth you grant to be absolutely and metaphysically certaine But the Hypothesis The Christian Creed and Scripture is diuine reuelation and the word of God is also absolutely certaine First because it is as you grant an vniuersall Traditiō as infallible as Scripture But Scripture is absolutely and metaphysically certaine truth because it is doctrine reuealed of God Secondly whatsoeuer God reueales whether it be deliuered in writing or by liuely voyce only is absolutely and metaphysically certaine But the Tradition That the Creed and Scripture is the word of God is diuine reuelation which the Apostles deliuered by liuely voyce sealing and confirming the truth thereof with workes of God as you confesse Ergo the Tradition that the Christian Creed and Scripture is of God is absolutely certaine and infallible Finally you say cap. 1. n. 8. in sine 2. edition cap. 2. n. 8. infine If a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit by a messenger that is not so my confidence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the relatour This you I subsume But the message of the Gospell is brought to me and to euery Christian from a man of absolute credit Christ Iesus the Eternall Sonne of God in whome are all the treasures of Diuine wisedome by a messenger of absolute credit to wit by the Church deliuering vniuersall Tradition which is as you confesse as infallible as Scripture Therefore our faith of the Creed and Scripture is not rebated or lessened by being deliuered by the perpetuall visible Church of Christ but is as infallible as if we had had the message immediatly from the mouth of our Lord and Sauiour 13. Iadde Tradition vniuersall is not only as infallible as Scripture but also more certaine in respect of vs. This I ground
probable and but morally certaine against arguments which seeme demonstratiue and metaphysically certaine and it is a condition very dangerous for men to liue vnder such hard or impossible lawes But God doth not require of vs thinges vnreasonable his yoke is sweet his burthen light Ergo he hath prouided motiues which propose matters of fayth as vndoubtedly and absolutely certaine The fifth Conuiction 16. YOu set downe the principle wheron you rely in teaching the absolute fallibility of Christian fayth Pag. Second edition pag 314. lin 27. 329. lin 27. Had you made the matter of fayth either naturally or supernaturally euident it might haue been a fittly attempered and duely proportioned obiect for an absolute certainty naturall or supernaturall But requiring as you do an infallible certainty of a thing which though it is in it selfe yet is not made to appeare to vs to be infallibly certayne to my vnderstanding you speake impossibilities And truly for one of your Religion to do so is but a good Decorum For the matter of your Religion being so full of contradictions a contradictious fayth may very well become a contradictious Religion Your fayth then let it be a free necessitated certaine vncertaine euident obscure prudent and foolish naturall and supernaturall vnnaturall assent Thus you with a Demosthenian thunder of eloquence discharge your bolts vpon our Church without taking any pitty of a poore company of onely blind men though some drops of Xantippes rayne come mingled therwith 17. But your misery is a poore memory wordes be no sooner out of your pen then out of your mind Forin other places you approue this very contradictious doctrine which here you so fluently declame against For though you say Pag. 330. lin 14. That God cannot infuse a degree of certainty into our vnderstanding beyond the degree of the euidence he giueth vs of the obiect yet cap. 6. num 7. lin 9. 2. Edit pag. 315. lin 5. you say to the contrary Well may we assent to a thing vnknowne obscure and vneuident c. Could any wordes be inuented more directly repugnant to what you said before that assent and euidence must correspond to ech other in degree a probable assent must haue an obiect of euident probability a certaine assent an obiect of euident certainty Now you say absolutely we may well that is not only possibly but also easily assent to a thinge vnknowne obscure vneuident How doth this agree with what you say Cap. 6. n. 7. in fine It is impossible I shold belieue the truth of any thinge the truth whereof cannot be made euident to me with euidence proportionable to the degree of fayth required of me How contrary is this to what you say Cap. 2. n. 154. lin 6. Gods spirit if he please may worke more a certainty of adherence beyond the certainty of euidence But neither God doth nor may require of vs c. And cap 1. n. 9. lin 43. The spirit of God being implored by deuout and humble prayer and sincere obedience may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond the certainty of euidence Thus you most directly against what you said before that infallible certainty of a thinge not euidently certaine is impossible that if God infuse certainty into the assent of fayth he must infuse also euidence into the obiect and so make the obiect of fayth as visible and euident as the assent of fayth is certaine Which is now the contradictious Religion 18. And where you say that God doth not require of men more then they can do by themselues 2. Edit pag. 315. lin 13. and that the contrary were you say pag. 350. lin 15. as vnreasonable as to bind a man to goe ten miles an houre on an horse that will goe only fiue is impious as disanulling all precepts of diuine and supernaturall actions For why may not God require of a man that is able of himselfe to goe only fiue miles an houre that he goe tenne moued by his hand binding him not to resist but to concurre with that his speciall mouing aboue the strength of natural forces And what Christian dares deny this to be required of all Christians to wit that they come vnto (a) come vnto me all Mat. 11.28 Christ and belieue in him which yet is the worke of (b) This is the worke of God that you belieue God an act which the vnderstanding doth not exercise but by the speciall motion and (c) Except my Father draw him attraction of Diuine grace The sixt Conuiction 19. YOu affirmed in the prealleadged place of the former Conuiction that our Catholike sayth is contradictious free necessitated certain vncertain euident obscure prudent foolish naturall supernaturall vnnaturall assent A declamation backt with no proofe childish fluent Rhetoricke Claudite iam riuos pueri I will make the same good vpon your selfe and proue you do attribute in direct termes these contradictious conditions to your witty witlesse fayth First you make it free necessitated That your fayth is free you say c. 6. n. 7. lin 16. 2. Edit cap. 6. n. 7. lin 16. It is necessary to fayth that the obiects of it the points which we belieue be not so euidently certayn as to necessitate our vnderstanding to assent That it is necessitated enforced by euident reasons you suppose cap. 1. n. 9. lin 15. God requires of all 2. Edit cap. 1. n. 9. lin 2â— that their fayth should be proportionable to the motiues enforcing to it Behold reasons enforce that is necessitate you to assent and so make it a free necessitated assent Secondly euident obscure Euident because you say cap. 6. n. 7. in fine That I should belieue the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot be made euident to me is impossible Obscure because you say Cap. 6. n. 7. lin 10. Well may we assent to a thing vnknowne obscure vneuident Thirdly certain vncertaine most certaine and infallible cap. 3. n. 86. lin 12. Vse the meanes 2. Edit cap. 3. n. â—6 lin 12. and pray for Gods assistance and as sure as God is true you shall be lead into all necessary truth Heer you professe that Christian Religion is the true necessary way to saluation and that you are hereof as sure as you are sure that God is true Now I hope you are and I am sure you professe to be d most vndoubtedly sure that God is true Ergo 2. Edit cap. 2. n. â— you are most vndoubtedly sure that Christian Religion is the true necessary way to heauen For how can you assure others of that whereof you are not sure your selfe And if this be so then contrary to the ground of your impious errour you here professe certainty of adherence beyond certainty of euidence You say you are as certaine as God is true of Christian sauing truth and yet I thinke you will not say that the truth of Christian Religion
impossible to my reason therfore they are impossible ought to yield to this reason God sayth these mysteries are possible and certainly true Ergo they are possible and certainly true You wil say that though this consequence be most certaine this is the word of God Ergo it is most true yet you cannot be so certaine that this is the word of God as you are of that which you see with your eyes But this is refuted by what you say that the Scripture is proued by Tradition which is as certaine and infallible as Scripture and euidently true and credible of it selfe Ergo your beliefe of Scripture that it is the word of God is also resolued into this one reason vnto which all others must submit and yield themselues humbly subiect God sayth that these bookes are his word and infallible truth Ergo it is so these bookes are his word infallible truth so that Christian resolution of fayth euen by your own confession resteth finally vpon a reason vnto which all human reason and vnderstanding ought to submit and captiuate it selfe You see how by your contradicting your self your errours are ouer thrown and true Christianity established The ninth Conuiction 23. Lond. Edition pag. 340. lin 14. PAg. 357. lin 3. cap. 6. n. 28. thus you write I certaeinly know that I do belieue the Ghospel of Christ as it is deliuered in the vndoubted bookes of canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I belieue it vpon this motiue because I conceaue it sufficiently abundantly superabundantly proued to be diuine Reuelation And yet in this I do not depend vpon any succession of men that haue alwayes belieued it without any mixture of Errour Nay I am fully persuaded that there hath been no such succession and yet do not find ANY WEAKENESSE in my fayth but am so fully assured of the truth of it that though an Angel from heauen should gayn-say it or any part of it I persuade my selfe I should not be moued Thus you many wayes establishing the absolute certainty of Christian fayth and in direct termes contradicting what elswhere you most earnestly affirme 24. First you ouerthrow what you els where (m) Pag. 325. n. 3. say that the certainty of fayth is not equal to that of sense for now you say that you certainly know and that you are fully assured that you belieue the truth of the Ghospell as verily as that now it is day as that you see the light as that when you writ this you were writing which is most assured certainty of sense For you say you are fully assured that without depending on succession you belieue not that which you thinke to be the truth of the Gospell for euery Heretique doth so but the true Gospell consequently you are as sure that what you belieue is the true Gospell as you are sure that it is light which you see at noon-day as you are sure you write when you write And so you professe that the certainty of your fayth is equal to the greatest certainty which can be had by sense If you say you speake this not of ordinary Christian fayth which is rational grounded on reasons but of special fayth which you haue from God infused into your vnderstanding in reward of your holy life I answer this cannot be so because you speake expressely of your fayth which standes v. pon the proofes of Christianity and the motiues of credibility and of that assent which you conceaue because proued vnto you abundantly by the said reasons which is ordinary Christian fayth and so you say in this place that any man may belieue the foresayd truths vpon the foresayd motiues 24. Secondly here you affirme that Christian Religion or the Ghospel is proued to be diuine Reuelation sufficiently abundantly superabundantly to beare the weight of a most certayn and fully assured fayth wherein there is not ANY WEAKENESSE By which you ouerthrow what you say elswhere (n) Pag. 36. that Christian fayth stands vpon two legs vpon two pillars the one that whatsoeuer God reueales is true which is most strong firme immoueable the second that the Ghospel is reuealed of God which pillar you say is weake infirme and instable (o) Pag. 112. â— 154. moralty certayne but not able to beare the weight of an absolute certaine infallible essent free from all weakenesse 25. Thirdly you say that fayth built vpon the forsaid motiues is so firme and so strong so assured as you should not as you thinke be moued though an Angel from heauen should gain-say it which doth manifestly contradict and destroy what you so often contend that the assent built vpon the motiues of credibility cannot be absolutly certaine no not though it were infused into the vnderstanding from God What you say of your self you should not be moued from the fayth of the Ghospel though an Angel from heauen should gain-say it how stubborne and pertinacious in errour you may be against the light of your conscience I do not know but if your fayth of the Ghospell be not certaine and infallible if it be but a very probable seeming or a moral certainty in this case that you could stand against an Angel from heauen prudently and according to the right dictamen of conscience this I will belieue if you can make me belieue that a Shilling-worth is as much as an Angell-worth Otherwise what greater folly then for a meere mortall man of so weake memory and miserable discourse as he cannot write three pages together in good sense without contradicting himself to preferre his priuate seeming his human fallible certainty his moral probabilities that this is Gods word before the word of an Angell and all the arguments he can bring against it 26. I conclude with this demonstration for the infallibility of our Christian fayth God commandeth all Christians and requires of them vnder payne of damnation to stand constant in the beliefe of the Ghospell euen against an Angell from heauen that should Euangelize to the contrary as you suppose truly this being the very doctrine of S. Paul Gal. 1.8 But except God did infuse into the heart of euery true belieuing Christian a most certaine vndoubted infallible assent and adherence to the Ghospel this command were vniust vnreasonable and such a precept as no man prudently might obserue For it cannot be wisdome to oppose the testimony of men and seeming probabilities of reason against the word of an Angel against Angelicall reasons and discourse Ergo God doth infuse and bindeth all Christians to admit a most certaine and infallible assent of the truth of the Ghospel and of Christian Religion That Christian Religion and Tradition is pure and incorrupt both in the fountayne and streame CHAP. III. WHAT may haue been your personal intention in penning and publishing of this worke the searcher of hearts knoweth best The end wherunto your course driueth the
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
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.
be the only rule of fayth First That cannot be a rule of belieuing with is incredible it selfe But Scripture being seemingly contrary to it selfe and contradicting it selfe is by it selfe incredible therefore it cannot be a rule of fayth by it selfe but to be a rule of fayth it must be made credible by some extrinsecall Authority with is so worthy of credit as vpon the warrant therof we may belieue things incredible which is as you grant the rule of vniuersall Tradition 18. Secondly that cannot be the only rule or by it selfe a rule of Christian fayth with is not able to assure vs about the chiefest articles of our fayth as the Trinity Incarnation Reall presence the knowledge whereof is for Christians essentally necessary vnto saluation For if Christ Iesus be the true God consubstantiall to his father then Heretiques to wit Socinian and Arian Protesters against the Church of Rome cannot be saued by Christ seeing they refuse to belieue and worship him as the true God On the other side if Christ be not the true God then Roman Catholiques cannot be saued by the true God seing they were worshippers of a false God Now this article that Christ Iesus is the true God so absolutely necessary cannot be proued vnto them by Scripture only for about this poynt (a) Arius did alleage against the God head of Christ 40. places of Scripture and Catholiques alleage no fewer Scriptures are alleaged with so great probability on both sides that of learned Christians honest and vnderstanding men estemed pious religious true louers of God and his truth Pastours and guides in the Christian Church some haue gone one way some another as is notorious Wherefore what you say that this so probable allegation of Scriptures on both sides is a sure signe of a poynt not necessary implies Atheisme to wit that it doth not import Christians to know whether in worshipping Christ Iesus as the true God they be not worshippers of a false God And if this be Atheisme thē is it blasphemy to say that Scripture onely is the rule of Christian fayth and that Christians cannot be assured of any doctrine whereof they be not assured by the rule of Scripture onely For it is euident truth and vndeniable though other Protesters against vs will not confesse it so cleerely as you doe that where there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture where Scripture is alleadged on both sides with so great probability that learned vnderstanding and indifferent men differ about it it is cleere I say that about such points there cannot be any decision of controuersyes by Scripture onely 19. Thirdly by defending the Scripture to be the onely rule besides this blasphemy that Christians by their rule of fayth cannot be assured that they be not worshipers of a false God you are forced to adde another that on God and his word the fault lyeth that there be so many factions of fayth and so great dissenssion amongst vpright hearted Protestants for that these your true louers of God and his truth stand for contrary beliefe that in matters of Religion Christendome is deuided into Factions and Sects that some go one way and some another cursing and damning ech other to Hell is no doubt a great fault a mighty scandall an huge mischiefe which must of necessity lye heauily either vpon such Dicisioners or vpon God But you excuse the Diuisioners saying that (b) Cap. 1. n. 13. they goe some one way some another without any fault at all Ergo the whole fault must rest on God who gaue to these true louers of him his truth the Scripture for their onely rule which being it selfe as you say seemingly factious contradictious and one part therof fighting agaynst another set these innocent honest vpright hearts togeather by the eares one with the other in good earnest and implacably Thus to excuse Protestāts you protest against God that he is not the God of peace but of dissension and the authour of all the discord among Christians in matter of Religion and of all the mischiefs that are consequent thereupon by giuing a Scripture so full of seeming conflicts for the sole rule of their fayth The day will come that these boasters of their honest and vpright heart of their true loue to God and his truth shall sind the Apostles saying true Not who commendes himselfe but whome God commendes he is approued They shall see that in their trusting onely the Scripture and their owne reason in expounding it contemning the Tradition of the Church they were not louers of God his truth but fast freinds to their owne fancy and fond conceits louers of themselues adorers of their owne poore miserable wit The sixt Conuiction 20. THough we were sure that the Scripture is the word of God that we haue the incorrupt text the true translation thereof cleered from seeming contradictions yet for all this Scripture could not be to vs a rule of fayth alone by it selfe by reason of the high senses of Scripture incredible and incomprehensible to humane reason This I proue by your owne writing wherin you deliuer a grand Catholique verity which ouerthrowes the Scriptures being the onely rule Protestants pretend they know their doctrine and interpretation of Scripture to be the word of God by the diuine light and euident certainty thereof you will not belieue this resolution to be theirs and affirme the contrary cap. 6. n. 5◠That the Scripture is not euidently certaine nor of it selfe disuested of the motiues of credibility euidently credible For Protestants say you are not so vaine as to pretend that all men do assent to it which they would do if it were euidently certaine nor so ridiculous as to imagine if an Indian who had neuer heard of Christ should by chance find a Bible in his owne language that he would by reading it without miracle certainly belieue it to be the word of God which he could not choose if it were euidently credible Thus you and hence I thus argue 21. That Authority cannot be of it selfe and by it selfe alone the rule and guide of Christian sauing fayth in the vnderstanding and belieuing of Scripture which is not of it selfe euidently credible and worthy of all credit This I proue because the rule and reason to belieue the Scripture must be able to conuince the vnderstanding and to resolue it to belieue many high and incomprehensible mysteries For these are taught and deliuered in Scripture and must be belieued by euery Christian that will be saued But an authority which of it selfe is not euidently credible or worthy of all credit is not of it selfe a sufficient reason or a good rule for me to belieue incredible things incomprehensible to my humane reason as is manifest to euery man that hath wit to apprehend the sense of this speach Ergo the Scripture alone by it selfe not ioyned with the euidently credible authority of some other witnesse cānot be the rule of
three arguments as well to be briefe as because these be so full conuincing and well grounded euen by such an Aduersary as you are that more will not be required The first Conuiction 1. IF the Church be an infallible guide in fundamentals or which is all one an infallible teacher of all necessary truth then is she a certaine Society of ChristiaÌ„s of one denomination of one obedience subiect to one visible head in fallible in all her Proposals But the Church is such an infallible teacher of all necessary truth or such a guide in fundamentals In this argument both propositions are yours and I shall set downe your words fully whereby you not onely deliuer but also demonstrate them The Major you acknowledge ca. 2. n. 139. You must know that there is a wide difference betwixt being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible guide in Fundamentals The former we grant for it is no more but this that there shall be a Church in the world for euer But we vtterly deny the Church to be the later for to say so were to oblige our selues to find some certaine Society of men of whome we might be certayne that they neither do nor can erre in fundamentals nor in declaring what is fundamentall and what is not and consequently to make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all thinges she proposes to be belieued This therefore we deny both to your Church to all Churches of one denomination that is indeed we deny it simply to any Church For no Church can be fit to be a guide but only a Church of some certain denomination For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church but by a praeexamination of the doctrine controuerted and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine but by the true doctrine to the Church Heereafter therefore when you heare Protestants say the Church is infallible in fundamentalls you must not conceaue them as if they meane as you do some Society of Christians which may be knowne by adhering to some one Head for example to the Pope or Bishop of Constantinople c. Thus you deliuer the sequells of this proposition the Church is an infallible guide in fundamentalls which are in a word our whole Catholique doctrine about the Church that if that proposition be by you granted expressely and cleerely yea proued inuincibly from Scripture you must returne againe to the Church of Rome or else by your owne iudgment be damned to Hell specially because you repeate the same consequences of the granting of an infallible guide in fundamentalls and both approue and proue them Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 11. speaking to your Aduersary Good Sir you must needes do vs this fauour to be so accute as to diâ—tinguish between being infallible in Fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in Fundamentalls That shee shall be alwayes a Church infallible in Fundamentalls we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be alwayes a Church But that there shall be alwayes such a Church which is an infallible guide in Fundamentalls this we deny For this cannot be without setling a knowne infallibility in some one knowne Society of Christians as the Greeke or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which guide men might be guided to belieue aright in all Fundamentalls A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himselfe and to himselfe be infallible but he could not be a guide to others A Man or a Church that were inuisible so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible guide and yet he might be vnto himselfe infallible 2. Thus you haue told vs cleerely and fully what will follow if you grant the Church to be an infallible guide in Fundamentalls which sequells be so much denyed and detested by you as one would thinke it were impossible you should be so forgetfull as to affirme it And yet you do cleerely say that the Church is not only infallible in Fundamentalls but also an infallible guide in Fundamentalls being euen by essence not only a belieuer of all necessary truth but also a teacher or mistresse thereof Cap. 2. n. 164. initio The visible Church shall alwayes WITHOVT FAYLE PROPOSE so much of Gods reuelation as is sufficient to bring men to heauen for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometymes adde things hurtfull nay in themselues damnable And cap. 2. n. 77. in fiae n. 73. initio you grant that the Apostle termeth the Church of God the pillar and ground of truth not only because by duty it is still the teacher of all truth though not so euer in fact but also because it alwayes shall and will be so yet say you this is short to prooue your intent that the Church is infallible in all her proposals vnles you can shew that by Truth is certainly meant not only necessary to SaluatioÌ„ but all that is profitable absolutly simply ALL. For that the true Church alwayes shall be the MAINTAINER and TEACHER of ALL NECESSARY TRVTH you know We grant and â—â—st grant for it is of the ESSENCE of the Church to be so and any coÌ„pany of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man not be reasonable Thus you Verily were it possible for a creature to be a man not reasonable you deserue to carry away the title of a true vnreasonable man from all men that hitherto haue ranked themselues in the number of Writers You are a true man for that you deliuer manifest truth made good by strong reasons you are an vnreasonable man in that you wilfully and obstinately stand in defence of the contrary falshood I will briefly note first your contradictions secondly the sequels therof 3. In the words cited in the first place you distinguish betwixt a Church infallible in Fundamentals and such a Church as is an infallible guide in Fundamentals granting the true Church to be the former but not the later iesting at your Aduersary as though his confounding them did argue in him want of such an acute wyt as you suppose your selfe to haue But in the second citations you do vs the fauour to be so acute so perspicacious so sharpe-sighted as to penetrate into the very essence of the Church and out of that Closet of Truth pronounce that to be infallible in Fundamentals and to be an infallible guide in Fundamentals be inseparably coÌ„ioyned in the Church and that to grant the former to the Church and deny the later were to deuide the Church from its very essence For I hope you will not be so acute as to distinguish betwixt an infallible guide in Fundamentals and such a Church as is alwayes in fact without fayle the teacher the proposer the maintayner in a word the
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
through sinne of the will as millions of them you feare do I pray you is there any hope they shall be saued What hope say you Spes est reâ— incertae nomen There is no doubt but these Protestants shall be saued This you teach for hauing pag. 136. endeauored to excuse their contentions by laying the fault on Scriptures seeming conflicts with it selfe (c) Cap. 3. n. 9. aliter 19. in fine Pag. 137. lin 1. you add Besides though we grant that Scripture Reason and Authority were all on one side the apparences of the other side all answerable yet if we consider the strange power that education preiudices instilled by it haue ouer euen excellent vnderstandings we may well imagine that many truths which in themselues are reuealed plainly inough are yet to such or such a man prepossest with contrary opinions not reuealed playnly NEITHER DOVBTI but God who knowes whereof we are made and what passions we are subiect vnto will compassionate our infirmities and not enter into iudgement with vs for those things which all things considered were vnauoydable Thus you Who are lyke as lyke may be to that naughty Seruant in the Ghospell who hauing obtayned of his Lord remission of a debt of ten thousand talents presently tooke his fellow seruant by the throat and would haue choked him for a debt of an hundred pence 32. Let vs set before vs two men the one a Protester who through the preiudices of pride and presumption on his owne wyt through proud contempt of the whole Catholique Church of generall Councels of consent of Fathers instilled into him by education erreth against plaine Scripture On the other a Roman Catholique who through reuerence to the authority of the present Church to the Church of all ages to generall Councels to the consent of Fathers instilled into him by education neglects to heare your wisedome and thereby is kept in some errour against Scripture which by hearing a man of so great learning and Religion he might as you thinke haue auoyded let any man of discretion and conscience be iudge whether the former Errant do not sin ten hundred thousand tymes that is incomparably more then the later And yet you leaue little hope of saluation to the later Catholique ignorant good-soule who if he sinne at all in neglecting your wisedome persuading him to trust his owne wyt sinneth onely out of a too low conceipt of himselfe and of his owne wyt and through to much respect to generall Councels and Christian consent of holy Fathers Whereas that other Protesting proud foole who both obstinately and erroneously resists all Christian Churches generall Councels and consent of Fathers through confidence on his owne wyt through contempt of all others instilled into him by education shall you say without doubt be saued 33. God say you is infinitely iust and therefore there is litle hope of saluation for Papists if they erre though but of onely negligence and vnwillingnes to seeke the truth But he is infinitely good and therefore though we Protesters hold errours against plain Scripture out of passion and pride auersions contempt of the Church and the Pastours thereof instilled by education there is no danger God knoweth that to these passions of pride presumption contempt we by education are subiect and so without doubt will compassionate our infirmities and not enter into Iudgement with vs for such things which all things considered were vnauoydable Poore men blinded with selfe conceyt who thinke your will and pleasure shall at the last day be the rule and measure of diuine Iustice who vainly flatter your selues and thinke you may deale with God as you do with vs. No no You will suffer vs to speake much truth togeather if it be to no purpose against you or you be willing it should be truth But the truth of Gods most iust sentence you shall endure and suffer will you nil you though it be most hatefull to you and terrible against you Then you will find that as no one sentence was oftner repeated by the Iudge liuing in this world so none will be found more true at the last day then this He that humbleth himselfe shall be exalted and he that exalteth himselfe shal be humbled It is then manifest that with extreme malice partiality iniustice you separate from hope of Saluation the Catho lique Church from which you are separated and soe are guilty of Schisme and of most malicious and damnable Schisme That Protesters are Heretiques CHAP. VII THIS was part of the title of the last Chapter but because the matter is distinct to the end that no one Chapter or matter hold vs euer long I haue deuided the former into two To make the Title good we must declare suppose the definition and nature of Heresy Christian fayth stands vpon two grounds or principles diuine Reuelation and the external Proposition thereof For we cannot by Christian fayth belieue any thing which is not reuealed of God nor what is reuealed of God is credible and worthy to be credited and belieued of vs till the same be externally proposed to vs by some credible witnesse For as we could not belieue the word of God were not the Authour infinitely credible and worthy of credit so likewise our perswasion cannot rest firmely vpon the proposition that God hath reuealed such thinges except the Proponent be euidently credible of it selfe This you affirme Pag. 62. n. 25. pag. 69. lin 7. Cap 2. n. 25 n. 45. That our inquisition of what is reuealed of God neuer ceaseth till at last we find a principle to be rested on for it selfe which may be a rocke and ground vnto our beliefe Hence there be two Aduersaries of Christian fayth Ethnicisme and Heresy Ethnicisme opposeth and denieth expressely Christian doctrine to be diuine reuelation and calleth in question the authority of God Heresy opposeth the authority of the Christian Proponent of diuine Reuelations and though he professe to belieue Christian doctrines diuine reuelations yet in the question which in particular they be he will be his owne chooser as the word Heresy doth declare being in english the same as Choyce 2. Whosoeuer then refuseth to belieue any doctrine proposed to him by the last Christian Principle and rule euidently credible of it selfe such a man is an Heretique and to be accounted as a Heathen and Publican As whome we cannot make to see the light of the sunne shinning at noone day we leaue him for a blind man whome we cannot make to apprehend the prime principles of reason euident of themselues we leaue him for a sot and vncapable of learning So whome we cannot wyn to belieue what is proposed by the last and vttermost euidence Christian Proposition can possibly haue we leaue him for wilfully blind for one voyd of fayth for a heathen and publican For what can we do to him more If such an one be not an Hereticke that is vnder the name of a
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
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
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