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
profitable to Saluation and yet she may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some errour Thus you giue vs euery where sal infatuatum infatuated salt salt vnsauoury You often set good salt on the table but instaÌ„tly you corrupt it and the good season and reason thereof by senselesse contradictions That the Church is by office the rocke and pillar of all truth in matter of fayth is good salt hath the fauour and sense of diuine infallible truth but that which followes that she may fayle in this office violate this duty is senselesse and spoken without any salt Do not you say that in Religion none is fit to be Iudge that is fit for the office of iudge but he that is infallible How then can the Iudge in matters of Religion endued with power to determine Controuersies of fayth violate his duety except you can conceaue that he that is infallible may fayle In lyke manner that the Church is by office by duety appointed of God to be the pillar and rocke of all truth both necessary and profitable to saluation is salt doctrine of heauenly fauour and wisedome worthy of God But what you presently add that in fact she may be the teacher of errour is extremely sottish For if the Church be a sure and firme foundatioÌ„ of Fayth how can she be fallible and subiect to errour Do not you say pag. 148. n. 36. lin 11. An authority subiect to errour can be not firme or stable foundation of my beliâ—fe in any thing What is this but that a fallible Church in something and which de facto teacheth errours cannot haue the office of pillar and ground of any truth much lesse of all truth How often doe you teach that God cannot command vs to doe things impossible or command vs to be what is not in our power to be Should God command you to be immortall were not that command vniust For you being by nature mortall according to the body and not able to shake that corruption of how can you be immortall except God take away mortality and bestow the gift of immortality on you Can God appoint that glasse be in office as strong and hard as marble or that sand be as firme and stable as a rocke without taking brittlenes from the one and vnstedfastnes from the other I conclude with this syllogisme wherin both Propositions being your owne you cannot deny the Conclusion God hath appointed the Church to be by office the pillar and ground of all Christian truth a firme and stable Foundation of fayth in all matters of saluation But a Church subiect to errour cannot be a pillar ground or foundation of Christian beleefe in any thing Ergo the Church is an infallible teacher of all truth an infallible guide in fundamentals and consequently in all her proposals That Protesters against the Church of Rome be Schismatiques and Heretiques and cannot be saued without actuall dereliction of their errours CHAP. VI. I SAID in the title Protesters not Protestants for though with you Protestants and Protesters be the same yet it is not so according to the acception of the word Protestant commonly receaued in England You define Protestants to be such as Protest against the corruptions and abuses of the Church of Rome Cap. 2. n. 2. Cap. 6. n. 56. all of them agreeing in this principle that the Bible the Bible and only the Bible is a perfect rule of fayth and action So that all pretended Gospellers and reformed Churches all that infinite diuersity of sects which agree amongst themselues as King Iames sayth in nothing but in vnion against the Pope Caluinists Lutherans Brownists Anabaptists Against Vorstins pag. 65. refermed EutychiaÌ„s Arians Sabellians Samostatenians or Socinians Tritheists and others innumerable are by you comprehended vnder the name of Protestants whome you maintayne to be free from damnable errour Preface n. 39. and in a safe way to Saluatson 2. But in England as all men know by the name of Protestants we properly vnderstand that part of the pretended English Reformation which is condistinct from Puritans and opposite against them Hence Protestants with vs be not the whole multitude of Protesting Biblists or of the pretended reformed Churches but only one branch of them the most moderate of all that which doth least exorbitate from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Roman Church Wherfore by Protesters in this discourse we shall alwayes vnderstand them euery one of them that oppose and Protest against any doctrine proposed as matter of fayth by the Catholique Roman Church of what Sect or Religion soeuer they be and that these cannot be saued by ignorance or by repentance without actuall detestation and abandoning of their errours in particular 3. For though they ignorantly iudge that they haue the truth on their side yet this ignorance doth not excuse their erring because it is not simple ignorance but such ignorance as is euer essentially inuolued and contayned in the crime of Heresy to wit the ignorance of Pride and Presumption ignorance wherby they preferre the seeming of their fancy or iudgmeÌ„t before Traditions Councells consent of Fathers miracles the plain proper and literall sense of Scripture which stand for the Roman Church and Religion These I say cannot be saued in their errours but are Schismatiques and Heretiques as I shall cleerely demonstrate in this Chapter euen by your owne sayings and Principles and first That they are Schismatiques 4. To proue this we must briefly declare what Schisme is The word Schisme comes originally from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies any diuision cutting breaking renting away of any part from an entire whole thing as a bough from a tree a stone from a building any member from mans body By Metaphor the word is applyed to signify breaches and diuisions in any morall Body which is of two kindes Politicall and Mysticall In Politicall Bodyes or Temporall States Schisme happeneth when any part of the States departeth from the Communion and fellowship of others in being subiect to the supreme authority which ruleth gouerneth knitteth and keepeth the whole togeather whether this authority be Monarchicall Aristocraticall or Dâ—mocraticall Mysticall whole Bodies be only one the holy Catholique Church the Body of Christ of which to be a member as it is the sole and only state of Saluation so to be deuided from it is sinfull and damnable Schisme then in this sense may be defined A voluatary choyce whereby a Christian doth deuide and cut away himselfe from the Communion and fellowship of other Christians in the common knot of subiection subordination vnto the supreme Head and Authority of this Body I say voluntary choyce for no man can be made a Schismatique against his will Schisme being a sinne and a most grieuous sinne Euery Schismatique then deuideth himselfe from the Church by his voluntary choyce either direct as when one doth in plaine termes refuse and detest subiection to
definition or declaration of the Church Now you and your Protesters hold the sense of Scripture proposed by the meere in ward euidence of the text onely and alone to be the last and vttermost euidence of credibility a Christian doctrine can haue the rocke and pillar of beliefe Ergo when you accuse ech other of disbelieuing euident and plaine Scripture you accuse ech other of the formall proper crime of heresy so that Protesters are according to S. Paul delinquishers of the Church conuinced and condemned by their owne Iudgement The second Conuiction 10. THey that protest against the pillar ground rocke of that Credit and Authority which doth vp hold propose and expose all truth of Saluation vnto Christian beliefe and make the same worthy of all credit in respect of us erre fundamentally and are damned Heretickes This is manifest by what is prooued in the Preface of this Chapter But you protest against such a Rocke for you protest against the Catholique present Church of euery age since the Apostles Cap. 5. n. â—â— circa medium Cap. 5. n. 91. paulo post medium as subiect to fundamentall and damnable errours and euer stayned euen in the second age immediately vpon the death of the Apostles with vniuersall errours whose Catholique externall Communion you haue forsaken because vniuersally polluted with superstitions as you confesse and professe to glory therein Now that the present Catholique vniuersall Church in euery age is the pillar (c) Cap. 5. n. 52. Cap. 3. n. 77. n. 78. ground rocke that is teacher of all Christian truth by duty and office and in fact alwayes the pillar and ground that is the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth which she could not be vnles she were infallible in all her proposals (d) Pag. 108. n. 139. Cap. 2. n. 139. these things you grant as hath bin shewed at large in the fift Chapter Ergo Protesters are guilty of Heresy as ouer throwers of the rocke pillar last Principle of Christian fayth 11. Moreouer you graunt Tradition vniuersall to be the last Principle of Christian fayth euident of it selfe and so the pillar and ground of all truth fit to be rested on But by making the Church fallible and subiect to errour in deliuering Apostolicall Traditions you destroy this Rocke and make the same no ground to be rested on in any kind of truth For say you an authority subiect (e) Cap. 3. n 36. lin 12. to errour cannot be a firme foundation of my beliefe in any thing and Cap. 5. n. 91. lin 40. expressely to this purpose you say If the Church were obnoxious to corruptions as we pretend who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption did not get in and preuaile in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age c. The errour of the Millenaries was you say in the second age vniuersall and what was done in some was possible in others Now seing the authority of the Scripture and of the foure Ghospels and our whole Christian fayth depend vpon the tradition of the primitiue Church you that make the authority of the primitiue Church and Tradition subiect to errour and fallible how do not you erre most fundamentally destroying the last stay and only rocke to be rested on by Christian beliefe Tradition primitiue vniuersall being vncertaine and fallible what certainty can Christians haue of the Scriptures being from God (f) Pag. 63. lin 34. Only by the testimony of the ancient Churches the testimony of the ancient Churches the only meanes of our certainty in this point being vncertaine The third Conuiction 12. IF the Roman Church be the pillar ground rocke that is the teacher both by duty and in deed of all Christian truth then Protesters against the Church of Rome be Heretickes as you graunt and must needes graunt But the Antecedent is true and proued euidently by what you graunt and by what hath been shewed to be consequent of your grants that there must be alwayes a Church of one denomination alwayes in fact euen by essence the teacher of all fundamentall truth visibly discerned from other Christian Societies by this note of Vnity and Subordination to One. Now if there must be alwayes such a one Church the Roman must of necessity be this Church Supra c. 6. conuict 2. This consequence you denied as we noted before which now I make good by this Argument The Church which can must and in fact doth performe the office of guide and directour must be of one denomination subiect to one certain Bishop and also vniuersal Apostolicall one the same euery where for matters of fayth But there is no Church of one denomination in the world noted with these markes but only the Roman Ergo the Roman and only the Roman is that Church of one denomination and obedience Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 18. wherein a knowne infallibility is settled by adhering to which men are guided to belieue aright in all fundamentals The maior proposition of this argument I prooue by what you write pag. 91. (a) Cap. 2. n. 101. where you apply a testimony of S. Austin against vs Euery one may see that you so few in comparison of all those on whose consent we ground our beliefe of Scripture so turbulent that you damne all to the fire and to Hell that any way differ from you c. Lastly so new in many of your doctrines as in the lawfulnes and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramentall Cup the lawfulnes expedience of your Latin seruice Transubstantiation Purgatory the Popes infallibility authority ouer Kings c. So new I say in respect of the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture which contayneth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adaequate obiect of our fayth I say euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deseruing authority 13. This whole discourse though the last two lines only be sufficient to my purpose I haue produced at large that the Reader might see by this patterne for all your Booke is of the same stile methode and pith what a Kilcow-Disputant you are that is a curst Cow with short hornes yea without hornes at all for your Heart is not so curst and fierce in vttering what you conceaue to the discredit of the Roman Church but your Vnderstanding is as weake and faynt in proouing what you say You haue heaped togeather many doctrines of the Roman Church which you traduce as nouelties but in all your discourse there is not any strength of Argument to shew them to be such So we cannot say of you Cornu ferit ille caueto for you strike vs only with the bare forehead of impudent assertion without proofe yea without offer or proffer of proofe Nor could you prooue them these being for the most part all manifest Christian truths which you would haue taken vpon your bare word to be errours For how can you prooue that
Communion in one kind for Laymen was not practised by our Lord and Sauiour giuen vnto the two (a) Luc. 24.30.31 lay Disciples in Emmaus Was not the Latin seruice euery where in vse during the Primitiue tymes I meane (b) Ang. lib 2 de doctrine Christ. c. 11. in all Countryes of Europe and Africke which did pertayne to the Latin part of the word Was not Purgatory belieued and (c) Machab l. 2. c. 12. prayer for the reliefe of the dead practised by the people of God euen before the Ghospell was written Do not (d) Morton of the Sacramēt lib. 2. c. 1. pag. 91. If the words of Christ be certainly true in proper and literal sense then are we to yield Transubstantiation c. Protestants professe that Transubstantiation is as true and ancient as the Ghospell if the words of our Lord be certainly true in the plaine and proper sense And be not his words true in that sense he spake them though the same be neuer so high obscure to human vnderstanding incomprehensible But your discourse though alwayes without hornes of Conuiction of what you obiect to vs you will be sure it shall neuer be without hornes of stiffe and direct Contradiction against your selfe for euen this short period hath two hornes of this kind First where you say We damne all to Hell fire that any way differ from vs whereas more then fourty times in your booke you say you (e) pag. 404. lin 7. We censure your errours as heauily as you do ours damne vs to Hell as much as we do you and that we grant (f) Pag. 283. n. 74. lin 15. You your selfe affirme that ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may be saued Saluation to Protestants as much as they do to vs. Secondly you say heere that the Scripture is the sole and adaequate obiect of your faith but else where you say often that it is no obiect of your fayth at all but only the meanes of belieuing Cap. 2. n. 32. lin 5. Scripture conteynes all materiall obiects of fayth whereof the Scripture is NONE but ONELY the meanes of conueying them to vs. 14. Now to our purpose I take out of your dunghill this gem of cleere and manifest truth worthy of S. Austin his diuine wit and fayth that the Church which preferreth authority which is euidently credible of it selfe the pillar and ground of truth must not consist of a few but be diffused and spread ouer the world nor of turbulent persons that are full of discord and contention one against another but all agreeing in full vnity about matters of fayth not a new Church founded in after tymes but instituted by the blessed Apostles adorned with an illustrious succession of knowne Bishops to this present which is the very Maior proposition of my Argument which was that the Church which is the pillar and ground that is the teacher alwaies without fayle of all necessary truth must be both of one Denomination and Catholique that is vniuersally Apostolicall by succession of Bishops from them one and the same euery where for matters of faith For if it be not such but a company of a few in one corner of the world deuided into innumerable factions and sectes founded not by the Apostles but only yesterday or within the memory of men it can preferre no authority 15. Now Ecclesia totum poffidet quod a viro accepit in dotem quaecunque congregatio cuiustibet haeresis in angulis sedet concubina est non matrona Augustin l. 4. de symb c. 10. what more euident then the Minor of my former argument No Church of the World but the Roman is adorned with these glorious markes she wing the euident credibility of that Church in which they are For dare you say your Protesting Church is dilated ouer the word Is it not confined to one corner of Europe and reigneth most in the climate which is most North Quod latus mundi nebulae malusque Iupiter vrget Can you say that your Church is one the same euery where and not deuided into turbulent factions and iects Do not you say (a) Pag. 90. lin 12. there is among them infinite variance and King Iames (b) Against D. Vorstius pag. 65. an infinite diuersity of Sects agreeing in nothing but in vnion against the Pope Can you say it is Apostolicall hauing succession from the Apostles Do not you confesse it began but yesterday by deuiding themselues from the externall communion of the Roman and whole Catholique Church 16. On the other side can you deny the Roman to be spread ouer the world to be in Europe Africke Asia America almost in all countries of these foure quaters of the world euery where famously knowne that euery man that will be saued may come to this rocke be built thereon vnto euerlasting saluation For what you say cap. 6. n. 53. That the Roman Church is like the frog in the fable who thoght the ditch he liued in to be all the world is a speach not of truth and reason but of preiudice passion which education hath instilled into you the passion I say and custome of lying and vttering any falshood or scornefull reproach that may disgrace the Roman Church This you do without remorse of Conscience because you say you are sure without doubt Pag. 137. n. 19. God will not enter into Iudgement with you for such passions which custome and education haue made to you vnauoydahle Which I will belieue if you can make me sure that God did not damne to Hell Nero Domitian and such other Monsters for their pride and contempt of God and preiudices against Religion which by education and custome were to them all things considered vnauoydable 17. The Church of Rome is also Apostolicall by a notorious succession of Bishops from S. Peter that we may with S. Austyn (c) Aug. in Psal contra partem Donati say to you Number the Bishops succeeding in the sea of Peter this is the Rocke the proud gates of Hell do not conquer This Church is also the same euery where in all the professours thereof for matters of Fayth This you confesse pag. 129. and very wittily and prettily contradict your selfe within few lines In that pag. 129. n. 4. you speake to vs If you say you do agree in matters of Fayth I say this is ridiculous For you define matters of Fayth to be those things wherein you agree so that to say you agree in all matters of fayth is to say you agree in those things wherein you do agree But you are all agreed that onely those things wherein you agree are matters of Fayth And Protestants if they were wyse would do so to Sure I am they haue reason inough to do so seeing all of them agree with explicite fayth in all those things which are plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Thus you Is not this a wise discourse of a man who
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
intellectum in obsequium Christi head and the Vnicornes horne of his singular Wit in the lappe of her Communion choosing to be rather taken captiue by voluntary subiection to her Truth then shewed a thrall of errour in the chaines of insoluble Contradictions against himselfe 14. In citing his testimonies I haue been exact punctual euen to a line and to set downe formally fully and largely his wordes and whole discourses more perhaps then some may thinke necessary or fitting but I had rather be found faulty for excesse in sincerity then for defect Yea the wordes that were vpon some occasion cited before I haue when in other occasiōs I make vse of the same repeated them againe at large for the Readers greater ease not to bind him to seeke for them in the place of the former citation I haue quoted not the Pages but the Chapter Number line of the number that so the quotations may be common both to the first second Edition which agree in Chapters Numbers and lines but not in Pages Yet sometimes when the numbers are long I haue quoted the page and the line of the first Edition in the text of the second in the margin The Chapters of the booke be these following 1. That Christian fayth is not resolued finally into natural wit and Reason but into the Authority of the Church 2. That Christian fayth is absolutely certaine and infallible 3. That the current of Christian Tradition is incorrupt both in the fountaine and in the streame 4. That the Scripture is not the only Rule 5. That the Church is infallible in all her Proposalls of fayth 6. That all Protesters against the Church of Rome are Schismatiques 7. That they are also Heretiques An Aduertisement to the Reader THis Treatise Good Reader was to the last word and syllable thereof finished reuiewed and ready for the Print longe since euen in April of this yeere 1638. so that it might haue been printed and published and haue come to thy sight in the last Trinity Tearme but for the tempests and stormes of warre which infested vltra-marine Countries neere vnto England and were no where more boisterous then ouer that place where this Treatise should haue been pressed into the light For this thundering noise of Mars frighted workemen and droue them away into other calmer coastes and afterward brought sharpe and longe sickenesse both on the Printer and Authour which hath been the cause it commeth so late vnto publique view I hope this remissnes and tardity will be recompenced and satisfyed by ensuing speed and diligence in deliuering vnto the world other Treatises which haue been also longe since ready for the Print against this cunning and close Vnderminer of Christian Religion whiles he pretendes to be an opposer but of the Catholique Roman The Church conquerant ouer Humane Wit That true Christian fayth is not finally resolued by naturall Wit and Reason but by the Churches Authority CHAP. I. CHRISTIAN resolution about belieuing the mysteries of our fayth Cap. 1 n 8. as you also note standes vpon two Principles The one Whatsoeuer God reueales for true is true or which is the same The word of God is certaine truth The other The articles of our fayth are reuealed of God About the truth of the first Principle we are fully and abundantly resolued by the Authority of God Reuealing who can neither be deceiued himselfe nor deceiue vs. The question is by what meanes may Christians be sure that the articles of their Religion are the word of God Catholiques make their last resolution into the word of God vnwritten deliuered by vniuersall Tradition euidently credible for it selfe or which is all one into the authority of the Church deliuering what by the full consent of Christian Catholique Ancestors she hath receiued frō the Apostles Protestants resolue to rest finally on Scripture which as they pretend by the cleere beames of its owne light sheweth it selfe and the sense they make thereof to be Diuine supernaturall Truth and consequently the word of God You agreeing nether with the one nor the other both reiect resolution by the inward euident certainty of Scripture as a fond conceypt and also banish the infallible authority of the present Church as an intolerable vsurpation so finally you come to rest vpon the iudgment and choyce of naturall Reason pretending that euery man and woman in the choyce of their Religion must at last follow their owne best wit vnderstanding and discourse In which conceit you are not constant you contradict it often yea you are so vncertaine and vnsetled in all your discourses as you say nothing in one place which you do not in some other place vtterly deny The discouery of this your perpetuail iarring and fighting with your selfe is the marke this Treatise aymeth at wherby it will appeare whether you had reason to write as you do in the conclusion of your worke Though the musick I haue made be dull and flat and euen downe right plainesong yet your curious and Criticall cares shall discouer no discord in it Mare c. 7. I hope together with this discourse the fingar of our Sauiour will enter into the deafe cares of your soule opē them to discerne the perpetuall iarring of your voyce with it selfe and also make you see that it will be alwayes so except you giue ouer singing the canticle of our Lord in the high strayne of quauering and wauering diuision from the Church according to the crochets of your owne conceyt and fall to the plaine Gregorian Ecclesiasticall tune humbling your Treble-wit to sing the base in the lowest note of subiection to the Holy Catholique Church The first Conuiction 2. THis Conuiction is groūded on this contradicting your selfe that cap. 2. n. 3. in fine you say The Scripture is the sole iudge of controuersies that is the sole rule to iudge them by those onely excepted wherein the Scripture is the subiect of the question which cannot be determined but by naturall reason the only principle besides Scripture which is common to Christians To the contrary cap. 2. n. 153. you write Vniuersall tradition is the Rule to iudge all controuersies by Preface n. 13. to the Directours assertion That if the true Church may erre in defining Canonicall Scripture then we must receiue Scripture either by the priuate spirit or by naturall wit and iudgment or by preexamination of the doctrine contayned therein you answer Though the present Church may possibly erre in her iudgment touching this matter yet haue we other directions besides either of these three and that is the testimony of the Primitiue Christians Thus you consider what sweet harmony and concent there is betwixt these two sayings Controuersies wherin Scripture it selfe is the subiect of the question cannot be determined but by naturall reason the only principle besides Scripture cōmon to Christians The controuersy which Scripture is canonicall wherin Scripture it selfe is the subiect of the question may
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
Diuinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it selfe alone but by some extrinsicall authority you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of vniuersall Tradition not of your Church From this truth by you granted I thus argue That cannot be the onely rule or by it selfe alone a rule of fayth with is not of it selfe able to proue and shew that which it contaynes to be the word of God For the matter of Christian Faith being the word of God onely that which caÌ„not shew it selfe to be the word of God cannot shew it selfe to be matter of Christian fayth But Scripture alone by it selfe cannot proue it selfe nor consequently the doctrine it contaynes to be the word of God but to this end needeth the extrinsecall Authority of Tradition Therefore not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned with the extrinsecall authority of Tradition is the rule of fayth 10. This defect of Scripture in respect of being the onely rule or by it selfe alone any rule of fayth you lay open cap. 2. n. 8. lin 7. Though a writing could not be proued to vs to be a perfect rule of fayth by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being said or written in a booke but onely by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe Thus you I would gladly know how can Scripture be the onely rule of fayth or by it selfe any rule of fayth if nothing be proued true nothing shewed to be the word of God barely by being written therein but onely by the light of Tradition ioyned vnto Scripture 11. Hence I inferre if Scripture by it selfe without Tradition cannot be a rule of Fayth nor shew any doctrine to be of God how much lesse can it be a rule of fayth against the vniuersal Tradition of the Church It is deep vanity in you and dull inconsideration of the consequences of your doctrine to boast as you do cap. 3. n. 40. that by Scripture you can confute the Church which taught you Scripture to be the word of God aswel say you as of my Maister in Physicke or the Mathematickes I may learne those rules and principles by which I may confute his erroneous Conclusions Thus you who verily are such a maister you speake of For you deliuer rules and principles by which you may be confuted your selfe For do not you often inculcate this Principle that the Scripture is knowne to be the word of God only by Tradition onely by the testimony of the ancient Churches If then you proue by Scripture any TraditioÌ„ of the ancieÌ„t Church to be against Scripture you shall not proue that TraditioÌ„ of the Church to be against the word of God but that you haue no sure ground to belieue the Scripture to be of God and that you were vnwise to belieue it vpon the warrant of Tradition as you say you do For the rule which may be false in one thing caÌ„not be a sure ground of beliefe in any thing May I learne this lesson of my good Maister your booke which being your scholler hath taught me many rules and principles by which I might confute his maister Pag. â—5 lin 23. The meanes to decide Controuersies in Fayth and Religion must be endued with vniuersall infallibility in whatsoeuer it propoundeth as a diuine truth For if it may be false in one thing of this nature we can yeld vnto it but a wauering and fearfull assent in any thing Thus you Wherefore if Tradition be not endued with vniuersall infallibility if it may be false in any one thing it proposeth for diuine truth it cannot be belieued with firme assent in any thing at all Now the principles of Physicke or Mathematicks are belieued because euident of themselues and not vpon the bare word tradition and authority of the maister For a scholler if he be not assured of those rules principles otherwise then by the word of his maister cannot by the authority of these rules and principles proue any thing against his maister but onely against himselfe that he is a foole eyther in belieuing these rules vpon his Maisters bare word or else in thinking he can by those rules conuince his maister of falshood In like sort you shew small iudgement discretion who persuade your selfe you are able to proue some Church-TraditioÌ„ to be against the word of God by Scripture which Scripture you belieue to be the word of God onely vpon the warrant of vniuersall Church Tradition for this is a thing impossible and implicatory as any considering man will see wherfore not only Scripture but Scripture ioyned with Tradition is a rule of Fayth consequently it is not possible to confute any Church-Tradition by Scripture The third Conuiction 12. THis conuiction is grounded on this truth that vnlearned men cannot be assured they haue the incorrupt text or the true TranslatioÌ„ of Scripture but onely by the word of the Church This you affirme pag. 79. lin 7. 2. Edit pag. 75. lin 36. It were altogether as abhorrent from the goodnesse of God and repugnant to it to suffer an ignorant lay mans soule to perish meerly for being mislead by an indiscernable false Translation which yet was commended vnto him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he hath reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired absolution Thus you from which I conuince two thinges First that the Scripture is not the rule Secondly that the Church must of necessity be still visible and infallible in guiding men to heauen The first I proue in this fort The only rule of fayth must be for the capacity of all men aswell vnlearned as learned simple as iudicious occupied in worldly affaires as disoccupied The only rule I say must be able to assure all men of the Scripture that the Text and the Translation thereof is not corrupt in any substantiall matter But Scripture is not able to do this as you do confesse and consequently there is a necessity that men vnlearned men of meane capacity men occupied in worldly affaires trust the Church Ergo not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned vnto the authority of the Church is the rule of fayth 13. Secondly that the Church is visible and an infallible guide I proue You say It is repugnant to the goodnesse of God to suffer the soules of men to perish for their trusting the Church which they had reason to trust aboue all other being of necessity to trust some If this be true and it is most true then God is bound in his goodnesse to prouide that the Church which is to be trusted aboue all other be not so bidden as it cannot without extreme difficulty be found nor fallible that it cannot without extreme danger be trusted 2. Edit cap. 6. n. 20. pag. 322. li.
4. For as you say pag. 337. n. o. lin 23. A doubtfull and questionable guide is as good as none at all Is it then impious to thinke that men being in necessity of a guide to heauen and for want of one in termes of perishing eternally God hath commended and commanded vnto them for their guide a doubtfull questionable Church which men neyther know where to find nor being found how to trust 14. What you say of a penitent sinner that God will not damne him for the secret defect in his desired absolution because his Ghostly Father was perhaps an Atheist and could not or a villaine and would not giue him absolution First you are deceaued in thinking that a secret Atheist cannot giue absolution for he may if he haue intention to do what Christ instituted and this intention he may haue though he esteeme of that institution no better then of a foppery As for a Villaine it is not credible that any Christian Priest will be such a villaine as not to giue his Penitent absolution in which case if perhaps it fall out we thinke God of his goodnes will not permit such a Penitent to perish yet the case being rare extraordinary he hath appointed no ordinary meanes of succour but he will supply such defects as he many wayes may easily do by his speciall prouidence Now the necessity of Christians for the defect in their assurance of the true text of Scripture and vncorrupt translation is continuall ordinary and it implies incertainty in all matters of fayth in respect of all Christians For there be scarre any that can assure themselues of the true Text or of the truth of the Translation they vse by searching into the Originalls and ancient coppies Wherefore God hath prouided for them an ordinary meanes of assurance continually at hand and for the capacity of all to wit a Church infallible and so conspicuous as shee may be seene of all The fourth Conuiction 15. ANother Principle you deliuer c. 3. n. 33. li. 10. wherin you cōtradict your selfe depriue Scripture of being the only or the prime Christian rule of fayth I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cānot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a man as Christ that he taught such doctrine that he his disciples did such miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is the word of God vnlesse I be taught it So that the Church is though not a certain foundation and proofe of my Fayth yet a necessary introduction to it Thus you and in like manner you make the Creed contayning all Fundamental articles of simple beleefe independent of Scripture Cap. 4. n. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and contaynes the principles of fayth I ground it not vpon Scripture c. But the contrary to this in formall termes your affirme Cap. 3. n. 37. lin 9. saying of Protestants They ground their beleefe that such and such thinges only are Fundamental on Scripture only goe about to proue their assertion by Scripture only Behold contradiction vpon contradiction For to say you ground your beliefe of the Fundamental articles or Principles of fayth not vpon Scripture and you ground it on Scripture only is direct contradiction What you say that you belieue such and such thinges only to be fundamental proue it by Scripture is repugnant with what you contest more then in an hundred passages of your Booke that you neyther know nor can know exactly which points be Fundamental 16. But omitting your contradiction I conuince that Scripture cānot be the rule of our faith about Fūdamentalls Cap. 2. n. 48 circa finem which must of necessity be knowne and belieued before Scripture I proue by what you write Pag. 70. lin 29. If our vnderstanding did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed how is it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a sonne that he hath already or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can be made againe before it be vnmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of errour will easily perceaue that iam factum facere and factum infectum facere be equally impossible These be your wordes from which I thus argue The Scripture cannot be the rule and reason of belieuing such points of fayth which must of necessity be belieued before we can receaue Scripture But before we belieue Scripture we must belieue the fundamentall articles of Christianity that Christ was and taught such and such doctrine essential to the Gospell that he chose Apostles to preach it who confirmed it with new miracles and left it vs written in these bookes of Scripture These thinges and the like you confesse must of necessity be knowne vpon the Tradition and Authority of the Church before we can belieue Scripture Ergo the assent we yield vnto the truth of these articles is not by Scripture but by the Churches Tradition precedently to our beliefe of Scripture And so the Church teaching vs the Christian Tradition is the fundamentall and essentiall rule of fayth and the Scripture is requisite not to the being of Christian fayth nor for the begetting thereof but only ad melius esse to the wel being thereof to confirme vs more more in what we are taught by the Church The fifth Conuiction 17. CAp. 2. n. 19. (a) For so should it be though it be in the booke n. 9. lin 15. you write In all the Controuersies of Protestants betwixt themselues there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture reason with reason authority with authority which how it can subsist with manifest reuealing of the truth I cannot well vnderstand And cap. 1. n. 13. lin 25. The contrary beliefe may be concerning points wherin Scripture may with so great probability be alleadged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and vpright hrearts true louers of God and the truth such as desire aboue all thinges to know Gods will and to do it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another and some and those as good men as any of the former suspend their iudgment and expect some Elias to solue doubts and reconcile repugnances And Preface n. 30. There is no more certaine signe that a thing is not euident then that honest vnderstanding and indifferent men after a mature deliberation of the matter differ about it From this your confession that there be seeming contradictions and conflicts of one part of Scripture with another which set good and honest men of your stampe together by the eares I gather three arguments which conuince that Scripture by it selfe cannot
cause to admire your ignorance in Latin yea want of iudgment in playing Monus at her Translation For euery man of wit and common sense must of necessity perceaue that S. Irenaeus could not meane corporall resorting to Rome without being ridiculous For though we should grant that conuenire may signifie to resort yet it is cleere that it doth not signify barely to resort but to resort or come to a place together to meet there in one assembly Now it is ridiculous to thinke that S. Irenaeus would haue all Churchs and all the faythfull on euery side to be bound not only to come to Rome but also to come thither all at the same time at once It is therefore manifest that S. Irenaeus doth attribute powerfull principality to the Roman Church Bishop ouer all Christian Churches by reason wherof all other are bound and obliged in duty to come together with the Church of Rome not by corporal repayre to the Citty but by consent of mind to the Roman Fayth But this more powerfull Principality this Iudicial Authority and Headship the Roman Bishop could not haue by gift of men as you confesse Ergo he had it by diuine appointment as the successour of S. Peter in whom by the voyce and word of our Lord it was instituted So that Protesters by opposing the Church of Rome and S. Peters successour oppose the ground and pillar of all Christian truth and so are Heretiques The sixt Conuiction 27. THE visible Church is the Iudge of Controuersies and therefore infallible in all her Proposals so that to oppose her is as much as to oppose God himselfe and consequently whosoeuer opposeth against the Doctrine of the visible Church is an Hereticke This argument is proposed by the maintayner of Charity c. 6. n. 15. to which you answere cap. 6. n. 13. First you deny the Church to be Iudge of Controuersies How say you can she be the Iudge of them if she cannot decide them and how can she decide them if it be a question whether she be Iudge of them That which is questioned it selfe cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide Controuersies Secondly you say If she were iudge it wold not follow that she were infallible for we haue many Iudge in our Courts of Iudicature yet none infallible Thus you How could you possibly be so obliuious as not once to imagine that both these answeres are direct Contradictions of what you before affirmed Cap. 2. n. 162. you say The Church hath authority of determining Controuersies of fayth according to plaine and euident Scripture and vniuersall Tradition and to excommunicate the man that should persist in errour against her determinations Now if she be not Iudge if her authority be questioned how can she do this Secondly she being Iudge of Controuersies that she must be infallible though Iudges in the Courts of Ciuill Iudicature be not such you affirme cap. 2. n. 17. We are to obey the sentence of the ciuill Iudge and not resist it but not alwayes to belieue it iust but in matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whome we should be bound to belieue to haue iudged right so that in ciuill Controuersies euery honest and vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible Thus you whose words cōtaine an vnanswerable demonstration against your selfe that the Church being Iudge to determine Controuersies of fayth must of necessity be infallible 28. Thirdly you say That though she were a Iudge infallible yet to oppose her declaration would not be to oppose God except the opposer know that she doth infallibly propose the word of God I answere that to oppose the Propenent of fayth (a) Cap. 2 n. 26. That which is either euident of it selfe and seen by its owne light or reduced vnto setled vpon the principle that is so which is euidently credible of it selfe or euidently reduced to such an euident credible Principle is Heresy a vertuall opposing of God and his Reuelation For the Proponēt being a witnesse worthy of all credit the disbelieuer of this proposition must of necessity assent except he be mislead by Passiō against the truth reueal'd or by pride against the proposer therof as I shewed in the preface to the argumēts of this chapter The seauenth Conuiction 29. THE Church gathered togeather in Generall Councels or a Generall Councell of Christian Bishops haue Power to propose define with infallibility the Cōttouersies of Religion bind all Christians vnder paine of heresy to belieue their definitions But Protesters oppose Generall Councels such definitions of fayth which they know and confesse to haue beene enacted by them contending that such Christian Assemblies representing the whole Christian Church are fallible and haue beene many times false as is notorious Ergo they contradict the infallible Proponent of Christian Fayth preferring their owne priuate fancyes and so are guilty of Hereticall obstinacy and pride The maior Proposition of this argument is euident and vndeniable by the perpetuall Tradition and practise of all former Christian ages euen of the Primitiue times For though then they could not meet together all in one place yet they did assemble generally in different places determine the Controuersies of Religion against Heresies that did arise In proofe hereof the testimony of Tertullian is cleere and direct mentioning generall Councels gathered by command no doubt of the Roman Bishop De iciunijs cap. 13. Aguntur praecepta per Graecias illas certis in locis Concilia ex vniuersis Ecclesiis perquae altiord quaeque in commune tractantur ipsa representatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur Behold the notorious Antiquity of the Catholique Tradition about the venerable Authority of General Councells to determine the highest matters of Religion as being the representatiue Church or representations of the whole Christian Name Wherfore Protesters who contemne this Tradition euidently certaine or credible of it selfe and oppose Generall Councels cannot be excused from damnable Hereticall pride 30. But Tradition though neuer so perpetuall and primitiue full and vniuersall will not grow in your garden except the same be watered from your Well with whome nothing is well but what is your owne Thus you write c. 2. n. 85. lin 6. This we know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a Iudiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controuersies of Religion but onely such a Man or such a Society of men as is authorized thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not beene the pleasure of God to giue to any Man or Society of men any such authority The truth of the first part of this saying will establish the authority of Generall Councels from God when the falshood of the second shall be confuted by D. Potter yea by your owne contradiction thereof D. Potter writeth pag. 165. We say that such Generall Councels as
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
representations is so certaine infallible that it implies contradiction that men should be deceaued by it eyther by some extraordinary working of God to men vnknowne or through the infinity of the thing apprehended which men cānot comprehend For example men see the Chymnies of a Towne smoake thence they conclude with Physicall certitude that there is fire in those Chymnies wherein they may be mistaken seing God may haue raysed that smoake without any fire We are better assured by the light of vnderstanding about vniuersall principles which appeare manifestly true by the very notion of the single wordes yet not so vniuersally sure but we may be deceaued by them about infinite and incomprehensible thinges That Principle I before named Euery whole thing is greater then any single part thereof we are not sure thereof in infinite whole thinges yea many learned men do maintaine that in an infinite multitude the whole multitude is not greater then a single part thereof That knowne rule and principle of all discourse The thinges with be one and the same with a third thing are one and the same betweene themselues Fayth assures vs that the same fayles in the diuine Nature which being infinite and incomprehensible may be and is identified with three diuine Persons really distinct Nor is this to destroy all certitude of naturall knowledge but only to make the same finite and limited within the compasse of its weake reach and capacity infinitly inferiour to diuine wisdome and altogether subordinate to his most infallible word 5. Now deception cannot possibly happen in our belieuing of doctrines represented to our vnderstanding cleerly marked with euident miracles and other supernaturall notes shewing they are reuealed of God For God working by his power aboue nature to mooue men to belieue such Diuine and miraculous doctrine cannot also worke aboue nature what may be the cause of our deception therein for then he should be contrary to himselfe with is altogether impossible Nor can there be feare danger or possibility that in this beliefe we may be deceaued through weaknesse of iudgment caused by the finite capacity of humane wit because in this beliefe the light of natur all reason is not our guide but the word of God discouering high mysteries and hidden secrets conforme to his infinite and vndeceiuable vnderstanding Hence a late learned Writer our Countryman sayth excellently to this purpose (a) P. Thomas Baconus Southellus in sua Regula viua seu Analysi fidei Dispat 3. cap. 6. n. 122. Haec motiua conuincunt necessarió metaphysice quod si vlla vera sit in mundo Religio c. ea alia esse non possit quám baec nostra his motiuis insignita That the motiues of Christian Catholique credibility are most certaine and infallible in themselues and do most manifestly and euen with metaphysicall euidence conuince our Christian Catholique Religion to be the true way of saluation as certainly as that there is any true religion in the world or any diuine prouidence about the saluation of mankind Who can desire greater certitude and euidence then this 6. The fifth thing is firme adherence to the doctrine proposed so that the belieuer cannot at all or else very hardly be driuen from his persuasion of the truth thereof This adherence in Christian Catholiques is so firme that they are ready not only to giue their life in testimony thereof but also will deny their owne senses their reason and all naturall euidence rather then admit any doubt of doctrine in this manner represented to them as Gods infallible word 7. If any obiect that the assent of Christian fayth is often shaken with doubts sometimes ouerthrowne wheras the assent of naturall knowledge stands constant and vnmooued without danger of falling I answere this is true but the reason hereof is not because the assent of naturall knowledge is more certain and firme of it selfe but because Christian fayth is more exposed to the blasts of temptation An Oake on the top of an high mountayne is shaken with wind and storme and many times beaten to the ground wheras a tender sprig growing low out of the wind is not subiect to this danger yet no man will say that the sprig is more firme and deeply rooted in the ground then the Oake Christian fayth standeth on high hauing for matter and subiect high inuisible and incomprehensible mysteries which though they are by the belieuer sufficiently seene to be reuealed of God yet not seene at all by naturall reason to be true in themselues yea still in themselues they remaine darke obscure difficill and seemingly impossible in humane reason Hence though fayth be firmely grounded and deeply rooted on the authority of God reuealing Christian doctrines yet stronge apprehensions of the seeming impossibility thereof like violent blasts cause the same sometimes to shake wauer with inuoluntary doubts whereas the assent of naturall knowledge is neuer or seldome tempted to doubt because there is no seeming impossibility in such truth By this explication of our Catholique Resolution of fayth it is manifest you haue done vs wronge in saying that we require That men build a most certaine assent on fallible vncertaine and only probable groundes The second Conuiction 8. YOur ground to make the assent of Christian fayth fallible and only probable is because it is an assent to a conclusion deduced from two premises whereof the one is fallible and only probable Cap. 1. n. 8. lin 28. Our fayth is an assent to this conclusion The doctrine of Christianity is true which being deduced from the former Thesis All which God reuealed for true is true which is metaphysically certaine and the former Hypothesis All the articles of our fayth are reuealed of God whereof we can haue but morall certainty we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of it then of the weaker of the Premises for the conclusion still followes the worser part if there is any worse and must be negatiue particular contingent or but morally certaine if any of the propositions from whence it is deriued be so Neither can we be certaine of it in the highest degree vnlesse we be thus certaine of all the principles whereon it is grounded As a man cannot stand or goe strongly if either of his legs be weake or as a building cannot be stable if any one of the necessary pillers be infirme and instable Thus you And then to shew this Hypothesis All the articles of our fayth that is all the doctrines of the Christian Creed and Scripture be reuealed of God to be only morally certaine you bring this reason because it is proued only by tradition vniuersall only by the testimonie of the ancient Churches an argument only probable Cap. 6. n. 40. The ioint tradition of all Apostolique Churches with one mouth and with one voice teaching the same doctrine was vrged by the Fathers not as a demonstration but only as an argument very probable Cap. 6. n. 8.
(x) Radicem matricem Eeclesiae Catholicae Cyp Ep. 45. the Fathers terme it to the rest of the Church to crush Satan that is sayth Origen euery contradictious spirit that teacheth agaynst the doctrine of Tradition vnder their feete Which speach hath no small allusion to the Reuerence vsed by Catholicke Christians to the feete of S. Peters Successour If you had any text in Scripture but halfe as cleere agaynst the infallible authority of the Roman Church and Bishop as this is for it your triumphing vociferations that the text is cleere as the sunne would hardly be contayned vnder the cope of heauen This appeareth by your vrging the place Be not high minded but feare as threatning the whole Church of Rome with possibility of falling from Christ which seing you could not do without inuoluing in the same damnation and defectibility the whole Church of the Gentiles you professe the whole Church of God may fall away into Infidelity agaynst the promises of Christ (z) Infra c. 7. conu 9. yea agaynst what your selfe affirme an hundred tymes That scripture is not the onely Meanes or Rule to know all necessary truths or that all necessary things are not euidently contayned in Scripture CHAP. IIII. 1. IN this Chapter I lay the axe to the roote of your vnfruitfull tree couered with greene leaues of assertions without any branch or bow of strong proofe I digge vp the ruinous foundation of your Babilonicall building of confused language full of doctrines different yea opposit the one to the other I shall demonstrate that you mistake the Protestant sense of this their principle The Scripture is the onely Rule o◠All necessary poynts of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture that you vnderstand not the state of the Controuersy betwixt vs and them about Tradition vnwritten that you runne headlong on with this principle in your mouth without any bit of true sense or Christian beliefe stumbling agaynst all the Articles of Christianity whereby you get many new noble victories ouer your selfe by falling downe in flat contradiction vpon your selfe 2. To vnderstand this we must obserue that a thing may be contayned most cleerely to the seeming in some text of Scripture taken singly by it selfe which yet if places of Scripture be conferred and all things considered is but darkely and doubtfully deliuered therein For example by the saying of S. Luke that Ioseph the husbād of the Virgin Mary was the Sonne of Hely it seemes most cleere and euident that Hely was his true and naturall father neyther would any Christian haue doubted thereof had not S. Matthew written that Iacob begat Ioseph the husband of Mary so that the two texts which taken by themselselues seeme most cleere being conferred together do mutually darken obscure ech other This truth supposed the doctrine of Protestants about the question whether all poynts of necessary fayth be contayned in Scripture consists in two assertions in the one they agree in the other they disagree from vs. 3. First they teach that all necessary things of Fayth are not contayned cleerely in Scripture vnderstood by conference of places but for the cleering of ambiguytyes the Rule of fayth deliuered by Traditiō is necessary which Rule comprehends all poynts of fayth which haue beene alwayes notoriously knowne and explicitely belieued of all Christians Thus farre they and we consent There is (y) D. field of the Church lib. 4. c. 16. item c. 14. sayth D. Field betwixt our Aduersaries and vs no difference in this matter for we confesse that neyther conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the Originals ARE OF ANY FORCE vnlesse we find the things we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of fayth c. neyther is there any of our Deuines that teach otherwise Thus he 4. Secondly Protestants teach that all necessary points of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture in some text or texts of Scripture cleer and conspicuous taken by themselues so that though we need the rule of Tradition that we may assuredly vnderstand the Scriptures cōferred together yet not to deliuer vnto vs some necessary matters of fayth (z) D. Field lib. 4. c. 14. We do not so make Scripture the rule of our fayth as we neglect the other of Tradition nor so admit the other as to detractany thing from the plenitude of Scripture in which al things are contayned that must be belieued which are no wayes deliuered in Scripture Heerin there is some disagreement betwixt them and vs because we hold that some verities of necessary beliefe cannot be proued by any text of Scripture sufficiently to be a matter of fayth by that sole proofe without the help of Tradition Now you agree neither with Protestants nor with vs you maintayne that all necessary things are euidently certayne in Scripture expounded by conference of places without any rule of Traditiue interpretation yea you contend that no such rule is extant This you do not as Protestants do to establish the totall sufficiency clarity of Scriptures about the receaued articles of Christian fayth but to ouerthrow totally all explicite belief of any Christian mystery whatsoeuer as by the ensuing Conuictiō of your errour from your owne sayings will manifestly appeare For whiles you endeauour to spread this Infidelity couertly vnder the maske of a Protestant or of a Christian for want of consideration memory and wit you euery where contradict your selfe affirme and deny say and vnsay build and vnbuild The first Conuiction 5. THus you write cap. 2. n. 159. lin 9. The bookes of Scripture are not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine as requisit to the well being thereof men may be saued without belieuing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without belieuing it to be a rule and perfect rule of fayth And cap. 2. n. 33. lin 7. If men aid belieue the doctrine contayned in Scripture it would no way hinder their saluation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations S. Irenaeus speakes of were in this case yet no doubt they might be saued Yea say (b) Cap. 2. n. 159. lin 20. you though they had reiected the bookes of Scripture proposed vnto them by all the rest of the Church which receaued them I do not doubt but they might be saued God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation onely to belieue the verityes therein contayned and not the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contayned Thus you destroying your Principle that Scripture is the onely rule and the onely safe way to heauen as I proue by three arguments from these words which indeed are euident truths The first argument Christian fayth cannot be ruled and guided to saluation and attayne to heauen without the onely rule without the onely guide without the onely meanes No man in his wits can deny this Now
they were forced and necessitated to do so by the euidence of Scripture which in formall and expresse tearmes contaynes many of their opinions and is against the Roman Catholique Religion as cleere as the light at noone Cap. 3. n 86. But this to be false and that you and they herein speake against your consciences may be made as cleere as the Sunne euen by your owne principles 18. For pag. 156. n. 9. you say In all controuersies where there is is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture ReasoÌ„ with Reason Authority with Authority how this can consist with the manifest reuealing of the truth of eyther side I cannot well vnderstand Now it is as manifest as the Sunne that in all controuersies betwixt Protesters and the Church of Rome there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture of Reason with Reason of Authority with Authority yea in many controuersies the Scripture is cleere on our side taken according to the playne and euident sense of the text that Protesters are forced lyke Proteus to turne themselues into all manner of figures hide themselues with a figuratiue sense that they be not takeÌ„ in manifest confessed vnbeliefe of Gods word 19. This may be confirmed by the examples you bring in this your booke to shew that in some points the Scripture is cleere against the Church of Rome to wit against the worship of Angels Communion in one kind Latin seruice an infallible Iudge for in this maine decretory battaile for the whole it may be well supposed you would produce your best souldiers and vse your strongest weapons yea to take away all doubt of the matter you professe that they are the cleerest you haue nay that there cannot possibly be any plainer These instances by you often repeated which are the substance pith of your Booke I wil prooue to be weake vaine improbable incredible euen by your owne principles 20. First then Preface n. 11. lin 18. How say you is it possible any thing should be playner forbidden then the worship of Angels in the Epistle to the Colossians Thus you without proofe Against whome I reply that the place is darke obscure doubtfull ambiguous as none can possibly be more which I prooue First it is ambiguous and questionable in respect of the translation or rather without question it is falsifyed by you (a) Cap. 2. nu 1. versus finem Pag. 52. lin 26. where speaking to vs you say Do not impose vpon men that humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemnes The true text is Nemo vos seducat volens in humilitate religione Angelorum let no man beguile you of your reward in voluntary humility and religion of Angels Hence appeareth that your chaÌ„ging corrupting peruerting of holy Scripture in this place is as great as any could possibly be vsed vpon a text of so few words You turne the particle and into of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Religion or diuine and Religious worship due to God only not so much the act as the forme you translate simply worshipping Angelorum being the Genitiue case of the Angels you make it the Accusatiue the humility of worshipping Angels as if the Latin text had byn in humilitate colendi Angelos And this alone were sufficient to prooue the place impertinent because the Apostle doth not reproue any kind of worship of Angels but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Threâ—kia à Tracibus est religioâ—è sacrificijs orgijs colere Gregor Nazian the worshipping them Religiously as Gods offering sacrifice to them 21. Secondly the text lyes open vnto ambiguity of senses in regard of the particle of which may referre Religious worship to Angels as to the obiects thereof the Religion of Angels that is the Religion wherewith Angels are worshipped or else to Angels as the Authors thereof the Religion of Angels that is the Religion which was deliuered vnto men and reuealed by Angels Heereupon ariseth a question indecidable in which sense S. Paul intended to speake Many as euen Caluin (b) Caluin Comment in hunc locum granteth vnderstand not Religious worship offered vnto Angels sed cultum ab Angelis traditum the forme of diuine worship deliuered by the Angels such was the Religion of the Iewes by Angels (c) Alij Religionem Angelorum intelligunt Religionem Iudaâ—cam quae data est Moysi per Angelos Cornel deliuered vnto Moyses which exposition Caluin doth not dislike 22. Thirdly the word Angels is much more ambiguous there being two kinds of Angels some good some bad and in ech kind there is a great variety of offices and degrees and consequently great diuersitie of opinions amongst Fathers and Expositours which kind of Angels are meant as you may see in Iustinianus and Cornelius Amongst the which opinions the most probable is that by Religion of Angels in this place the Magicall (d) Ad magicam illam superstitionem à Simone institutam Paulum respexisse haud ambigaÌ„ Iustinianus adoration of diuels or bad Angels is vnderstood taught by Simon Magus Now this being proued we will intreate you to call to mynd what you write Cap. 2. n. 104. lin 8. When a place by reason of ambiguous termes lyes indifferent betweene diuers senses whereof the one is true and the other false to say that God vnder paine of damnation obligeth men not to mistake is to make God a Tyrant Now where is your text as cleere as the sunne Is it not now as darke as night to shew the worship of Angels vsed by the Catholique Church vnlawful May not I with good reason giue you warning in the words of our Lord Si lumen quod in te est tenebrae sunt tenebrae tuae quantae erunt If your text then which none can possibly be cleerer is so darke how darke are your other texts which euen in your owne sight seeme not so cleere 23. On the other side the text wherein the Saints of God (d) Gen. 18 by Abraham Gen. 19. by Lot Num. 22. by BaalaÌ„ Ios 5. by Iosue adored holy Angels prostrate on the ground yea inuocated Angels as (f) Gen. 48.16 Angelus qui eruit me Iacob The Angell that deliuered me from all euill blesse these two children These texts I say are cleere as none can be cleerer And Protestants not to be scorched with the heauenly heate of reuerend feruent Deuotion towards the blessed Angels which might be kindled in their hearts by the lightsome influence of Gods word pretend ouer the litterall euidence a mysticall or rather misty veyle or cloath of their textobscuring interpretations painted with vnseemely figures of improper sense Cap. 3. n. 71. 24. Now for Communion in both kinds Who say you can deny but they are taught it by our Sauiour Ioan. 6. in these words according to most of their owne expositions Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you haue not life in you Thus
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
Church but whether by diuine right and by Christs appointment he were head of the Catholique Church Now hauing perused Brerely I cannot find any Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point Thus you From these words we haue this great Truth which by the consent of ancient Records vniuersal Tradition is most certaine and vndeniable that S. Peter and his successour for the time was euer acknowledged to be the Head of the Catholique Church with authority ouer it in all Ecclesiasticall causes You adde that the point here issuable and controuerted betwixt Protestants and vs is not whether he had his authority for hereof you seeme to suppose that Protestants make no controuersy but only whether by diuine right and our Lords appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church Now I assume If he were Head of the Church he was so by diuine right Christs appointment and could not be so by human institution How proue I this Euen by your owne words Pag. 60 nu 22. For the deciding of ciuill controuersies men may appoint themselfes a Iudge but in matters of Religion this office may be giuen to none but whome God hath designed for it Thus you hence I inforce the Conclusion by ioyning together in forme of discourse your two Propositions S. Peter and the Roman Bishop his Successour was euer held by the consent of Fathers the Head the Pastour the Iudge of the Catholike Militant Church But he could not be so by the appointment of men Ergo he was so by diuine right and by the institution of Christ our Lord. 22. And I wonder what did bleare your eyes in perusing Brerely that you could not see in him so much as one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with vs in this point For doth he not cite the Centurists that is a messe of Protestants at once who reprehend Tertullian for agreeing herein with vs saying (a) Centur 3. c. 4. col 84. lin 60. edit Basileae Tertullian did erroneously thinke the Keyes to haue bene committed to Peter alone and the Church to be builded on him Who charge S. Cyprian for his affirming (b) Centur 3. c 4. the Church to haue beene built vpon Peter and one (c) Col. 84. lin 60. Chaire founded by our Lords voyce vpon the rocke and that (d) Col. 84 lin â—4 there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholique Church and for calling Peters Chayre (e) Col. 84 li. 19. the principall Church from whence Priestly vnity ariseth and lastly for his teaching say they without any foundation of Scripture that (f) Col 84. lin 51. the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other the Mother and roote of the Catholique Church They likewise reprehend as a corrupt saying concerning the Primacy of the Roman Church that of Irenaeus All Churches ought to agree with the Roman Church in regard of a more powerable Principality 23. You more then once fall vpon (g) Cap. 6. n. 30. This is falsly translated say you for conuenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam euery body knowes signifies no more then to resort c. Cardinal Peron his noble Translatresse about this place Ad quam propier potentiorem principatitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclepam which they turne thus in English To which Church it is necessaerie that euery Church should agree in regard of more powerfull principality you say they make bold with the Latin tongue as though conuenire did signifie to agree wheras it doth signifie to resort Hence of this sentence ad quam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam you make this construction To this Church by reason of the powerfull principality it hath ouer all the adiacent Churches there is and awayes hath bene a necessity of perpetuall recourse of all the faythfull round about Thus you shewing your selfe to be no better a Grammarien then you are a Christian Who euer did deny that conuenire according to the property of the Latin tongue doth signifie to agree rather then to resort I thinke the Lady translatresse and euery Lady that vnderstands English know that to resort is to repayre frequently to a place which conuenire doth no more signifie then to leape ouer a ditch 24. But this is your audacity to make bold with Latin and then rayle against others who translate according to the property of the Latin whereof I can giue another exemple S. Austin against some abuses in his time sayth Quae in diuinis libris saluberrimè praecepta sunt minùs curantur This say you I suppose I may (a) Cap. 2 n. 47. pag. 156. Edit 1. pag. 150. lin 6. Edit 2. Cap. 3. n. 16. li. 10. very well render in our Sauiours words The commandements of God are layd aside Thus you and vpon this false translation you slander and rayle at the Church in S. Austins time as vniuersally superstitious for two pages togeather 25. Item Pag. 176. n. 76. in this place of S. Paul to Timo thy Quomodo oporteat te in demo Dei conuersari quae est Ecclesia Dei viui columna firmamentum Veritatis you will haue columna firmamentum veritatis not to be referred to the Church with which it agreeeth in case but to Timothy which is the accusatiue case by subaudition of the particle As te vt columna firmamentum veritatis in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iust as if one should say to you vt scias quomodo oporteat te subdi Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi qui est successor Sancti Augustini primas Angliae amicus veritatis you should contend that amicus veritatis were referred from his Grace to your selfe by this construction quomodo oporteat te amicus veritatis subdi c. 26. But to returne to the place of S. Irenaus I say that conuenire doth signity to agree not only when it is referred to a thinge by the preposition Cum as Conuenire cum alique but also many times when it is referred by the preposition Ad. When Cicero sayth (a) Pro Sylla Conuenit ad eum haec contumelia will you translate this reproach resorteth to him and not agrees to him When he sayth (b) Lib. 3. de finibus De re rustica c 6. Varro lib. 1. cap. 19. Conuenit optimè ad pedem cothurnus will you translate the buskin resorteth to the foote and not agrees with the foote when Cato and Varro say as they do often conueniunt hae vites ad quemuis agrum will you translate these vine-trees resort to any soyle and not agree with any soyle When Plautus sayth conueniebat ad vaginam tuam machaera militis will you translate the blade of the soldier resorted to thy scabbard and not agreed with thy scabbard Surely if you do you may giue the Lady Translatresse iust cause to smile at your simplicity as now she hath
holdes his discourse to be infallible and (a) Preface n. 12. By discourse no man can possibly be lead into errour that thereby he cannot possibly be lead into errour Protestants all of them great and little men women belieue with explicite fayth all things whatsoeuer are plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Is not this ridiculous Credat Iudaeus Apella Non ego You say it is ridiculous that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree and then say we agree in all matters of fayth And yet presently you say that Protestāts if they were wise wold do so too to wit agre that those things onely wherein they agree be matters of fayth then stop our mouthes when we reproach them with disagreements by saying they agree in all matters of fayth because matters of fayth be those onely wherein they agree Is this discourse coherent If it be ridiculous in us to do so how were it wisedome for Protestants to do the same And how haue they reason reason inough why they might do so Though also it be false that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree We define matters of fayth to be all doctrines proposed by the Church as her traditions or definitions wherein all Catholiques must agree The fourth Conuiction 18. I proue directly by the word of God the Roman Church that is the Church subiect to S. Peter and his successour to be the Church of one denomination which is the pillar and ground of truth There was alwayes as you haue confessed by force a Catholique visible Church by duty in deed the teacher of necessary truth that no Church is fit or able to performe this office which is not of one denomination Ergo this church was built dependently vpō one Rocke subordinately to one visible head by Christ Iesus our Lord because such a Church could not be instituted but by him as is manifest But Christ did not institute or build any Church of one denomination but onely on S. Peter Thou art Peter a Rocke and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church Math. 16. Ioan 21. To the I will giue thee keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen Doest thou loue me feed my lambes feed my sheepe What can be more cleere Now this power of Rocke to vphold this authority of Pastour to guide this Superiority of Head to gouerne the vniuersall Church of one denomination was to descend and did descend to S. Peters successours This cannot be denied because this Church was to be alwayes successiuely in the world Ergo the Rocke sustayning it the Pastour guiding it the Head ruling it was to be alwayes successiuely in the world which is to say that S. Peter must alwayes haue a successour in the Headship of the one Church which I further more prooue in this manner 19. If the institution of the Apostles to be Priests by these wordes do this in remembrance of me do import that the Apostles should haue successours in their Priesthood then this institution of S. Peter to be the one Pastour and Guide of the Church doth import that he should haue a successour in that office of Pastour For as Priesthood was not instituted for the Apostles sake but for the diuine worship which was to continue in the Christian Church till the world ended So the Pastourship of S. Peter ouer the one Christian Church flocke was not instituted for S. Peters sake but for the good of Christians that by adhering to one guide they might all vnitedly be lead into all truth But the Institution Do this in remembrance of me doth import successours in Priesthood Ergo this Institution feede my sheepe Cap. 2. n. 23. doth import the office of Guide and Pastour was to go to S. Peters successours vntill the consumamtion of the world But you say pag. 62. n. 23. If our Sauiour had intended that all Controuersies in Religion should be by some visible Iudge finally determined who can doubt but in playne tearmes he would haue expressed himselfe about this matter He would haue sayd playnly The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all controuersies Thus you 20. And this is your perpetuall impertinency of arguing by interrogations supposing that to be vndeniable truth which is manifest falshood for which you can say nothing This manner of arguing you vse often through whole pages and leaues togeather that should I transcribe the places I might set downe more then halfe of your booke But now to your question Who can doubt but Christ would haue said plainely the Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all Controuersies I answer euery man that hath any braines or wit in his head For such an one cannot but see that Christ our Lord could not haue said as you would haue him to haue spoken without vntruth For though he did appoint that S. Peter and his successour should be the Guide and Pastour of his flocke yet that S. Peter or his successour should be the Bishop of Rome more then of Hierusalem or Antioch this he did not appoint at the least whiles he liued on earth Why may it not suffice you that by cleere Scripture and by what you your selfe grant S. Peters successour is to be for euer the guide and Pastour of the Church of one denomination the pillar and ground of Truth Do you doubt whether the Roman Bishop be S. Peters successour or no Of this you cannot doubt if you will not stagger at your owne principle which you deliuer as vndeniable Cap. 4. nu 53. li. 20. All wise men for the assurance of truth in all matters of beliefe relye vpon the consent of ancient Records and vniuersal Tradition Now vniuersal Tradition doth deliuer by full consent that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome is his successour Or if you doubt of this you may as well doubt whether euer Iulius Caesar was at Rome The fifth Conuiction 21. THat the Bishop of Rome is appointed of God to decide all emergent Controuersies I proue by Principles acknowledged and set downe by your selfe For whereas the Mainteyner of Charity sayth that Protestants depriue S. Peter and his successours of the Authority which Christ our Lord conferred vpon them ouer his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which they reproue diuers of the most holy Ancient Fathers as Brerely sheweth at large you c. 5. n. 98. first question the worth and authority of the holy Fathers as no certaine rule of fayth then write in this sort lin 14. Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point for the point here issuable is not Whether S. Peter were head of the Church nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church nor whether he had any authority ouer it giuen him by the