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
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
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
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
You are a company of men vn willing and afrayd to vnderstand least you should do good that haue eyes to see but will not see that haue not the loue of the truth and therfore deserue to be giuen ouer to stronge delusions men that loue darknesse more then light in a word you are the blind leading the blind Thus you And this is the flat downe right plain songe you promised your reader without any discords in it for it is rust that tune of concord and harmonious concent which scoldes vse to singe when they rayle at some modest Matrone You will I trust find by experience that we are not all such Cowards blind men and beasts as you make vs you will see that considering we haue considered your Babylon with lights and haue bene bold to enter into the darkest corners and dennes of your booke and find your Lions to be but of the Cuman kind Will not you say I haue made a diligent and seuere search into your booke if I can out of it produce two propositions which ioyned togeather conclude in good forme against your head what I am loath to vtter worse blindnesse then you object to vs wheras the present Church is not capable of such folly 26. None can belieue contradictions at once but such as are Fooles and haue their braynes crackt This you suppose Cap. 6. n. 33. lin 14. vnlesse you will say that they S. Austin and the African Bishop◠were all so foolish as to belieue direct contradictions at once And c. 5. nu 105. lin 40. (a) 2. Edit pag. 292. n. 105. lin 40. Who can ioyne togeather in one brayne not crackt these assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable In the Roman Church there are no errors at all And (b) 2. Edit pag. 10. lin ◠Pag. 10 lin 12. It is an apparent contradiction That a man should dis belieue what himselfe belieues to be a truth And 2. Edit pag. 10. lin ◠Cap. 5. n. 59. That a man who is persuaded that your Church doth erre in these things should together belieue these things true is implicatio in termini as Schoolemen speake a contradiction so plaine as one word destroyeth the other Thus you and yet that foolery that men may belieue contradictions at once you affirme and proue it by your owne experience (d) 2. Edit pag. 20◠lin 6. Pag. 215. lin 3. Though there can be no damnable Heresy vnlesse it cōtradict some necessary truth yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresy and this Truth because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions Thus you wherein you manifestly contradict your selfe and practise what you say no man can do whose braynes be not crakt For what contradiction can be more plaine direct then this betwixt your two sayings It is no contradistion that a man belieue contradictions at once the same doctrine to be heresy and truth It is apparent contradiction so plaine as one word destroyeth another that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions or should belieue that to be Falshood which he belieues to be Truth 27. No man therfore in his wits can belieue contradictions at once only crackt brayns can thinke they do it when they do it not as mad-men imagine they fly when they rest in their bed In which number you ranke your selfe Cap. 4. n. 47. Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions I willingly grant but to say it is impossible is against euery mans experience and allmost as vnreasonable as to do the thing which is said to be impossible Thus you that other men besides your selfe belieue or think they belieue in their heart contradictions at once you cannot say but only by the experience you haue of your selfe that you do in your conceyt hartily belieue contradictions and therupon imagine that other men doe the like Now put togeather your two assertions Whosoeuer thinketh he can belieue contradictions at once is a foolish creature hath his brayne crackt I William Chillingworth know by experience that I can belieue contradictions as the same time What of this O that you would conclude what these premises vrge you vnto Therfore I will neuer more trust my owne wit and discourse in matters of religion I wil abandon those false principles Preface n. 12. He that followeth his owne discourse still followeth God By discourse no man can possibly be lead into errour I will take the Church for my guide which is constant in the truth and cannot oppose herselfe as I my selfe confesse 28. For so you do (f) 2. Edit p. 32. lin 7 Pag. 33. lin 9. It is impossible the Church should oppose the Church I meane the present Church oppose it selfe Now seeing men are naturâmendaces mutable subiect to errour to change and to be contrary to themselues this impossibility of opposing it selfe which you attribute to the Church must of necessity be acknowledged to be a Diuine priuiledge caused by the continuall assistāce of the spirit of Wisdome in whom and his doctrine there is not est and non est 2. Cor. 1.18 as the Apostle sayth Hence I conclude the infallibility of the Church You say Pag. 215. lin 29. that he that belieues the Bible and togeather belieues some errours against the Bible contradicteth himselfe belieuing contradictions at once But it is impossible you say that the present Church should oppose and contradicte it selfe Therfore it is impossible that the present Church belieuing the Bible should hold any errour against the Bible 29. Except perchance you will say that the Church can do thinges impossible as you say your selfe can In proofe wherof I giue one instance insteed of many Your aduersary vrgeth you often hard to set downe a Catalogue of your Fundamentals of fayth You after many tergiuersations say at last (h) 2. Edit 193. lin 10. Pag. 201. lin 25. To set downe a catalogue of Fundamentalls because to some more (g) 2. Edit pag. 206. lin 27. is fundamentall to others lesse to others nothing at all had bene impossible And (i) 2. Edit pag. 129. l. 15. Pag. 134. lin 25. This variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of fundamentalls and proues your request as vnreasonable as if you should desire vs to make a coate to sit the Moone in all her changes Can you make this impossible Catalogue of the Fundamentalls of your Church that is a coate for the moone in all her changes Yes surely you say you can (k) 2. Edit pag. 154. l. 21. Pag. 160. n. 53. lin 25. I could giue you an abstract of the essential parts of christianity if it were necessary but I haue shewed it not so and at this time I haue no leasure to do you courtesies so trouble some to my selfe Thus you Nor will we request
you to do vs courtesies impossible which are I confesse troublesome things to be done and the doing of them requires time longer then Eternity only we will beseech you as you tender the good of your soule to do a courtesy to your selfe very possible to be done That you will reflect that you being a man witty and brought vp in learning it were not possible you should fall into such contradictions as these are were not the hand of diuine permission therin for the eure of your capital euil which is Confidence in your owne wit and contempt of the Whole Catholique Church as of a company of only blindmen and beasts It is not weaknesse of wit but dizzinesse of pride which makes you thus reele in your writing as euen here you do againe You auerre that to some more is fundamental to others lesse to others nothing at all Which is not only against D. Potter but your selfe haue in your booke contradicted it I am sure more then twenty times as Cap. 3. n. 20. lin 9. Points fundamental be those only which are reuealed by God and commanded to be prach't to all and to be belieued of all If fundamentall points be those only which are to be (b) D. Potter p. â—11 preacht vnto all and to be belieued of all how is it possible that there should be some points fundamental for some only and not for all The seauenth Conuiction 30. VVIth this Conuiction I meane to conclude this first Chapter and answere your chiefe argument against our grounding Fayth on the authority of the Church for say you the infallibility of the Church the Principle we build on is not euident of it selfe and therfore needeth proofe It cannot be proued by tradition because none can be shewed for it nor by Scripture because the Scripture is receaued vpon the authority of the Church and so the Church must be belieued infallible before we belieue Scripture wherefore it cannot be proued by Scripture except we will runne round in a circle saying We belieue the Scripture to be Canonical because the Church which is infallible sayth so and We belieue the Church to be infallible because the Scripture Canonicall sayth so To get out of this circle we must say that we belieue the Scripture to be the word of God because the Church infallible in all her proposalls doth so affirme and the Church to be infallible we belieue because our natural reason guided by the motiues of credibility and prudential motiues doth persuade vs that it is so This argument by the repetition whereof your booke is growne into a great bulk I could answere by retorsion and shew that you are forced to dance the round in a circle though many times you runne in and out by contradicting your selfe But I will not goe so far about I answere directly that the Church may be considered either as deliuering Traditions receaued from the Apostles or as defining Controuersies of fayth which for the present arise The infallibility of the Church as deliuering Traditions is not proued by Scripture nor by tradition but is euident of it selfe for the authority of the Church deliuering Traditions by liuely voyce is nothing else See conuict 1. n. 7. but the authority of vniuersall tradition which Authority you graunt to be euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on And on what principle can Christian Fayth rest but on that which is infallible by relying wheron we cannot be deceaued 31. You are a man so courteous and kind to the Church of Rome as for her sake you will deny your selfe you will destroy your owne writing you will grant this infallibility of the Church in plaine termes to do her a pleasure Cap. 2. n. 44. lin 6. There is no repugnance but we may be certaine inough of the vniuersal Tradition of the ancient Church c. and not certaine inough of the definitions of the present Church vnlesse you can shew which I am sure you neuer can do that the infallibility of the present Church was alwaies a Tradition of the ancient Church Now your maine businesse is to proue the present Church infallible not so much in consigning ancient traditions as in defining emergent controuersies Thus you In which words I note how you shuffle and imply in saying We cannot shew tradition for the infallibility of the present Church for tradition is a liuely voyce to be heard and belieued of such as haue eares to heare not a thing of sight to be shewed in books Do not you say nothing is proued true by being written in a booke but only by tradition of liuely voyce which is credible for it selfe Why then do you require proofe of that which you say nedeth (a) Cap. 4. n. 53. l. 24. Tradition is such a principle as may be rested on and which requires no other proofe no proofe And how can you deny the tradition for the infallibility of present Church against emergent Heresies seing it is consigned to her Children by the present Church which you do not deny to be infallible in consigning ancient traditions It is true you do not in this place make vs of this truth an absolute deed of gift you are afrayd it goes something against your heart but you will be presently more kind-hearted For in the next Cap. 3. n. 45. you speak thus to your aduersary You were to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as vniuersal as the tradition of the vndoubted bookes of Scripture c. not therfore in her vniuersall traditions were you to proue the Church infallible but in all her decrees and definitions of Controuersies Behold now you grant willingly and with all your heart that the present Church is infallible in her vniuersall Traditions but not in all her definitions With this your grant we remaine content for the present and for the grant of the second we shall expect your leasure for you will grant it in the end as shall be shewed in the 7. Chapter 32. This grant of the Churches infallibility in deliuering Traditions you confirme vnto vs by the authority of S. Austine cap. 3. n. 43. For to his testimony broght by Charity mantayned That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwais been kept is most rightly belieued to be deliuered by Apostolicall authority you answer Very right and what then therfore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controuersies Thus you and then you fall to skoffe at your learned Aduersary saying You are at your wits end to find some glue or soder or cement or chaine or thred or any thing to tye togeather the Autecedent and the Consequent of his Enthimemes and so wish him when he writes againe to write nothing but syllogismes I belieue what you say that in writing thus scornefully and crakingly you were at your wits end that is at that end of your wit you prefixed vnto it when
you vndertooke to answer Charity mantayned For it appeareth by your vntaught base manner of answering that your end was only by petulant abusing the modesty of the Authour to obscure as much as you might the cleere truth of that excellent Worke. So you doe here forging an Enthimeme he neuer thought on making a conclusion which he did not intend to proue in this place and yet would you turne your wit the right way and vse it to that end for which God bestowed the same on you you would easily find a proposition which doth tye the Antecedent and Consequent euen of this by you so scorned Enthymene with an vnsoluble knot 33. But to my purpose you grant with S. Austin that whatsoeuer the whole Church holds and deliuers not as a thing ordayned by Councels but as alwaies kept is most righty beliened to be an Apâ—stolical Tradition so that the testimony of the present Church in deliuering traditions is credible and most worthy to be belicued for it selfe without other proofe and (p) Edit pag 113. n. 163. li. 26. pag. 119. n. 12. you say S. Austen sayes that Christ hath recommended the Church to vs for a credible Witnesse of ancient Tradition not for an infallible Definer of all emergent CoÌ„trouersies which supposed I would know how with this truth that can consist which you write (q) 2. Edit p. 61. lin 1. Pag. 63. lin 30. The truth is that neither the Scripture nor the present Church hath any thing to do in this matter for the question which be Canonical bookes cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Church How hath the present Church nothing to do in deciding the question which be canonical bookes if her testimony be infallible in this matter if herein she do the part of a credible witnesse Haue you any glue or sodder or cement or chayne or threed to tye these your two sayings togeather Or rather haue you any chaine to kepe them asunder that they come not to fight and mutually to murther ech other Also what you say (r) 2. Edit pag. 147. lin 1. Paeg. 152. lin 44. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical c. who can secure vs that human inuentions might not in a short time gayne reputation of Apostolique how doth this agree with what you say in the next lines after Cap. 3. n. 45. That the Church in her vniuersall Traditions is as infallible as Scripture Do not you also affirme That Tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by credible for it selfe fit to be rested on how can this be true if we can haue no warrant no security but that the vniuersal Traditions of the Church may be false and forged not deliuered by the Apostles but à quocunque traditore inuentions of men and if there be no warrant but that vniuersal Traditions may be false what warrant is there that you haue the true vncorupt text of Scripture not depraued by the secret creeping in of damnable errours Do not you say Pag. 55. n. 8. that these bookes cannot be proued Canonicall but only by Tradition and cap. 2. n. 114. It is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue men to belieue Scripture If then vniuersal Tradition be fallible if there be no warrant no security of the certainty therof how are you secure that you haue the true text of the true Canonical bookes of Scripture But of this more in the next Chapter 34. By what hath bene said your so often repeated yea perpetuall and only argument of the circle is shewed to be friuolous and you running about therin haue made your head so dizzy as you forget your selfe For in arguing you alwayes presume without any proofe that the infallibility of the present Church deliuering Traditions or which is all one that the credibility of the vniuersal Tradition of the Church is not euident of it selfe A supposition which you neuer would haue presumed had not that bene out of your mind which you often affirme and confirme that the authority of vniuersal Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on No lesse vnproued yea more worthy to be reprou'd is your other b presumption that we do not so much as pretend that there are certaine euident notes to know the true Church and discerne it from all others nor that it is euident of it selfe that those notes agree only to our Church all men will wonder how you could be so ignorant or not being ignorant how you would be so bold For who doth not know we teach that the Church is knowne by visible markes euen euident to sense as succession Vniuersality and Vnity and that these markes do shine manifestly and conspicuosly only in the Roman Christianity Which truth is a necessary sequele of your doctrine That tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by fit to be rested on and euidently credible for it selfe Behold the deduction therof 35. That Church only is the true christian Church which hath vniuersall Tradition of Doctrines euidently credible for it selfe This is cleare because if Tradition credible of it selfe be the rule to iudge all Controuersies by and the only meanes to know which be Canonicall Scriptures then the Church which wants Tradition credible of it selfe wants the fundamentall Principle and ground of all Christianity and so cannot be the true christian Church But that Church only hath Tradition of doctrines credible of it selfe whose Tradition of Doctrines is euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles euidently vniuersall by diffusion ouer the world euidently one and the same in the mouth of all the reporters therof For Tradition which is not perpetuall from the Apostles but hath a knowne after-beginning wants credibility that it is Christian Tradition which is not vniuersall and notorious to the whole world but clancular and in a corner wants credibility that it is from the Apostles and the sound of their vniuersall preaching Tradition which is not one and the same but dissonant in the mouth of diuers reporters wants credibility that it is from truth and not a deuise of human fiction or of deceiued discourse from Scripture Ergo the Church whose Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe must be euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles Vniuersall by the notorious preaching of her Tradition diffused ouer the world One and the same and vniforme in all her Professours so that they all agree in the beleefe of all doctrine deliuered vnto them by the full consent of Tradition For they who of Traditions deliuered by full consent choose some and reiect others are Choosers that is Heretiques Nor can such Choosers choose but there will be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ variety of choyce and consequently dissension wherby they will appeare a company voyd of all authority and credit to testify what is the true Christian Tradition from the Apostles These be
marke wherat it aymeth the worke it laboureth with all might and mayne to bring to passe is the total ouerthrowe of Christianity In the first Chapter I haue shewed that you resolue Christian Religion into naturall reason wherby you destroy the Diuinity therof In the second that you make the same to stand vpon principles and motiues credible but fallible wherby you vndermine the absolute certainty therof In this third Chapter I am to shew you ouerthrow the truth therof and make the same stayned with ignorance and errour not only in the whole current of Tradition from the Apostles but also in the fountayne therof the holy Ghospel and in our Sauiour and Lord Christ Iesus the Authour The first Conuiction 1. YOv thrust a mortall stabbe into the heart of Christian Religion through S. Augustine his side whiles you charge his speach with palpable falshood which is the expresse word of Christ S. Austine say you ca 6. n. 14. in fine as he was in the right in thinking that the Church was extended further then Africk so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it alwayes must be so but most Palpably Mistaken in conceauing that it was then spread ouer the whole earth and knowne to all nations which if passion did not trouble you and make you forget how lately almost halfe of the world was discouered and in what state it was then found you would very easily see and confesse Thus you Vnto whome I say what the same S. Augustine sayd to Maximinus an Arian that is almost the same though not altogether so bad as a Sociniam Aduersu◠Maximinum lib. 2. c. 2. O quam de proximo te corrigeres si timeres credere quod times dicere O how soone would you reclayme your selfe did you feare to belieue in heart what you feare to say in words For although you dare not openly professe with the Samosatenians yet you dare belieue that Christ Iesus is a meere man that he was ignorant that there were any such people as Americans in the world and so out of ignorance vttered a palpable falshood when he said Luc. 24.47 that his Apostles should preach pennance in his name vnto all Nations that they should be witnesses vnto him not only in Ierusalem Iewry Samaria but also vnto thee vt most of the world Hereby he induced the Euangelists to mistake Mar. vlt. and falsely say that the Apostles going preached Euery Where our Lord working with them and confirming the word by signes that followed And S. Paul Rom. 〈◊〉 18. that the Apostolicall Preaching was spread into all Lands and their words vnto the endes of the world If I say S. Augustins saying that the Church was spread ouer all Nations in his dayes be a palpable falshood because it was not then in America then the prophesyes of our Lord that his Apostles should spread his name and plant Christianity in all Nations as also the testimony of the Ghospell that this was performed by the Apostles were also manifest mistakes and if the Ghospell be mistaken in one poynt through ignorance in the Author thereof we can be certayne of nothing 2. For if one confesse that our Sauiour was true God and knew all things and that there were Americans at that tyme he must say that eyther our Lord willlingly spake an vntruth in saying the Apostles should preach to all nations so by admitting on lye to be in one saying of the Ghospell he destroyeth the certainty of all or he must say that the Apostles preached to the Americans and made them Christians and if they were Christians in the dayes of the Apostles how can you tell they were not also in the dayes of S. Austine or finally he must confesse the truth that this speach of the Ghospell that the Church was euery where and in all nations was a most certayne and infallible truth euen when the Americans were not Christians nor had heard of Christ But this you deny and call it a palpable falshood so cleere as euery man not blinded with passiō doth now perceaue the falshood thereof Ergo you deny the Ghospell which you grant to be the word of God and consequently you are a formall Hereticke c. 2. n. 122. you do a thing not only impious but also impossible that any Christian should do as you say cap 4. n. 4. lin 19. a supposition impossible cap. 3. n. 35. lin 21. you do a thing you professe against saying you would not be moued from the truth of the Ghospell or any part of it euen by the preaching of an Angell from heauen So that your last refuge must be ro confesse that to call S. Austins speach which is the expresse word of Christ a palpable falshood you were persuaded not by an Angell from Heauen but by the spirit of errour which makes you hate subiection to the one vniuersall visible Church The second Conuiction 3. YOw do not vndermine but openly digge vp the Foundations of Christianity by teaching that the Apostles through ignorance ouersight or partiality erred in matters of Religion which they were bound to know Erred I say and the whole Church with them euen after the cōming of the holy Ghost for thus you write c. 3. n. 31. That the Apostles themselues euen after the sending of the holy Ghost were through inaduertence or preiudice continued for a tyme in an errour it is as I haue already noted vnansverably euident from the story of the Actes of the Apostles Thus you you auouch the same cap. 3. n 21. But in direct contradiction of this you say cap. 3. n. 74. lin 14. about the perpetuall infallibility of the Apostles according to that promise of our Lord that he would send them the holy Ghost the spirit of truth which should teach them all truth and stay with them for euer It signifyes say you not eternally without end of tyme but PERPETVALLY without interruption during the time of their liues So that the force and fense of the words is that they should neuer want the Spirits assistance in the performance of their function If the holy Ghost leading them into all truth did after his comming perpetually without interruption during the time of their liues stay with them alwayes assisting them teaching them all truth how can it be true that euen after the sending of the holy Ghost they were lead into errour and continued therein for as TIME through inaduertence or preiudice An errour so playne and manifest against the word of God and which they could not fall into without they were stupide seing the very guift of speaking the tongues of all nations which they receaued togeather with the holy Ghost still continued with them Were they so dull and heauy-hearted euen after they had receaued the holy Ghost as not to understand that by the guift of Tongues they were declared and made preachers of Christ vnto all nations vnder the cope of heauen
4. What you say that they erred and continued in errour through inaduertence and preiudice you contradict els where saying cap. 2. n. 155. that the Apostles in their persons while they were liuing were the only iudges of Controuersies And c. 2. n. 17 you say In matters of Religion none are fit to be iudges but such as are infallible And cap. 4. n. 88. lin 20. It is necessary for the constitution of infallible iudges that though they neglect the meanes of auoiding errour yet certainly they shall not erre Now can you put these propositions togeather in discourse The Apostles were whiles they were liuing the infallible guides iudges of fayth so made and ordained by the comming downe of the holy Ghost vpon them Iudges and guides infallible certainly shall not erre though they through inaduertence or preiudice neglect the meanes of auoyding errour Ergo the Apostles certainly did not erre nor deliuer errour through negligence inaduertence or preiudice And yet more to the same effect you write C. 2. n. 34. The Apostles infallibility was in a more absolute manner the Churches in a more limited sense The Apostles were lead by the Spirit into all truth efficaciter The Church is lead also into all truth sufficienter So that the Apostles and the Church may be fiftly compared to the Starre and the Wisemen The Starre was directed by the fingar of God and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was But the Wisemen were lead by the starre to Christ lead I say not efficaciter or irresistibiliter but sufficienter so that if they would they might follow it if they would not they might choose 5. But you stay not long in this conceyte of their absolute infallibility and being irresistably lead into all truth for within two or three pages you say that the promise of not erring was made them but vpon condition if they were not negligent and if they kept their station And. cap. 3. n. 77. Our Sauiour sayd to his disciples Yea are the salt of the earth not that this quality was inseparable frō their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue beene so of necessity could not haue beene otherwise in vaine had he put them in feare of that which followes If the salt lose the sauour wherwith shall it be salted Behold how you faulter before they were lead into all truth of necessity efficaciter irresistibiliter now not infallibly not of necessity they were in possibility to erre Neyther yet do you take vp your standing heere (a) Cap. 6. n. 〈◊〉 you runne into the contrary extreme that the Apostles could not lose the sauour of sanctity or charity and truth because it is certayne they could not haue any worldly or sinister intentiō in their preaching And then agayne to the contrary cap. 2. n. 93. This were to crosse the end of our creation which was to be glorifyed by free obedience To conclude for I am weary with the following of your light-headed guide fetching frisks euery way you iumpe at last vpon a truth the direct contradiction of that you sayd of the Apostles erring for a tyme about the Churches Vniuersality For you say cap. 6. n. 14. The Apostles who preached the Ghospell in the beginning did belieue the Church vniuersal though their preaching in the begining was not so They did belieue the Church vniuersall euen in your sense that is vniuersall de iure though not de facto Thus you Now this proposition The Apostles euen in the beginning before their preaching was vniuersall when they preached to Iewes only did beleeue the Church vniuersall de iure by diuine law is it not a direct contradiction of this The Apostles in the beginning before their preaching was vniuersall did not belieue the Church vniuersall de iure by diuine law yea they erred thinking it was against the diuine law to preach vniuersaly or to any but Iewes It is well that your wit the guide of your fayth doth professe that it can belieue contradictions at once this Heresy and this Truth otherwise it could not be the guide of that Religion you maintayne in your booke The third Conuiction 6. FRom the Apostles you passe to the second age after Christ accusing the vniuersal Tradition of that Primitiue Church as stayned vniuersally with impure and corrupt doctrine Cap. 5. n. 91. lin 41. seeking to answere what Charity Maintayn'd obiects that sundry Protestants acknowledge many of our doctrines to be taught by the ancient Fathers you say No antiquity except it be absolute and primitiue is a certaine signe of true doctrine For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption as we pretend it was who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption might not get in and preuaile in the 5. or 4 or 3. or 2. age Especially seing the Apostles assure vs that the mistery of iniquity was working though secretly euen in their times If any man aske how could it become vniuersal in so short a time let him tell me how the errour of the Millenaries and the Communicating of Infants became so soone vniuersal and then he shall acknowledge what was done in some was possible in others Thus you Which you repeate and inculcate more then fourty times at the least wherein you are like to the false witnesses to one of the which Daniel said very well Thou hast spoken falsely against thy owne head for the Angell of God shall deuide thee with a sword in the middes and doe thee away You are false against the spouse of Christ the holy primitiue Church as that witnesse was against Susanna and the same punishment of diuision and contradiction against your selfe is by God's iust sentence fallen on your head 7. You are false in saying so many times that the doctrine of the Millenaries to wit of Christs earthly Kingdome in the earthly Ierusalem full of all earthly felicity for a thousand yeares was deliuered as you say pag. 347. lin 24. as an Apostolicall Tradition that it was vniuersally receaued taught by all the Doctours and Saints and Martyrs of or about that time whose iudgement in this point is any way recorded This to be false is proued by your falsification of S. Iustine Martyr whome you make say that all good and orthodoxe Christians in his time belieued it and only hereticks denied it for his words are I and the Christians who are rightly persuaded in all things belieue the Resurrection of the bodies a thousands yeares in the new Ierusalem It is true all good Christians belieue the Resurrection of the body which you skippe ouer because Socinians do not belieue it in the Christian sense and a thousand yeares of felicity in the new Ierusalem in heauen not vpon earth Yea S. Iustine in that place doth plainly confesse that Many (q) Multos qui purae piaeque sunt Chriistianorum sentētiae hoc non agnoscere tibi significan◠who are of the
pure and pions Christian fayth did hold against this conceyt of Christs earthly Kingdome 8. More false you are about the Communicating of Infants for you are not able to name so much as one Father of the second age which holds it The words of Dionysius Arcepagita the only witnesse produced in this cause being short of this sense as Vasquez (r) Tom. 3. in 3. p. Disput 212. c. 2. n. 13. sheweth S. Cyprian (s) Serm. delapsis is the first that mentioned this custome to communicate sucking Infants vnder one kind to wit giuing them to (t) Paruulis saltem sub specie vini tradatur drinke of the Chalice which custome was good lawfull as all Catholiks defend (u) Concil Trid. sess 21 c. 4. It is cleere that Pope Innocentius with (w) Nisi manducauerint carnem cius non habebuÌ„t vitam significat Baptizatos vitam habere non posse praeter Christi corpus cui vt incorporentur Sacramento baptismatis imbuuntur de poceat merit râ—â— miss lib. 5. c. 4. vide serm eiusdenâ— citatum a Beda in cap. 10. ad Cor. Claud. Sanchez Rep. 6. c. 7. S. Austine and other Fathers disputing against Pelagius who denied Originall sinne and taught that Children were saued dying without Baptisme did by the eating of the body of Christ and drinking his bloud necessary for Infants vnderstand no more then incorporation into the mysticall body of Christ which was done by Baptisme And this was in Infants to eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud not with their owne (x) QuaÌ„uis suo corde ore id non agant August de peccat merit remiss lib 1. c. 20. mouth but by the mouth of the body wherof they are members to wit of the Church 9. I haue cleared the Catholick primitiue Church shewed her innocent of your slanders now I come to the second that mentitus es in caput tuum your owne false accusations light vpon your owne head that by your depositions you are proued more impudent then impudencieit selfe For c. 2. n. 163. in fine you say That it is euident and to impudence it selfe vndentable that vpon this ground of belieuing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Errour was held For example the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants and that by S. Austen himselfe and therefore certayne this is no certayne ground of truth Thus you Now what you here prononce vndeniable by impudence it selfe your selfe deny contending that S. Austin held the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants vpoÌ„ the warrant of the Tradition of all ages since the Apostles which is a proofe distinct from the doctrine and practice of the present vniuersall Chusch as you say cap. 2. n. 53. lin vlt. The credit of Tradition is not the Tradition of the present Church which we pretend may deuiate from the ancient Now that S. Austen did ground vpon the credit of Tradition Apostolicall or of all ages you say cap. 3. n. 47. in fine The pactice of communicating Infants had euen then in the tyme of S. Augustine got the credit and authority not only of Vniuersall custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition Behold the necessity of Communicating Infants is held by S. Augustine vpon the warrant not of the present Church but of the Church of all ages and places which you euen in that very place allow to be a good warrant Yea you affirme that S. Augustine in thinking the necessity of giuing the Eucharist to Infants to be a Tradition of all ages since the Apostles to his tyme was not deceiued saying pag. 152. lin 32. The doctrines of the Millenaries and the Eucharist necessity for Infants haue beene taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages you meane the. 2.3.4.5 without any (y) A manifest falshood They were contradicted by Dion Areop de Eccles Hierar c. 7. By Clem. Alex. 3. Strom. in the secoÌ„d age By Caius S. Cyprian Dionys Alexan. Euseb in the 3. opposition from any of their contemporaries and were deliuered by them not as Doctours but as Witnesses not as their owne (z) Another impudent falshood For they deliuered their Millenary doctrine as an exposition of Mille Anni of the Apocalyps c. 20. v. 3. Opinions but as Apostolick Traditions Thus you Who now is more impudeÌ„t then impudence it selfe Do not you deny S. Austins persuasion of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants to haue beene grounded on the bare vniuersall custome of the present Church And yet it is also false that S. Austine grounded the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants on the custome of the present Church or on the Tradition of all ages For though there were an vniuersall perpetuall custome of communicating Infants yet that doth not enforce that it was a thing necessary but only lawfull and godly because all vniuersall customes vsed in the primitiue Church were not necessary but pious S. Austine then his persuasion that the eating of the body of Christ was necessary for Infants he did build on the Scripture only the euidence thereof vpon this text (a) Ioan. 6.36 Except you eate the flesh and drinke the blooud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in your which testimony he termeth (b) De peccat merit remiss lib. 1. c. 20. Nisi pertinacia pugnaces neruos aduersus constantiamperspicuae veriatiâ— intendat diuinâ luce clarissimum diuinâ auctoritate certissimum so cleere as it cannot be resisted but by pertinacity it selfe 10. You contradict your selfe so farre as to proue your selfe to be a formall Heretike against God and his Word For you say (c) cap. 1. n. 13. cap. 4. n. 11. it is most impious for one to deny that to be true which he knowes or belieues to be Gods word In so much that if one be persuaded though falsely euen by the Diuell himselfe that it is the word of God if he disbelieue it you say he is (d) cap. 2. n. 122. a formall Heretike But you professe your selfe not only persuaded but conuinced not by the Diuels discourse but by the (e) cap. 2. n. 25. euident credibility of the thing that vniuersall Tradition since the Apostles is the word of God vnwritten as certaine and infallible as Scripture (f) cap. 3. n. 45. the rule of fayth to iudge all controuersies by And yet you say that this Tradition this word of God vnwritten is fallible yea false and erroneous in some particulars Could you haue professed greater impiety or more formall emnity agaynst God and his word 11. Thirdly by your contradictions and diuisions agaynst yourselfe you deuide your selfe from Christ saluatioÌ„ cap. 6. n. 1. you say that it is most absolutely indispensablely destructiue of saluation to deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the word of God But you are conuinced by your owne words to doe this by charging
with fallibility and falshood euen the Tradition of the primitiue Church of the very first age since the Apostles For you confesse that the Scripture cannot be proued to be the word of God by the diuinity light of the matter nor by any Apostolicall writing but by tradition c. 2. n. 8. lin 9. and cap. 2. n. 27. lin 33. ONELY by the testimony of the ancient Church Now if the only meanes to know that the Scripture is the word of God be the testimony of the anccient Church and of the primitiue Christians if you make as you do their testimony to be fallible obnoxious to errour and in many things false you make all assurance of this necessary poynt that the Scripture is the word of God impossible You contend our Catholicke Roman Church to be fallible and to haue erred in many things and thence conclude you can rely on her authority in nothing I might say you cap. 2. n. 25. lin 9. as well rest vpon the iudgement of the next man I meet or vpon the chaunce of a Lottery for it For by this meanes I only know I might erre but relying on your Church I know I should erre Thus you of the Roman church which agrees to Tradition vniuersal of the primitiue Christiās for if it be as you say it is fallible we cannot be possibly warranted that it doth not giue quid for quo a scorpion for an egge an errour in steed of Apostolicall doctrine for she hath done so you say in some other vniuersall Traditions and what was done in some was possible in others The primitiue Church as you contend did by vniuersall Tradition and full consent deliuer the doctrine of the Millenaries and of the Communion of Infants for Apostolicall which you say be errours and so it may be that the same consent of primitiue Christians hath deliuered vnto vs the Ghospell of S. Luke and of S. Marke as approued by (g) Cap. 1. n. 7. Wrote indeed by some but approued by all all the Apostles though there were neuer any such thing nor haue we any possible meanes to know whether heerein we be deceaued or no. You say cap. 2. n. 93. lin 11. It was necessary that by his prouidence he should preserue the Scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things he would haue knowne otherwise they could not haue beene knowne the onely meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished Now the onely meanes to know which Scriptures be the word of God and rule of sayth is as you confesse the testimony of the ancient Churches since the Apostles and yet you say God hath not preserued the same from vndiscernable corruption for the Church hath beene corrupt in some of her vniuersal Traditions from the Apostles so that there is no meanes to be sure that her Tradition about Scripture is incorrupt For you say what was done in some was possible in others and so we haue no warrant that the canon of Scripture is not corrupt vniuersall Tradition of the Church since the Apostles You see that I sayd true that by being a false witnesse against the incorrupt purity of the Primitiue Church you haue beene false agaynst your owne Saluation and haue lost all meanes to be assured of Sauing fayth The fourth Conuiction 12. FROM the second age you proceed affirming that still the mystery of iniquity wrought more openly in the ensuing ages and that in the dayes of S. Austin (h) Pag. 155. lin 20. cap. 3. n. 47. Second Edition pag. 149. 150. the Catholike Church it selfe did tolerate and dissemble vayne superstitions and human presumptions suffer all places to be full of them suffer them to be more seuerely exacted then the Commandements of God (i) Pag. 156. lin 1 doing therein directly against the command of the holy Ghost (k) Ibid. lin 11. permitting the diuine precepts euery where to be layd aside so that these superstitious Christians euery where might be said to worship God in vaine as well as Scribes Pharises Great variety of superstitions in this Kind were then already spread ouer the Church being different in diuers places That (m) Pag. 156. li. 36. this vniuersal superstition in the Church nourished cherished strengthened by the practise of the most and vrged with great violence vpon others as the Commandements of God might in tyme take deep roote and passe for vniuersall custome of the Church and an Apostolique Tradition he that doth not see sees nothing Finally that in S. Austins dayes the Church did not tolerate only such superstitions for but a part only and farre the lesser did tolerate them in silence but the Church or the farre greater part publiquely allowed them practised them and vrged them vpon others with great violence c. 13. Thus you write and make the face of the Church in S. Austines dayes to haue been most miserable full of superstition in which not so much as one could be saued but by repentance and leauing their superstitions which they neuer did But as it is your fury against Gods Church to vtter whatsoeuer comes into your mind to her disgrace without any care of truth so your folly is to forget presently what you haue said and speake the contrary For Cap. 6. n. 101. lin 12. you say that in S. Austin's tyme the publike seruice wherin men are to communicate was impolluted and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion which was so true as euen the Donatists did not deny it And c. 6. in fine you say The Church which then was a Virgin now may be an harlot Now if a man would haue studied to contradict your slaunder against the Church of S. Augustins tyme could he haue done it more directly The Church being then as you say it was in her communion and diuine seruice an impolluted virgin how can it stand with what you said before that Christians in all places were vrged with great violence to communicate in superstitions and vaine worships and to lay the commandments of God aside Againe you cleere the Church of that age cap. 6. n. 101. versus finem The Donatists in S. Augustines tyme were separated from the whole world of Christians vnited in one communion professing the same fayth seruing God after the same manner which was a great argument they could not haue cause to leaue them according to that of Tertullian that where there is erring there is variety of errings And is not this a variety yea a direct contradiction in your writing an vnanswerable argument that you erre and wander from the truth Now you say there was then euery where the same fayth the same communion one manner of seruing and worshipping God without any variety of superstitions and errours wheras before you said that in S. Austins dayes all places were full of vaine superstitions vaine worships with great variety of them spread ouer the Church being different in diuers places vrged with great seuerity and
violence How different are you from your selfe in diuers places To bring in your new Religion of the Bible and only the Bible you accuse the Ancient Fathers that they are with full consent opposit one to another ages against ages but in your so wisely chosen Religion there is such a perpetual fighting that there is more difference betwixt two of your pages then betwixt all Christian ages 14. I must note in this place to answere a seely calumniation against our Church the only argument in your Booke that may trouble an ignorant Reader because it requires some litle historical erudition to confute it that though you feigne the Church in the dayes of S. Augustine full of great variety of superstitions yet you say that the Donatists did falsely calumniate Catholikes that they did set Images vpon their Altars and (n) Cap. 6. n. 101. S. Austine doth not iustify the Church saying as we would haue done in that case Those pictures were worshipped not for their owne sake but for them who were represented by them but doth abhorre the thing and deny the imputation Behold here a tale of a Tub or of I know not what For cap. 6. n. 16. you acknowledge that S. Augustine makes no mention of any picture but by a Rhetoricall figure calles it I know not what but say you compare him with Optatus and you shall plainly perceaue that this I know not what pretended to be set vpon the Altar was indeed a picture Behold in this your second telling the tale of a Tub or of I know not what you are fallen from pictures to a picture granting that the Donatists did not accuse Catholicks for setting vp all kind of pictures in the Church or vpon the Altar but for a picture I will not stand to note and shew the ridiculous vanity of the inference you tacitly make It was a picture Ergo the picture of Christ or of some Saint but tell the Reader what that picture was and of whome to wit of Constans the Emperour Sonne to Constantine the Great This most pious Christian Emperour as Optatus relates sent two chief noble men of his Court Paulus and Macarius eminent for Christian piety and wisdome in Ambassadge into Africke with (o) Cum elee mosynis quibus subleuata per Ecclesias singulas possit respirare vestiti pasci gaudere paupertas great liberalities to bestow on poore Christians Donatists especially hoping by this courtesy to win their hearts vnto vnity with the Church The Bishops of the Donatists fearing the successe of this Imperial liberality did mightily maligne the two Noblemen especially Macarius whome they somtimes assaulted in his iourneys put him in danger of his life sought to take from him by force that Imperial treasure because in one assault they made some two Donatists were slayne they presently proclaymed them Martyrs (p) Aug. contr liter as Pitil l. 2. c. 39. Macarius a Persecutour a Pagan and called Catholiques Macarians of him Amongst other tales and slanders they gaue out that (q) Falsa opinio omnium populorum aures oppleuerat Dice batur enim venturos Paulum Macarium qui interessent sacrificio vt cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur preferrent illi imaginem sic Sacrificiū offerretur Optat. lib. 3. circa finem 2. Edition pag. 331. lin 9. 2. Edition pag. 322. lin 15. Paulus and Macarius when they were present at the Christian sacrifice vsed to set vp the image of the Emperour on the Altar and that before it sacrifice was offered and the oblations of the people made wherof the Reader may be more fully informed in Baronius Anno 348. Behold the best argument erudition of your Booke what a poore snake it is being brought to light out of the lurking hole of your darke and dimidiate narration of the fact The fifth Conuiction 15. YOu often affirme that the whole Church cānot vtterlyperish nor loose its Essence and Being cap. 3. n. 78. You know we grant must grant that the Church still holdes all necessary truths for it is of the essence of the Church to doe so But pag. 347. l. 21. You fay the cōtrary The Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also nay the whole Church of the Gentils might fall if they lookt not to ther standing Pag. 338. lin 11. speaking agaynst the priuiledge of infallibility of the Roman Church Me thinks you say S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but haue congratulated this their priuiledge to them bad he acknowledged that their sayth was the rule for all the world for euer But then sure he would haue forborne to put them in feare that they nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not looke to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Iewes had done Cop. 3. n. 30. in fine It is in the power of she Church to deuiate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which euery one has free will is subiect to passion and errour This your reason conuinceth if your suppositiō be true to wit that the Church is NOTHING else but meere men left to their ntture hauing freewill subiect to passion and errour But for my part I did euer and shall still belieue that no true Christian will be so profane as to thinke that in the Church there is freewill without diuine grace nothing but nature subiect to passion and errour without the spirit of God guiding them into all truth the Church being the mysticall Body animated with his spirit which she shall neuer abandone 16. Nor doth S. Paul fright the whole Church of Rome much lesse the whole Church of the Gentils with possibility of falling away into Infidelity but sayes in the singular number (r) Rom. 11. thou standest by fayth be not high minded but feare to shew that he speaketh of euery single Christian that he may fall away from the faith on the other side he sayth in the plurall nūber (s) Rom. 1.4 Your fayth is declared in the whole world which words the Fathers (t) Hieron Apolog aduers Ruf. Scito Romanam fidem huiusmodi praestigias non recipere Pauliauthoritate munitam non posse mutari vnderstand to signify that the fayth of the Romans shall euer be an infallible rule of Fayth to the rest of the Christian Church But more cleerly afterward in the end of his epistle (u) Rom. 16.17 Note such as make dissensions against the doctrin you haue receaued signifying that the Church of Rome hath the office to note censure all Hereticks that shall rayse discord in the Church agaynst the Roman Tradition of fayth And incontinently he sheweth the priuiledge of Diuine efficacions assistance not to erre in this office saying And the God of peace shal crush Satan vnder your feet with speed What is this but the God of peace hath made the Church of Rome the head and roote of peace and vnity as
(x) Radicem matricem Eeclesiae Catholicae Cyp Ep. 45. the Fathers terme it to the rest of the Church to crush Satan that is sayth Origen euery contradictious spirit that teacheth agaynst the doctrine of Tradition vnder their feete Which speach hath no small allusion to the Reuerence vsed by Catholicke Christians to the feete of S. Peters Successour If you had any text in Scripture but halfe as cleere agaynst the infallible authority of the Roman Church and Bishop as this is for it your triumphing vociferations that the text is cleere as the sunne would hardly be contayned vnder the cope of heauen This appeareth by your vrging the place Be not high minded but feare as threatning the whole Church of Rome with possibility of falling from Christ which seing you could not do without inuoluing in the same damnation and defectibility the whole Church of the Gentiles you professe the whole Church of God may fall away into Infidelity agaynst the promises of Christ (z) Infra c. 7. conu 9. yea agaynst what your selfe affirme an hundred tymes That scripture is not the onely Meanes or Rule to know all necessary truths or that all necessary things are not euidently contayned in Scripture CHAP. IIII. 1. IN this Chapter I lay the axe to the roote of your vnfruitfull tree couered with greene leaues of assertions without any branch or bow of strong proofe I digge vp the ruinous foundation of your Babilonicall building of confused language full of doctrines different yea opposit the one to the other I shall demonstrate that you mistake the Protestant sense of this their principle The Scripture is the onely Rule o◠All necessary poynts of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture that you vnderstand not the state of the Controuersy betwixt vs and them about Tradition vnwritten that you runne headlong on with this principle in your mouth without any bit of true sense or Christian beliefe stumbling agaynst all the Articles of Christianity whereby you get many new noble victories ouer your selfe by falling downe in flat contradiction vpon your selfe 2. To vnderstand this we must obserue that a thing may be contayned most cleerely to the seeming in some text of Scripture taken singly by it selfe which yet if places of Scripture be conferred and all things considered is but darkely and doubtfully deliuered therein For example by the saying of S. Luke that Ioseph the husbād of the Virgin Mary was the Sonne of Hely it seemes most cleere and euident that Hely was his true and naturall father neyther would any Christian haue doubted thereof had not S. Matthew written that Iacob begat Ioseph the husband of Mary so that the two texts which taken by themselselues seeme most cleere being conferred together do mutually darken obscure ech other This truth supposed the doctrine of Protestants about the question whether all poynts of necessary fayth be contayned in Scripture consists in two assertions in the one they agree in the other they disagree from vs. 3. First they teach that all necessary things of Fayth are not contayned cleerely in Scripture vnderstood by conference of places but for the cleering of ambiguytyes the Rule of fayth deliuered by Traditiō is necessary which Rule comprehends all poynts of fayth which haue beene alwayes notoriously knowne and explicitely belieued of all Christians Thus farre they and we consent There is (y) D. field of the Church lib. 4. c. 16. item c. 14. sayth D. Field betwixt our Aduersaries and vs no difference in this matter for we confesse that neyther conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the Originals ARE OF ANY FORCE vnlesse we find the things we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of fayth c. neyther is there any of our Deuines that teach otherwise Thus he 4. Secondly Protestants teach that all necessary points of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture in some text or texts of Scripture cleer and conspicuous taken by themselues so that though we need the rule of Tradition that we may assuredly vnderstand the Scriptures cōferred together yet not to deliuer vnto vs some necessary matters of fayth (z) D. Field lib. 4. c. 14. We do not so make Scripture the rule of our fayth as we neglect the other of Tradition nor so admit the other as to detractany thing from the plenitude of Scripture in which al things are contayned that must be belieued which are no wayes deliuered in Scripture Heerin there is some disagreement betwixt them and vs because we hold that some verities of necessary beliefe cannot be proued by any text of Scripture sufficiently to be a matter of fayth by that sole proofe without the help of Tradition Now you agree neither with Protestants nor with vs you maintayne that all necessary things are euidently certayne in Scripture expounded by conference of places without any rule of Traditiue interpretation yea you contend that no such rule is extant This you do not as Protestants do to establish the totall sufficiency clarity of Scriptures about the receaued articles of Christian fayth but to ouerthrow totally all explicite belief of any Christian mystery whatsoeuer as by the ensuing Conuictiō of your errour from your owne sayings will manifestly appeare For whiles you endeauour to spread this Infidelity couertly vnder the maske of a Protestant or of a Christian for want of consideration memory and wit you euery where contradict your selfe affirme and deny say and vnsay build and vnbuild The first Conuiction 5. THus you write cap. 2. n. 159. lin 9. The bookes of Scripture are not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine as requisit to the well being thereof men may be saued without belieuing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without belieuing it to be a rule and perfect rule of fayth And cap. 2. n. 33. lin 7. If men aid belieue the doctrine contayned in Scripture it would no way hinder their saluation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations S. Irenaeus speakes of were in this case yet no doubt they might be saued Yea say (b) Cap. 2. n. 159. lin 20. you though they had reiected the bookes of Scripture proposed vnto them by all the rest of the Church which receaued them I do not doubt but they might be saued God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation onely to belieue the verityes therein contayned and not the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contayned Thus you destroying your Principle that Scripture is the onely rule and the onely safe way to heauen as I proue by three arguments from these words which indeed are euident truths The first argument Christian fayth cannot be ruled and guided to saluation and attayne to heauen without the onely rule without the onely guide without the onely meanes No man in his wits can deny this Now
you say men may attaine by fayth vnto saluation without Scripture though they be wholy ignorant of Scripture as you truly say with vs yea though they actually reiect Scripture and refuse to be ruled by it though the same be proposed to them by the whole Church as you say without vs and truth Ergo Scripture is not the only rule and meanes of Saluation 6. Hence you contradict your self when you say To (c) Cap. 6. n. 19. reiect Christ or to deny the Scripture is such an heresy the beliefe of whose contrary is necessary not only necessitate praecepti sed medij and therfore is so absolutly destructiue of saluation that no ignorance can excuse it so that the Church may most truly be said to perish if she Apostate from Christ absolutly or directly reiect the Scripture denying it to be the word of God Thus you so conrradicting you selfe that if what here you write so absolutly be true your doctrine that men wholy ignorant of Scripture yea though they reiect and deny it to be Gods word may be saued is not only heresy damnable in it selfe but also Heresy Apostaticall so absolutly and indispensably destructiue of saluation as no ignorance can excuse it You are a fit man to teach others the safe way of saluation who by your owne words are conuinced to runne a way absolutly destructiue of saluation 7. The second argument If the diuine authority of the Scripture be the only rule and guide of fayth then it is so appointed of God and God requireth of men that they should belieue Scripture to be their rule as being his infallible word his only doctrine But you say God requires not that men belieue the diuine Authority of Scripture yea they may reiect this light and the direction therof without doing against any diuine ordinance or appointment How then is Scripture the only rule of fayth the only meanes and way to saluation except you will say it is the rule appointed not of God but by your selfe the deep wisdome of your excellent wit We shall doubtlesse be well guided and besure not so misse if we follow you for our guide you will teach vs to goe euery way yea contrary wayes at once to belieue contradictions at the same tyme. Consider I pray you this your saying now refuted how contrary the same is to what you write cap. 6. n. 54. in fine where you set downe the totall Summe of your new chosen Religion I am fully assured that God does not and therfore that men ought not to require any more of any man but this To belieue the Scripture to be the word of God to endeauour to find the true sense therof and to liue according to it Quo te Maeripedes Quae te via ducet ad Orcum You goe contrary wayes yet both be damnable errours and lead directly to Hell One way to damnation is belieuing that God doth require nothing els no more then that we belieue the Scripture to be his word not the verityes contayned therin but only that we endeauour to find them This way you take and it is your (d) Cap. 6. n. 57. I am verily persuaded that I haue wisely chosen after a long deliberation new wise choyce the only (e) After a long vnpartiall search I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but vpon this rock only rock of rest for the sole of your foot wearied with a long search of the true way to eternal happinesse You haue indeed found rest not for the foot of your soule but for the sole of your foot because your Religion newly chosen hath no footing in your soule but only Ventosâ linguâ pedibusque fugacibus Hence your sole in your foot wearied to stand longe vpon any persuasion flyes from this way God requires of vs that we belieue the Scripture to be his word and no more to the playne contrary That God requires of vs that we belieue the verityes contained in Scripture not the diuine authority of Scripture or that it is his word Betwixt these two contraries you fly from the one to the other without any rest or end 8. Poore wearied commiserable creature One of those wauering babes tossed this way and that way with euery gust of different fancyes Behold the only rock of rest for Christian fayth is offered you in your owne words you haue it if you know what you say if you will not stand ouer by proud ignorance but vnderstand or stand with humble beliefe vnder this your owne saying Scripture is not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being therof For on this Catholicke saying of inuincible truth I ground my third argument and by it proue that not so much the being written in Scripture as the Being taught by the Church is the rule to know which is the Christian Doctrine and to belieue it For the Being proposed and taught externally is requisit not to the well being only but to the very being of Christian Doctrine because it cannot be credible and fit to be belieued of Christian men except it be externally proposed and taught them to be of God by some credible witnesse But the Being taught which is so much of the being of Christian Doctrine is not the being taught in Scripture For this is requisit but to the well being therof as you say Ergo besides being written and taught by Scripture another external being taught is requisite which is of the very essence of Christian doctrine which makes the same credible and fit to be belieued and this can be no other but the Being taught by the Church of Christ the pillar and ground of truth So that the rocke the solid firme substantiall reason of belieuing Christian Doctrine is the Being taught by the Church and the Being written in Scripture is requisit ad melius esse to the well being thereof because we belieue it better and more assuredly when we find that which is taught by the Church to be also written in Scripture though this be not absolutly necessary to the constitution of Christian Doctrine Behold what is contayned in your words Hoc fac viues hic sta quiesces follow the counsell of S. Austin (f) Si iam satis tibi ia ctatus videris finemque huiusmodi laboribus vis imponere sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos vsque manauit de vtil The cred c. 8. which I I haue noted for you in the margent and abandon that sandy banck an imaginary rocke the Scripture is the only rule of fayth from which you are carried away into a sea of inconstant swelling fancyes which fight together like waues to the dissolution of ech other The second Conuiction 9. THis Conuiction I ground vpon this truth◠that Scripture cannot proue it selfe to be the word of God which truth you deliuer ca. 2. n. 46. That the
Diuinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it selfe alone but by some extrinsicall authority you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of vniuersall Tradition not of your Church From this truth by you granted I thus argue That cannot be the onely rule or by it selfe alone a rule of fayth with is not of it selfe able to proue and shew that which it contaynes to be the word of God For the matter of Christian Faith being the word of God onely that which caÌ„not shew it selfe to be the word of God cannot shew it selfe to be matter of Christian fayth But Scripture alone by it selfe cannot proue it selfe nor consequently the doctrine it contaynes to be the word of God but to this end needeth the extrinsecall Authority of Tradition Therefore not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned with the extrinsecall authority of Tradition is the rule of fayth 10. This defect of Scripture in respect of being the onely rule or by it selfe alone any rule of fayth you lay open cap. 2. n. 8. lin 7. Though a writing could not be proued to vs to be a perfect rule of fayth by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being said or written in a booke but onely by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe Thus you I would gladly know how can Scripture be the onely rule of fayth or by it selfe any rule of fayth if nothing be proued true nothing shewed to be the word of God barely by being written therein but onely by the light of Tradition ioyned vnto Scripture 11. Hence I inferre if Scripture by it selfe without Tradition cannot be a rule of Fayth nor shew any doctrine to be of God how much lesse can it be a rule of fayth against the vniuersal Tradition of the Church It is deep vanity in you and dull inconsideration of the consequences of your doctrine to boast as you do cap. 3. n. 40. that by Scripture you can confute the Church which taught you Scripture to be the word of God aswel say you as of my Maister in Physicke or the Mathematickes I may learne those rules and principles by which I may confute his erroneous Conclusions Thus you who verily are such a maister you speake of For you deliuer rules and principles by which you may be confuted your selfe For do not you often inculcate this Principle that the Scripture is knowne to be the word of God only by Tradition onely by the testimony of the ancient Churches If then you proue by Scripture any TraditioÌ„ of the ancieÌ„t Church to be against Scripture you shall not proue that TraditioÌ„ of the Church to be against the word of God but that you haue no sure ground to belieue the Scripture to be of God and that you were vnwise to belieue it vpon the warrant of Tradition as you say you do For the rule which may be false in one thing caÌ„not be a sure ground of beliefe in any thing May I learne this lesson of my good Maister your booke which being your scholler hath taught me many rules and principles by which I might confute his maister Pag. â—5 lin 23. The meanes to decide Controuersies in Fayth and Religion must be endued with vniuersall infallibility in whatsoeuer it propoundeth as a diuine truth For if it may be false in one thing of this nature we can yeld vnto it but a wauering and fearfull assent in any thing Thus you Wherefore if Tradition be not endued with vniuersall infallibility if it may be false in any one thing it proposeth for diuine truth it cannot be belieued with firme assent in any thing at all Now the principles of Physicke or Mathematicks are belieued because euident of themselues and not vpon the bare word tradition and authority of the maister For a scholler if he be not assured of those rules principles otherwise then by the word of his maister cannot by the authority of these rules and principles proue any thing against his maister but onely against himselfe that he is a foole eyther in belieuing these rules vpon his Maisters bare word or else in thinking he can by those rules conuince his maister of falshood In like sort you shew small iudgement discretion who persuade your selfe you are able to proue some Church-TraditioÌ„ to be against the word of God by Scripture which Scripture you belieue to be the word of God onely vpon the warrant of vniuersall Church Tradition for this is a thing impossible and implicatory as any considering man will see wherfore not only Scripture but Scripture ioyned with Tradition is a rule of Fayth consequently it is not possible to confute any Church-Tradition by Scripture The third Conuiction 12. THis conuiction is grounded on this truth that vnlearned men cannot be assured they haue the incorrupt text or the true TranslatioÌ„ of Scripture but onely by the word of the Church This you affirme pag. 79. lin 7. 2. Edit pag. 75. lin 36. It were altogether as abhorrent from the goodnesse of God and repugnant to it to suffer an ignorant lay mans soule to perish meerly for being mislead by an indiscernable false Translation which yet was commended vnto him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he hath reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired absolution Thus you from which I conuince two thinges First that the Scripture is not the rule Secondly that the Church must of necessity be still visible and infallible in guiding men to heauen The first I proue in this fort The only rule of fayth must be for the capacity of all men aswell vnlearned as learned simple as iudicious occupied in worldly affaires as disoccupied The only rule I say must be able to assure all men of the Scripture that the Text and the Translation thereof is not corrupt in any substantiall matter But Scripture is not able to do this as you do confesse and consequently there is a necessity that men vnlearned men of meane capacity men occupied in worldly affaires trust the Church Ergo not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned vnto the authority of the Church is the rule of fayth 13. Secondly that the Church is visible and an infallible guide I proue You say It is repugnant to the goodnesse of God to suffer the soules of men to perish for their trusting the Church which they had reason to trust aboue all other being of necessity to trust some If this be true and it is most true then God is bound in his goodnesse to prouide that the Church which is to be trusted aboue all other be not so bidden as it cannot without extreme difficulty be found nor fallible that it cannot without extreme danger be trusted 2. Edit cap. 6. n. 20. pag. 322. li.
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
be the only rule of fayth First That cannot be a rule of belieuing with is incredible it selfe But Scripture being seemingly contrary to it selfe and contradicting it selfe is by it selfe incredible therefore it cannot be a rule of fayth by it selfe but to be a rule of fayth it must be made credible by some extrinsecall Authority with is so worthy of credit as vpon the warrant therof we may belieue things incredible which is as you grant the rule of vniuersall Tradition 18. Secondly that cannot be the only rule or by it selfe a rule of Christian fayth with is not able to assure vs about the chiefest articles of our fayth as the Trinity Incarnation Reall presence the knowledge whereof is for Christians essentally necessary vnto saluation For if Christ Iesus be the true God consubstantiall to his father then Heretiques to wit Socinian and Arian Protesters against the Church of Rome cannot be saued by Christ seeing they refuse to belieue and worship him as the true God On the other side if Christ be not the true God then Roman Catholiques cannot be saued by the true God seing they were worshippers of a false God Now this article that Christ Iesus is the true God so absolutely necessary cannot be proued vnto them by Scripture only for about this poynt (a) Arius did alleage against the God head of Christ 40. places of Scripture and Catholiques alleage no fewer Scriptures are alleaged with so great probability on both sides that of learned Christians honest and vnderstanding men estemed pious religious true louers of God and his truth Pastours and guides in the Christian Church some haue gone one way some another as is notorious Wherefore what you say that this so probable allegation of Scriptures on both sides is a sure signe of a poynt not necessary implies Atheisme to wit that it doth not import Christians to know whether in worshipping Christ Iesus as the true God they be not worshippers of a false God And if this be Atheisme thē is it blasphemy to say that Scripture onely is the rule of Christian fayth and that Christians cannot be assured of any doctrine whereof they be not assured by the rule of Scripture onely For it is euident truth and vndeniable though other Protesters against vs will not confesse it so cleerely as you doe that where there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture where Scripture is alleadged on both sides with so great probability that learned vnderstanding and indifferent men differ about it it is cleere I say that about such points there cannot be any decision of controuersyes by Scripture onely 19. Thirdly by defending the Scripture to be the onely rule besides this blasphemy that Christians by their rule of fayth cannot be assured that they be not worshipers of a false God you are forced to adde another that on God and his word the fault lyeth that there be so many factions of fayth and so great dissenssion amongst vpright hearted Protestants for that these your true louers of God and his truth stand for contrary beliefe that in matters of Religion Christendome is deuided into Factions and Sects that some go one way and some another cursing and damning ech other to Hell is no doubt a great fault a mighty scandall an huge mischiefe which must of necessity lye heauily either vpon such Dicisioners or vpon God But you excuse the Diuisioners saying that (b) Cap. 1. n. 13. they goe some one way some another without any fault at all Ergo the whole fault must rest on God who gaue to these true louers of him his truth the Scripture for their onely rule which being it selfe as you say seemingly factious contradictious and one part therof fighting agaynst another set these innocent honest vpright hearts togeather by the eares one with the other in good earnest and implacably Thus to excuse Protestāts you protest against God that he is not the God of peace but of dissension and the authour of all the discord among Christians in matter of Religion and of all the mischiefs that are consequent thereupon by giuing a Scripture so full of seeming conflicts for the sole rule of their fayth The day will come that these boasters of their honest and vpright heart of their true loue to God and his truth shall sind the Apostles saying true Not who commendes himselfe but whome God commendes he is approued They shall see that in their trusting onely the Scripture and their owne reason in expounding it contemning the Tradition of the Church they were not louers of God his truth but fast freinds to their owne fancy and fond conceits louers of themselues adorers of their owne poore miserable wit The sixt Conuiction 20. THough we were sure that the Scripture is the word of God that we haue the incorrupt text the true translation thereof cleered from seeming contradictions yet for all this Scripture could not be to vs a rule of fayth alone by it selfe by reason of the high senses of Scripture incredible and incomprehensible to humane reason This I proue by your owne writing wherin you deliuer a grand Catholique verity which ouerthrowes the Scriptures being the onely rule Protestants pretend they know their doctrine and interpretation of Scripture to be the word of God by the diuine light and euident certainty thereof you will not belieue this resolution to be theirs and affirme the contrary cap. 6. n. 5◠That the Scripture is not euidently certaine nor of it selfe disuested of the motiues of credibility euidently credible For Protestants say you are not so vaine as to pretend that all men do assent to it which they would do if it were euidently certaine nor so ridiculous as to imagine if an Indian who had neuer heard of Christ should by chance find a Bible in his owne language that he would by reading it without miracle certainly belieue it to be the word of God which he could not choose if it were euidently credible Thus you and hence I thus argue 21. That Authority cannot be of it selfe and by it selfe alone the rule and guide of Christian sauing fayth in the vnderstanding and belieuing of Scripture which is not of it selfe euidently credible and worthy of all credit This I proue because the rule and reason to belieue the Scripture must be able to conuince the vnderstanding and to resolue it to belieue many high and incomprehensible mysteries For these are taught and deliuered in Scripture and must be belieued by euery Christian that will be saued But an authority which of it selfe is not euidently credible or worthy of all credit is not of it selfe a sufficient reason or a good rule for me to belieue incredible things incomprehensible to my humane reason as is manifest to euery man that hath wit to apprehend the sense of this speach Ergo the Scripture alone by it selfe not ioyned with the euidently credible authority of some other witnesse cānot be the rule of
fayth This may be made manifest by examples as by this What the Scripture sayth Asonne of thirty yeares was Dauid when he began to reigne and he reigned fourty yeares I easily belieue in the plaine sense because there is no incredibility therin But whē the Scripture sayth a sonne of one yeare was Saul when he began to reigne and he reigned two yeares the incredibility of the sense the Scripture in other places assuring me that whē he began to reigne he was higher by head shoulders then any man in Israel makes me presently stagger and to seeke for some stronger pillar then the euidence of the text in my priuate seeming and finding none my reason is presently ouercome and wone to forsake the seeming euidence of the the text The same no doubt would happen in other texts of Scripture about the B. Trinity Incarnation and other mysteries of fayth My fayth I say would giue backe had I no stronger rule and reason of belieuing them then the euidence of the text in my priuate Iudgement But whē I perceaue the euidence of the text in my priuate Iudgment to be vpheld and confirmed by the Iudgement of the Catholique Church which did euer vnderstand belieue such texts in that incredible and incomprehensible sense then am I fully confirmed and Christianly resolued to belieue those high senses though neuer so impossible to the seeming of my reason because tradition or traditine Interpretation as you speake that is the perpetuall doctrine and beleefe of Christians in all former ages is able to ouercome all incredulity which the incredibility of the thing may represent vnto reasō For it is as you are forced to confesse the rule to iudge all controuersies by Cap. 2. n. 25. ca. 3. n. 45. being Gods infallible word euidently credible of it selfe and so a fit rule whereon Christian fayth may rely for what witnesse can be more illustrious and knowne and of more eminent credit then the Church founded by Christ Iesus and his Apostles bathed with the blood of innumerable Martyrs adorned by the glorious liues and miracles of millions of holy men 22. I confesse the Protestants opinion that the doctrine of Scripture is to them euident that they see the truth thereof as cleerely as they do the light of the sunne to be absurd fond ridiculous as you tear me it But also I must acknowledge that they speake consequently other wise they could not say their fayth doth finally rest on the Scripture nor pretend the Scripture to be their onely rule And you who reiect this Protestants conceit of the intrinsecall light of Scripture do not onely harbour Infidelity in your heart but also professe it openly in words pag. 330. lin 28. I deny not 2. Edit n. 318. lin 24. but I am bound to belieue the truth of many texts of Scripture the sense whereof is to me obscure and the truth of many articles of fayth the manner whereof is obscure and to humane vnderstanding incomprehensible But then it is to be obserued that not the sense of such texts nor the MANNER of such things is that which I am bound to belieue but the truth of them for that I should belieue the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot be made euident to me with an euidence proportionable to the fayth required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is vniust and vnreasonable because to do it is impossible Thus you professe that you neither do nor can belieue the incomprehensible mysteries of Christian Religion For when the manner is the very substance of the mystery then the very substance is incomprehensible For example in the B. Trinity that Three Father Sonne and Holy Ghost be One the mystery is not that these three names signifie one thing as Sabellians and Socinians vnderstand it but that in the vnity of the Godhead there be three Persons distinct of one substance But you professe not to belieue the manner of these mysteries because it is incomprehensible Ergo you do not belieue the substance of the mysterie the substance thereof being a manner of being incomprehensible Moreouer he is no faythfull Christian who belieues not the articles of Christianity according to the Christian manner and sense But the Christian manner of belieuing them is according as they are incomprehensible to humane vnderstanding and seeme to prophane Wit and Gentilisme follies and absurdities as S. Paul doth declare 1. Cor. 1. 23. Ergo you are no Christian who openly shew your selfe a shamed to belieue any MANNER of things reuealed by Christ vpon his word that is incomprehensible except he make it euident to your vnderstanding and then if you belieue him he shall be much beholding vnto you for belieuing him so farre as you see he speakes truth and no further that is so farre as you will trust any liar whatsoeuer The summe of all is that seeing you reiect the Puritanical conceipt that Scripture is knowne to be the word of God by its owne light as a foolerie for so really it is you must either deny the Scripture to be the only rule or else continue to professe vnbeliefe of Christianity and of all manner of incomprehensible mysteries The seauenth Conuiction 23. YOur Aduersary often vrgeth you to set downe an exact Catalogue of fundamentalls or necessary truths without the particular and distinct beliefe of which you contend that it implyes contradiction that any man be saued You hauing vsed many tergiuersations to diuert the mind of the Reader at last confesse (a) 2. Edit pag. 22. lin 13. 2. Edition Pag. 129. lin 15. Pag. 23 lin 8. That it is an intricate peece of buisinesse of extreme great difficultie and of extreme little necessitie almost impossible And pag. 134. lin 28. This variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls And (b) 2. Edition cap. 4. n. 19. pag. 193. l. 10. Cap. 4. n. ◠pag. 201. lin 23. A Catalogue of Fundamentalls because to some more is fundamentall to others lesse to others none at all had been impossible By this confession you ouerthrowe your Principle that Scripture is the only rule wherein all necessary things are euidently conteyned For fundamentall points being the essentiall parts of the Ghospell Doctrines intrinsecall to the couenant betwixt God and man Cap. 4. 〈◊〉 4. lin 29. not only cleerely reuealed and so certaine truths but also commanded vnder payne of damnation to be distinctly knowne and belieued of all and so necessary truths I demand whether these diuine fundamentall and essentiall lawes about the distinct knowing and belieuing of these points in particular be cleerely deliuered in Scripture or not If not Ergo there be some diuine Lawes necessary vnto saluation without the obseruance of which it implyes contradiction any man should be saued Cap. 6. in fine not cleerely deliuered in Scripture If they be cleerely deliuered then points fundamentall be cleerely discernable from
three arguments as well to be briefe as because these be so full conuincing and well grounded euen by such an Aduersary as you are that more will not be required The first Conuiction 1. IF the Church be an infallible guide in fundamentals or which is all one an infallible teacher of all necessary truth then is she a certaine Society of ChristiaÌ„s of one denomination of one obedience subiect to one visible head in fallible in all her Proposals But the Church is such an infallible teacher of all necessary truth or such a guide in fundamentals In this argument both propositions are yours and I shall set downe your words fully whereby you not onely deliuer but also demonstrate them The Major you acknowledge ca. 2. n. 139. You must know that there is a wide difference betwixt being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible guide in Fundamentals The former we grant for it is no more but this that there shall be a Church in the world for euer But we vtterly deny the Church to be the later for to say so were to oblige our selues to find some certaine Society of men of whome we might be certayne that they neither do nor can erre in fundamentals nor in declaring what is fundamentall and what is not and consequently to make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all thinges she proposes to be belieued This therefore we deny both to your Church to all Churches of one denomination that is indeed we deny it simply to any Church For no Church can be fit to be a guide but only a Church of some certain denomination For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church but by a praeexamination of the doctrine controuerted and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine but by the true doctrine to the Church Heereafter therefore when you heare Protestants say the Church is infallible in fundamentalls you must not conceaue them as if they meane as you do some Society of Christians which may be knowne by adhering to some one Head for example to the Pope or Bishop of Constantinople c. Thus you deliuer the sequells of this proposition the Church is an infallible guide in fundamentalls which are in a word our whole Catholique doctrine about the Church that if that proposition be by you granted expressely and cleerely yea proued inuincibly from Scripture you must returne againe to the Church of Rome or else by your owne iudgment be damned to Hell specially because you repeate the same consequences of the granting of an infallible guide in fundamentalls and both approue and proue them Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 11. speaking to your Aduersary Good Sir you must needes do vs this fauour to be so accute as to diâ—tinguish between being infallible in Fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in Fundamentalls That shee shall be alwayes a Church infallible in Fundamentalls we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be alwayes a Church But that there shall be alwayes such a Church which is an infallible guide in Fundamentalls this we deny For this cannot be without setling a knowne infallibility in some one knowne Society of Christians as the Greeke or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which guide men might be guided to belieue aright in all Fundamentalls A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himselfe and to himselfe be infallible but he could not be a guide to others A Man or a Church that were inuisible so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible guide and yet he might be vnto himselfe infallible 2. Thus you haue told vs cleerely and fully what will follow if you grant the Church to be an infallible guide in Fundamentalls which sequells be so much denyed and detested by you as one would thinke it were impossible you should be so forgetfull as to affirme it And yet you do cleerely say that the Church is not only infallible in Fundamentalls but also an infallible guide in Fundamentalls being euen by essence not only a belieuer of all necessary truth but also a teacher or mistresse thereof Cap. 2. n. 164. initio The visible Church shall alwayes WITHOVT FAYLE PROPOSE so much of Gods reuelation as is sufficient to bring men to heauen for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometymes adde things hurtfull nay in themselues damnable And cap. 2. n. 77. in fiae n. 73. initio you grant that the Apostle termeth the Church of God the pillar and ground of truth not only because by duty it is still the teacher of all truth though not so euer in fact but also because it alwayes shall and will be so yet say you this is short to prooue your intent that the Church is infallible in all her proposals vnles you can shew that by Truth is certainly meant not only necessary to SaluatioÌ„ but all that is profitable absolutly simply ALL. For that the true Church alwayes shall be the MAINTAINER and TEACHER of ALL NECESSARY TRVTH you know We grant and â—â—st grant for it is of the ESSENCE of the Church to be so and any coÌ„pany of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man not be reasonable Thus you Verily were it possible for a creature to be a man not reasonable you deserue to carry away the title of a true vnreasonable man from all men that hitherto haue ranked themselues in the number of Writers You are a true man for that you deliuer manifest truth made good by strong reasons you are an vnreasonable man in that you wilfully and obstinately stand in defence of the contrary falshood I will briefly note first your contradictions secondly the sequels therof 3. In the words cited in the first place you distinguish betwixt a Church infallible in Fundamentals and such a Church as is an infallible guide in Fundamentals granting the true Church to be the former but not the later iesting at your Aduersary as though his confounding them did argue in him want of such an acute wyt as you suppose your selfe to haue But in the second citations you do vs the fauour to be so acute so perspicacious so sharpe-sighted as to penetrate into the very essence of the Church and out of that Closet of Truth pronounce that to be infallible in Fundamentals and to be an infallible guide in Fundamentals be inseparably coÌ„ioyned in the Church and that to grant the former to the Church and deny the later were to deuide the Church from its very essence For I hope you will not be so acute as to distinguish betwixt an infallible guide in Fundamentals and such a Church as is alwayes in fact without fayle the teacher the proposer the maintayner in a word the
this office may be giuen to none but whome God hath designed for it And pag. 59. n. 17. In ciuill Controuersies euery henest vnderstanding man is fit to be Iudge but in matters of Religion none but he that is infallible 10. The Minor also you deliuer often but specially in two places Cap. 2. n. 162. explicating a Conclusion defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. That the Church hath authority to determine Controuersies of fayth obrected by your Aduersary you answere Me thinkes so subtill a man as you are should easily apprehend a wyde difference betweene authority to do a thing and infallibility in doing it againe betweene a conditionall infallibility and an absolute The former the Doctour togeather with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church and I subscribe to this opinion that is an authority in determining Controuersies of fayth according to plain and euident Scripture and vniuersall Tradition infallibility so long as they proceed according to this rule As if there arise an Heretique that should call in question Christs Passion and Resurrection the Church had authority to decred this Controuersie and infallible direction how to do it and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in errour I hope you will not deny but that Iudges haue authority to determine criminall and ciuill Controuersies and yet I hope you wil not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallible while they proceed according to law if they do so but not infallibly that they shall euer do so Thus you Now let the Reader be Iudge whether it be not a thing in you both ridiculous and hatefull to be still vanting of the subtilty of your wit and reproaching want thereof to your Aduersarie whereas your subtilties be grosse contradictions of your selfe that I am euen amazed how any man could be so forgetfull and voyd of consideration You say there is a wyde difference betweene authority to decide matters of Religion and Infallibility in doing it which you proue because Iudges haue authority to determine criminal and ciuill Controuersies and yet are not absolutely infallible but infallible only conditionally if they proceed according to law Now this your subtility your selfe condemnes for ignorant folly as not considering the wide difference betwixt Iudges in ciuill Controuersies and Iudges with authority to determine matters of fayth that the former may be fallible but not the later Be not these your very wordes pag. 59. lin vlt. and pag. 60. lin 1. In ciuill Controuersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible How then do you now distinguish betwixt a Iudge and an infallible Iudge in matters of Religion 11. Your other distinction also of Infallibility absolute and conditionall is a meere fopperie as you declare it and by attributing only conditionall infallibility to the Church you contradict your selfe For you say in ciuill Contronersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible heere you attribute greater infallibility to the Church or Ecclesiasticall Iudge then to a Iudge in ciuill causes But you say a Iudge in ciuill affaires is infallible conditionally if he proceed according to law Ergo the Church is infallible absolutely so that she cānot erre in her definitions and sentences but still proceed according to the diuine law or sacred Scripture Besides the Church is infallible in a higher and absoluter manner then euery priuate Christian But euery priuate Christian is infallible conditionally to wit while he proceeds according to the true and vndoubted sense of Scripture Ergo the Conclusion of Oxford The Church hath authority to determine Controuersies of fayth was by the defendant Doctour vnderstood of infallible authority or els it was a meere mockery Moreouer authority to determine Controuersies of fayth must be sufficient to make the determination to be an assured stay wheron Christian fayth may securely rely which before was not knowne to be such otherwise there is no determination of fayth but fayth about that point remaynes as vncertayne and vnderermined as it was before But a Iudge absolutely fallible and only conditionally infallible cannot determine any controuersy infallibly that Fayth may determine to belieue it without danger of being deceaued Againe you say pag. 337. n. 20. A questionable guide for mens direction is as good as none at all But the Church infallible only conditionally that is if perchance she hit vpon the true sense of Scripture is a guide or determiner of Controuersies questionable because after such a determination the question still remaynes vndecided whether that be the true sense of Scripture Adde heereunto that Protestants do not attribute so much as this conditionall infallibility to the Church that her determinations are infallible when they are according to plaine and euident Scripture For they will not belieue Transubstantiation though they grant that the Lateran Councell defining it proceeded according to the plaine and euident sense of Scripture Morton of the Sacrament lib. 2. initio If sayth D. Morton the words of Christ This is my Body be certainly true in the proper literall sense we must yield to Papists the whole cause Transubstantiation corporall and materiall Presence c So that the Church is not infallible with Protestants if she proceed according to the plaine proper and litterall sense of Scripture but only when she hits on those figuratiue tropicall improper senses they fancy to themselues And I pray you giue me a reason why the Catholike Church may not condemne you for expounding figuratiuely symbolically tropically the text of Scripture deliuering Transubstantiation according to the playne proper and literall sense as well as she may condemne any Heretique that should expound the place of Scripture about our Lords Passion and Resurrection figuratiuely against the plaine proper and litteral sense Finally wheras you say the Church is to determine Controuersies not only by the rule of plaine Scripture but also of vniuersall Tradition you say a truth against the whole drift of your booke that the Bible is the only rule and against what you write Cap. 2. n. 155. nothing but Scripture comes to vs with a full streame of Tradition and so besides Scripture there is no vnwritten doctrine 12. A third place yet more cleere for the Churches totall infallibility you haue cap. 2. n. 77. where you grant the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth by office Our Sauiour sayd to his disciples yee are the salt of the earth not that this quality was inseparable from their persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity in vaine had he put them in feare of that which followes If the salt haue lost his sauour wherewith shall it be salted So the Church may be by duty the pillar ground of Truth of all truth not onely necessary but also
the common Head and Pastour of the Church or indirect when he standeth peremptory against the Church either obstinately against her Doctrines or contumaciously against her Commandes For such an one is hocipso cut of and cast away out of the Church in the sight of God and the sentence of the Church doth declare him to be such an one and makes him knowne for such an one to them of the Church This supposed I come to prooue that they who separate or oppose against the Church of Rome are Schismatiques The first Conuiction 5. YOu say Cap. 5. n. 36. initio For men to forsake the external Communion of them with whome they agree in fayth is the most formal proper crime of schisme very true Thus you But Protestants agree with the visible vniuersal Church in all fundamental points of fayth as you pretend and yet they haue forsaken her externall Communion For cap. 5. n. 52. initio you speake thus to your aduersary Whereas you say that Protestants diuided themselues from the externall Communion of the visible Church adde which externall communion was corrupted and we shall confesse the accusation and glory in it And cap. 5. n. 55. As for the externall Communion of the visible Church we haue without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it Ergo it is very true that Protestants in separating from the Church of Rome did commit the proper and for mall crime of Schisme 6. This Syllogisme doth consist of propositions which are formally verbally yours yet because you falter and halt in the assertion of them contradicting your selfe to make this demonstration conuincing I will proue both the Premises cleerely by such truths as you are forced to acknowledge The maior Proposition that it is formall Schisme to forsake the visible Church or her externall Communion which you grant in the words I cired you deny cap. 5. n. 25. lin 3. in these words to your aduersary Whereas you take for granted as an vndoubied truth that whosoeuer leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church are Schismaticall I tell you Sir you presume to much vpon vs and would haue vs grant that which is the maine point in question Behold now that is false which before you sayd was very true Which also to be absolutely true I proue by what you write cap. 5. n. 45 lin 16. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Prouided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church doth consist And c. 3. n. 66. lin 9. You may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be This you Now I subsume but externall Communion that is externall Society fellowship and vnity of the members of the Church in their subordination to the common Head and supreme external Authority therof is one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist one of the thinges which make it to be a Church This is cleere because as it is of the essence of an human organicall Body not only to haue a multitude of members locally layd together in one heape but also that they be knit and compacted together in the vnity of one Body by ioint subordination to the head so it is of the essence of euery morall or mysticall body not only to haue a multitude of members or persons but also that the persons members and subiects be knit together and vnited in the Society of one Communion that is of one common vnion of subordination to the Head 7. And this Communion or common subiection must in the members of the Church be external and visible because it is of the essence of the Church to be an externall and visible Society or Body which is proued because you say Cap. 3. n. 78. That it is of the essence of the Church to be the rocke and pillar that is still in fact a proposer mantayner and teacher of all necessary truth But it is of the essentiall necessity of a teaching Church to be visible and externall as you suppose Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 23. A Church that were inuisible so that none could repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible guide that is a teacher of truth yet it might be in it selfe infallible Wherfore external Communion or common Vnion of the members of the Church in their subiection to one common Head or visible supreme gouerning Authority is of the essence of the Church it is one of the thinges which make the Church a Church But Protesters forsooke the externall Communion the common Vnion knot with their fellow-members in the vnity of subiection to one visible gouerning Church-Authority and made to themselues new Conuenticles and Churches vnder new Gouernours and formes of gouerment as is notorious It is therefore manifest that they forsaking the externall Communion of the visible Church because in their iudgment corrupted forsooke the Church of God in one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist in one of the thinges which make the Church a Church and consequently are Schismatiques The second Conuiction 8. IT is you say of the essence of the Church of Christ to be by office the pillar and ground that is the teacher of truth of all truth alwayes in fact the teacher and guide of men in all truth necessary to Saluation Consequently it is of the essence of the Church to be able to performe this office Cap. 3. n. 7â— and to be still in act a Direstour of men to heauen But you say Pag. 163. lin 6. That Church alone can performe the office of Guide or Directour which is of one denomination that is a setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for their guide in Fundamentalls Ergo it is of the essence of the visible Catholique Church of Christ to be of one denomination adhering to one common Bishop as to their guide in Fundamentalls This supposed that Protestants be seuered from the way of Saluation Schismatiques aliens from the only Church that can be the guide to heauen I shall not need to proue you grant it (a) Cap. 5. n. 27. versus finem Pag. 264. lin 4. Put case I should grant of meere fauour that there must be alwaies some Church of one denomination free from all errors in Doctrine and that Protestants had not alwayes such a Church it would indeed follow that I must not be a Protestant but that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence then this If you will leaue England your must of necessity goe to Rome Thus you From which saying I argue If there must be alwayes some Church of one denomination free from all errors in doctrine subiect to one visible head and guide then you must
not be a Protestant if you will be saued that is then Protestants be not a true Church but a Company that hath forsaken the true Church and cannot be saued if they continue where they are But that there alwayes was alwayes must be such a Church of Christ such a Society of Christians which is the ground and rocke of all truth setled and certaine and of one denomination was in the precedent Chapter not by you granted of meere fauour but extorted from you by the euidence of truth vndeniable texts of Scripture Ergo Protestants are Schismatiques separated from the Church the rocke and ground of fayth and cannot be saued except they remoue to the one Church be built thereupon by dependance on the Rocke by subordination to the Head thereof Now if there must be such a Catholique Church of one denomination whether the Roman be that Church and not rather the Graecian or Abissine is in the iudgment euen of Protestants I dare say a ridiculous doubt and a fond fancy but more hereof in the next Chapter The third Conuiction 9. YOu are conuinced of proper and formall Schisme by the Confutation of your excuses whereby you would cleere your reuolt from so heynous a crime which you set downe Cap. 5. nu 36. I would faine know wherein I may not without Schisme forsake the externall Communion of them with whome I agree in fayth whether I be bound for feare of Schisme to communicate with those that belieue as I do only in lawfull thinges or absolutely in euery thing whether I am to ioyne with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common confession of fayth wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abiuration of it These your questions or excuses be friuolous and idle for many reasons First because you suppose without proofe that the vniuersal visible Church may be stayned with superstition Idolatrie which is the mayne point in question And your supposition to be false we prooue euen by this argument That Church cannot be stayned with superstition and Idolatry whose external Communion or vnion of the members thereof vnder one head cannot be forsaken without the most proper and formall crime of Schisme But to forsake the externall Communion of the visible Church you confesse to be the most formall crime of Schisme Ergo the external Communion of the visible Church cannot be stayned vniuersally with superstition and Idolatrie 10. Secondly your questions are vaine because they imply contradiction destroy ech other For how can it consist together that you do agree in fayth with the Church in fundamentals and that yet she teach Idolatry and vrge you to abiure with her the fayth wherein you she both agree Thirdly if the Church be supposed to be stayned with vniuersall errour and Idolatry it doth indeed follow that you must not communicate with her in Idolatry but not that you may forsake the external common Vnion of all the members thereof to the Head and vniuersall Authority which ioyneth them together in one Society of a Christian Church But Protestants forsooke the vnity of their follow-members refusing to communicate with them not onely in superstition but also in the vnity of subiection to the Head-authority of the whole body They did deuide themselues from that Body erecting to themselues new Conuenticlss new Churches vnder new chosen heades guides pastours Ergo they cannot be excused from the formall and proper crime of Schisme and Rebellion against the Church 11. You will say had they not forsaken that vnity of subiection to the common head they must haue professed Idolatry or else haue beene burnt I answere if the supposition be true of Idolatry in the Church they had byn blessed Martyrs in choosing rather to dye then eyther to commit Idolatry or deuide the Church But because they did not so but sought to deuide the Church to saue their lyues they be now damned Schismatiques For will you dare to say that men may commit the most formall crime of Schisme and rebellion against the Church rather then be put to death Then if a Prince perfecute men for Religion they may rebell and deuide his Kingdome if they be able rather then dye for their Religion 12. You say Cap. 5. n. 55. in fine No man can haue cause to be a Schismaque I assume But to forsake the externall vnity of Gods Church or the fellowship of subordination to the head-authority of the whole Body is to be a most formall and proper Schismatique Ergo No feare of being eyther stayned with superstitiō or put to death could iustifie your relinquishing the externall Communion or vnion with Gods Church nor your erecting of new Conuenticles vnder new Superiours from being formall and proper Schisme 13. Moreouer you say that in the dayes of S. Austine there (a) Pag. 156. lin 50. was vniuersall superstition in the Church that (b) pag. 155. lin 21. Second Edit c. 3. n. 47. pag. 149. 150. all places were full of superstitions humane presumptions vayne worships which were (c) Pag. 156. lin 36. vrged vpon others with great violence the streame of them was growne (d) Pag. 156. lin 24. so stronge that S. Austin durst not oppose it And yet S. Austin did not therefore forsake the Church and his subordination to the Pastours thereof nay he doth euery where most earnestly and seuerely as you confesse iustly rebuke and conuince the Donatists of damnable sinne for deuiding the Church and erecting new Conuenticles Altars Churches vnder new Pastours It is manifest therefore euen by your owne Principles and Professions that Protesters cannot be excused from damnable Schisme though the visible Church had beene as in S. Austins tyme you make it so when Luther reuolted full of superstitions human presumptions and vaine worships which yet to haue byn or to be in the church you neither do nor can prooue otherwyse then by your bare word which I hope is no rule of Fayth more then S. Cyprians which being obiected to you you reiect (e) Cap. ◠43.4◠saying angerly to your Aduersary Why in a contronersy of fayth do you cite any thing which is confessed on all bands not to be a rule of fayth The fourth Conuiction 14. VVE proceed to conuince Protesters of Schisme euen though your most false suppositions were true Let vs suppose ineuitable necessity to haue beene vrgent vpon them as you say it was eyther to abandon the vnity of subordination to Gods Church Cap. 5. n. 72. or else against their conscience to professe her errours I say they should in that case rather haue vndergone this hypocriticall dissimulation then that Schismaticall separation This I proue because though that be true which S. Paul teaches That euill is not to done that good may follow yet that is false which you affirme pag. 283. n. 72. We must not do euill to auoydeuil This is against the knowne Principle of reason
that of two Euills we are to choose the lesse when we cannot auoid both because a lesser Euill considered as necessary to auoyd a greater is endued with the quality of goodnesse and is not so much euill as good But to professe against ones conscience an errour small vnfundamentall (f) Cap. 3 n. 10. What else do we vnderstand by an vnfundamental errour but such a one with which a man may be saued Which doth not ouerthrow Saluation wherewith one may be saued is a lesse euill then separation from the vnity of Gods Church from subordination to the authority there of for this is most formall and proper Schisme Hence it is false what you with (g) D. Potter pag. 77. D. Potter so much auerre and lay as the fundamentall stone of your building that it is damnable sinne to professe any the least veniall errour against ones conscience and that it were better to depart from the Church and erect new Conuenticles as Protesters did then hypocritically to professe (h) Cap. 5. n. 59. versus finem that there be no Antipodes should the Church enforce you eyther to professe there be none of else forsake her Communion This is a false and pernicous principle and as I sayd agaynst the light of reason and common notion written in the hearts of all men that of two Euils we are to choose the lesse if of necessity we must do the one or the other The light of the truth seene of euery man was not hidden from you when you were not blinded with actual reflexion that by the light thereof your separation from the Church is shewed euidently to be Schismaticall For Cap. 4. n. 18. in fine you say I willingly confesse the iudgement of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farre directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sinne to reiect it at least not to afford it OVTWARD submission for publique peace sake Now what is outward submission to definitions which you do not receaue in your heart but outward Profession to belieue what in your conscience you thinke to be false If it be lawfull and men may be bound vnder sinne to professe outward submission vnto what they iudge erroneous for publique peace-sake that is for the auoyding of Schisme who doth not see that the doctrine whereon the iustification of your reuolt from the Catholique Church resteth to be false to wit that it is always impious and damnable to professe outward submission to any the least errour which in conscience you thinke to be errour The fifth Conuiction 15. TO forsake the visible Church without any cause vpon a meere fancy is damnable sinne This you affirme a thousand tymes in your fifth Chapter But Protestants abandoned the Church of Rome without any iust cause this you allow and iustify seeking to answere the obiection How may a Protestant who is at least as fallible as the Church be sure that the Church erreth and that he hath hitt on the truth that he may with a good conscience forsake her Communion you say cap. 5. n. 63. in fine Hemay be sure because he may see the doctrine forsaken by him to be repugnant to Scripture and the doctrine imbraced by him consonant to it AT LEAST this he may knowe that the doctrine which he hath CHOSEN to him SEEMES TRVE and the contrary which he hath forsaken SEEMES FALSE And therefore without REMORSE of Conscience he may professe that but this he cannot O houw true is the Prouerbe What aboundeth in the heart will out at the mouth yea out of the quill which is ruled by an vnconsidering Writer You harbour in your heart that Socinian impiety that men may be saued in any Religion but you would fayne hide it and therefore make great shew (h) Pag. 392. fine 2. Edit pag. 373. lin 26. to abhorre it as most impious and execrable doctrine by foule calumny imputed vnto you And yet in this passage you do cleerely professe it and so fully that irreligion it selfe could not do more saying absolutely without any limitation That if a man know that a doctrine to him seemeth false he may without remorse forsake it and the Church which teacheth it and go to another Society which teacheth the contrary so that if a man know that to him Christianity seemeth false and Iudaisme or Turcisme true though he haue no certaine ground so to thinke he may without scruple without remorse of conscience leaue Christianity and become a Iew or Turke Puritans Brownists Anabaptists Arians Socinians Tritheists know that to them the Religion of the Church of England seemeth false and the contrary which destroyes Christianity true may they with a good conscience without scruple or remorse leaue the Church of England and ioyne themselues to their most impure Familian Cōuenticles Churches 16. When the Maintayner of Charity layes some testimonies of Fathers in your way you fall a singing In nonafert animus (i) Cap. 5. n. 43. telling him that the Fathers be not the rule of your Faith that their testimonies be no more pertinēt thē that semi-verse Verily you could not haue found a ditty more proper and fitting the tune of your soule so fertile and full of nouelties Nor is there any man lyuing I know that can better then your selfe out of his owne experience mutatas dicere formas What you haue done your selfe you allow vnto others that by your principles they may change Religions as they do their linnen and forge new formes of fayth as often as they make new suites of apparell Being questioned about the ground of their change they may answer In noua fert animus I know that this nouel choyce to me seemeth good and that the doctrine of the Church of England to me seemeth false M. Chillingworths booke which goes for current in England assureth me that this alone without further assurance sufficeth that without remorse of consciēce I may forsake her and goe to some other Congregation in the world which pleaseth me better and whose Religion I know to me seemeth true The sixt Conuiction 17. COntradicting the leuity of your former assertion that a man though he do not euidētly know his cause to be iust may forsake the Church if at least he know that her doctrine to him seemeth false you write very grauely soberly to the contrary saying Cap. 5. n. 53. initto It concernes EVERY MAN who separates from any Churches communion euen as much as his saluation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be iust and necessary for vnlesse it be necessary it can hardly be sufficient Vnder the wings of this most true propositiō I shroud this assumptiō to be made good by your principles But Protesters had no iust or sufficicient cause to rent themselues from the Roman and visible Catholique Church This I proue for their pretēce is Cap. 5. n. 107. lin 3.
you in which speach your wordes interfere gall ech others ankles destroy themselues for to say Who can deny according to the exposition of most Catholiques that this text is vnderstood of Sacramentall eating and drinking doth imply that many Catholiques and with them most of Protestants deny it And consequently Who can deny it according to most is as wise a speach as if you should say It is a most vndeniable by many iustly denied truth For do not you write Preface n. 30. in fine There is no more certaine signe that a Point is not euident then that honest and vnderstanding and in different men and such as giue themselues liberty of Iudgment after a mature deliberation differ about it 25. Thirdly you vrge Scripture as plaine against Latin seruice saying Cap. 3. n. 21. n. 71. It is a plaine reuelation of God that the publique Prayers and Hymnes of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification yet these reuelatiōs the Church of Rome not seeing c. I omit that you corrupt the Scripture by adding to the text the word most And pag. 173. lin 3. you cite these as the very words of S. Paul to vse a language which the Assistāts generally vnderstand not is not for edificatiō which is Scripture verbatim coyned and forged in your owne head I pretermit also so many cleere and fully satisfying answeres giuen by Catholiques which you do not mentiō much lesse confute I will shew that you behead this your Argumēt with your owne sword Do not you say Cap. 3. n. 32. that the Apostles in their writings deliuer some things as the dictates of human reason and prudence and not as diuine reuelations and that you see no reason why we should take them to be diuine reuelations This supposed I assume But S. Paul deliuers this order that an vnknowne tongue is not best for edification and decency as a dictate of humane reason and prudence as is manifest by the whole tenour of his discourse Ergo there is no reason why we should take it as a diuine reuelation vpon your word We belieue it indeed as the word of God that the Apostle did iudge that obseruance most for edification and decency in those tymes when Latin Greeke were vulgar languages almost euery where commonly knowne of all Since his tyme the Latin being not knowne and vulgar in euery Country of the Latin Church as it was before whether in this respect the Latin ought to cease to be the Vniuersall language for the Liturgy of the Latin Church is a question not decided by diuine reuelation but to be decided by human reason and prudence for it is different in state and quality from that decided by the Apostle such kind of dictats of human reason being variable according to the diuersity of tymes places persons customes Adde that Latin which most men of better education and quality vnderstand and all Church-men vnderstand cannot be tearmed a language vnknowne in the Church yea rather vulgar tongues are vnknowne and barbarous in the Christian Church 26. Fourthly against infallible Iudges (g) Cap 4. nu 16. lin 23. Ca. 4 n. 53 Cap. 6. n. 61. in many other places in the Church since the A postles you come forth euery foote with this Scripture Be not called Maisters vpon earth for one is your Maistere Christ The vanity of which obiection I demonstrate by this Syllogis me wherein both propositions be your owne and most infallible truths The Apostles (h) Cap. 2. n. 155. were the infallible Iudges of Controuersies about faith so long as they lyued the Maisters Doctours Guides of the Church But the A postles heerin did not transgresse the command giuen them by our Lord be not called Maisters on earth Ergo to be and to be called Iudges and Maisters of the Church in the place of Christ and subordinate vnto him is not against that precept of our Lord. 27. I conclude this Argument requesting you in the sight of the Inspectour of hearts as you belieue there is any such to ruminate and ponder your owne saying It imports euery man who separates from any Churches Communion euen as much as his Saluation is worth to looke most carefully that the case of his separation be iust and necessary The cause pretended of your separation from the Communion of the whole Catholique Church is the euidence of Scripture against her custome The strongest testimonies you do or can pretend are these by me now answered then which you say there cannot possibly be any playner Now can you thinke in cōscience that the former testimonies are cleere euident necessary such as necessitate conuince and compell the vnderstanding to assent Can you presume you shall be so eloquent at the day of Iudgement as to make our Lord belieue you were so simple and of so little Iudgement as you did really and in conscience vndoubtedly belieue that these texts were euident necessary formall expresse as cleere as the Sunne Thinke of it I pray you for by your owne confession it cōcernes you and euery Protestant as much as his eternall saluation is worth The seauenth Conuiction 27. YOu forsake the Roman and the Catholique externall Communion not onely without iust cause but without as much as a seeming cause euen against your conscience out of hatred of knowne truth What is damnable Schisme if this be not that you goe against your conscience and impugne knowne truth though you be very loath this mystery of your heart should be disclosed yet such is your inconsideration as you professe it openly inough in words but practise the same much more openly in deeds cap. 2. n. 47 in fine The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy vnconcerned You might haue met with an Aduersary that would not haue suffered you to haue said so much truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose These be your words in which you lay the inside of your heart outwards and plainly discouer your wifull auersion from knowne truth You suffered Charily mainteyned to speake so much truth togeather Why did you so Not because it was truth but because it was not to the purpose that is it made not against you so you were willing it should be true And doth not this imply that had that part of the Paragraph made against you had you beene vnwilling it should haue beene true you would not haue endured it you would haue impugned it with all might and mayne though it had beene truth neuer so much Had you sayd You might haue met with an Aduersary that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much vntruth together but to mee it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose this had been some courtesy of forbearāce but to say that you would not suffer so much
truth to be sayd together but that it made not against you this is Charity with all my heart You will suffer vs to speake truth if you are willing it should be truth a great fauour But if you hate that truth we speake because it presseth your pride which will not let you stoope to submit your wit to the word of God proposed by his Church you will rage storme against it deny it impugne it seeke to darken the light thereof to make the same hatcfull by vttering any vntruth against it 28. For example you are not willing the Roman Church should be the true Church therefore to hide the light of this truth you heape lyes togeather and fill whole pages and leaues with rage and fury without any the least lucidum interuallum To giue the reader a little tast of your bitternes and one draught of your salt sea you pag. 90. thus declaime against vs. See edit cap. 2. n. 101. pag 26. lin 26. You who haue wronged so exceedingly Christ his miracles and his doctrine by forging so euidently so many false miracles for the confirmation of your new doctrine who with forging so many false Stories and false Authours haue taken a fayre way to make the fayth of all Stories questionable who haue brought in doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confesse to be the word of Christ which for the most part make for the honour and proffit of the teachers of them who make profession of corrupting al sorts of Authours whose questioned doctrines none of them came from the fountayne of Apostolique tradition but haue insinuated themselues into the streames by little and little some in one age some in another c. and men are told they were as good belieue nothing at all as not to belieue these things to haue come from the Apostles which they know to haue been brought in but yesterday whether this be not a ready way and likely way to make men to conclude with themselues I will belieue nothing at all and whether this conclusion be not to often made in Italy and Spaiue and France and England too I leaue it to the Iudgment of those who haue wisedome and experience Thus you And is not this a good proofe of your profession that you will suffer no truth if you be vnwilling it should be truth but will load it with all manner of vnprooued and vnprobable falshood 29. As for the last point of your inuectiue whether there be not too many in Italy Spaine France and England who because they are vrged to belieue more then they list thereupon conclude to belieue iust nothing at all with firme Christian fayth you leaue it to be determined by men of wisedome and experience I thinke euery man may resolue it by the experience which you will not let them want to wit that in England certainly there is one such and that is too many by one for you hate and abhorre to belieue the reuealed (a) Pag. 330 lin 24. manner of Christian mysteries which is incomprehensible to your human and carnall reason and in this respect also hate and abhorre the Church of Rome which will not allow Saluation without beliefe thereof vnto any Christian to whome it is proposed by her preaching Yea you do both by word and deed further professe that you will not suffer any truth which crosseth this your impious fancy though it be truth neuer so much you will deny it impugne it disgrace it by all kind of fictions and lyes And whereas you say that some other answerer of your Crew would not haue been so good to the Mainteyner of Charity for they would not you say haue suffered him to haue said so much truth together whereas to you it is sufficient that the truth makes not to the purpose Pardon me Sir I tell you plainely I do not belieue you For why should they deny knowne truth and rage against it if they be willing it should be truth as not being against them It may well be that they may hate some knowne truth which you do not hate and againe you may hate some truth as the mysterie of the B. Trinity which they do not hate but for malignity and wilfull opposition against knowne truth for not enduring it for being rebells against the light for being in the number of them in whome S. Pauls Prophecy is verified That in the later dayes there should arise many who would not SVFFER or enaure wholesome doctrine but turne away their hearing from truth to the belieuing and venting of fables tales lyes villanous slaunders In this respect Isay they cannot be worse then you are as appeareth by your profession practise set downe in this argument from which we will passe to the next wherein you assure Protesters of their Saluation notwithstanding their liuing and dying in these kind of direfull passions and preiudices instilled by education against the truth The eight Conuiction 30. THey who against the saluation of that Church from which they separate protest through extreme want of charity partiality and manifest imustice through hatred of that Church not out of Iudgment are damnable Schismatiques That Protestants of your stampe be such is manifest by your wordes and deedes Cap. 3. n. 63. circa finem We Protest and proclaime the contrary and that we haue very little hope of their saluation who either out of negligence in seeking the truth or vnwillingnesse to fynd it lyue and dye in the errours and impieties of that Church And c. 5. n. 34. in fine you tell vs That God is infinitely iust and therefore it is to be feared will not pardon Roman Catholiques who might easily haue knowne the tauth and either through pride or obstinacy or negligence would not And (a) Cap. 7. n. 6. in fine Pag. 389. lin 10. To lyue and dye in the Roman Church is as daungerous as to shoote a gulfe which though some good ignorant soules may do and escape yet it may be well feared scarce one in a hundred but miscarries 31. This you make the case of poore Catholiques euen of good ignorant soules if happely they erre and might haue byn rid of their errours by speaking with so learned and Religious a Teacher as you M. William Chillingworth are There is little hope of their saluation because they were vnwilling to conferre with you as supposing for certaine you could be of no credit to oppose and accuse as you do the whole Christian Church of all ages as subiect to vniuersall damnable errours On the other side if your Protestants erre not through negligence onely but through (b) Cap. 3. n. 52. lin 7. Betrayed into and kept in errour by their fault vice or passion by pride obstinacy as most men are pag. 21. lin 40. If any protestāt or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sinne of his will as it is to be feared many millions are passion pride obstinacy
Christian a wilfull obstinate opposer of diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed to him how can any man possibly be an Hereticke 3. Some may say if he see the doctrine to be contayned in Scripture and yet disbelieue it then is he an Hereticke I answere then he is not an heretique but a Heathen openly and formally an Infidell For you say (a) Sec. edition cap. 4. n. 4 post medium Pag. 194. lin 14. To disbelieue any doctrine which one knowes to be reuealed in Scripture is for a Christian not only impious but also impossible D. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 5. 4. Some may also pretend that an Hereticke is one that erreth about some truth which doth directly and essentially concerne matter of Saluation though he ioyne not obstinacy to his errour But this is manifestly false An Hereticke is one hatefull horrible and detestable but a man that erreth in matters of saluation ignorantly for want of sufficient instruction and proposition is commiserable and to be pittied not to be abhorred He that being in the darke seeth not the meate that is neere him and so starueth for want of food cannot be said to be a blind man or a wilfull staruer of himselfe so the Christian who doth erre about some essentiall points of Saluation the necessary food of the soule so perisheth because the light of credibility doth not shine vpon it in respect of him cannot be said to be an Hereticke or an Infidell but only in this respect an vnhappy wretch though this case among Christians can hardly happen Finally an Hereticke is one that erreth through inward indisposition to belieue but the man that doth disbelieue a truth only because he is not sufficiently in structed may want no good disposition and readines of mind to belieue Ergo he cannot be an Hereticke 5. Now this mayne and last principle for resolution of the Controuersy which be diuine Reuelations is the Christian Catholique Church deliuering perpetuall Traditions from the Apostles or which is all one as you confesse (a) Cap. 2.155 Vniuersall Tradition is the rule to iudge all controuersies by (b) Cap. 2 n. 28. being a thing credible of it selfe and therefore fit to be rested on Other principles and rules though they be not euident of themselues yet are good stayes of our fayth because euidently (c) Cap. 2. n. 8. That Scripture cannot be proued to be a perfect rule by its owne saying so but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe conioyned with this principle of Tradition credible of it selfe against all which your Protestants or Protesters directly oppose and so erre fundamentally and are Heretickes as these Arguments conuince The first Conuiction 6. FIrst I prooue them to be Heretickes against their owne last Principle and rule their rocke pillar and ground the Scripture euident of it selfe and known to be the word of God by its owne glorious beames rayes Though somtimes you reiect this Principle as not onely false but also (a) Cap. 6. n. 55. Cap. 2. n. 47. fond ridiculous vnworthy to be the conceyt of any wise man yet to keepe your good purpose of contradicting your selfe in euery thing you approue it also c. 4. n. 53. lin 25. where to the question What assurance is there that the Scripture is the word of God you answere The doctrine it selfe is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat What is this but to make the Scripture credible and worthy of credit for it selfe seeing the credibility or worthines of credit Scripture hath from its owne doctrine stile language it hath of it selfe But howsoeuer Scripture be not the last stay of your beliefe in the question Whether it be the word of God yet in respect of your Fayth of the sense of Scripture you make Scripture the last Principle yea the onely rule thereof cleere manifest euident of it selfe This supposed I subsume but Protestants disbelieue doctrines proposed cleerly and plainly by Scripture through preiudices and passions instilled into them by education Cap. 3. n. 19. lin 18. Second Edit pa. 21. lin 4. as you confesse pag. 137. lin 6. and there be millions of them that are betrayed into errour not by ignorance but by the sinfull and damnable passions of their will pag. 21. lin 40. Ergo Protestants erre fundamentally and are prooued Heretickes by their owne fundamentall rule and last Principle of fayth for if they be not Heretickes who contradict a doctrine which is propoposed vnto them by cleere plaine and euident texts of Scripture it is not possible there should be any Hereticke by their grounds 7. This is confirmed because the same Protestants belieue truths proposed vnto them by texts not so cleer and euident as those are the true sense whereof they disbelieue Ergo the cause why they do not belieue other more plainly and cleerely proposed Truths is not want of credibility in the proposition nor of faculty in their vnderstandings but want of disposition to belieue in their wils This you confesse saying Pag. 137. lin 6. That truths reuealed in Scripture plainly inough in the mselues be not plainly reuealed to such and such men into whome passions and preiudices against such truths haue beene by education instilled Now to disbelieue truths proposed sufficiently and inough by plaine texts of Scripture that is in your way with the vttermost light and euidence of credibility any Christian proposition can possibly haue not to belieue I say truths so proposed through passion and preiudice is the formall crime of Hereticall obstinacy wilfull blindnes 8. Hence we may further conclude that disagreeing Protestants are Heretiques to ech other and their dissensions Hereticall on the one side or on both As to say of one he wants light to see the sunne shining at noone day is to say he is starke blind To say of one he wants wit to appehend the truthes that are euident of themselues is to say he is a foole so to say of one that he wants disposition to belieue Christian doctrine proposed by cleare and manifest Scripture is to say he is an Infidell and voyd of Fayth if doctrine proposed by cleere texts of Scripture be hoc ipso proposed to Christian belieuers sufficiently and inough as Protesters teach and must teach else no doctrine can be in their Religion proposed sufficiently and inough What you so often (a) Pag. 336. n. 19. and else where a hundred times obiect that then the Dominicans should be Heretiques vnto Iesuites because in the opinion of Iesuites their opinion is cleerely repugnant to Scripture is friuolous and vaine For to Iesuits and Dominicans the sole euidence of the text of Scripture is not sufficient proposition because many plaine texts are not to be vnderstood in the plaine and litterall sense but that the proposition of Scripture be sufficient the euidence of the text must be backt and strengthned by the Tradition
holdes his discourse to be infallible and (a) Preface n. 12. By discourse no man can possibly be lead into errour that thereby he cannot possibly be lead into errour Protestants all of them great and little men women belieue with explicite fayth all things whatsoeuer are plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Is not this ridiculous Credat Iudaeus Apella Non ego You say it is ridiculous that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree and then say we agree in all matters of fayth And yet presently you say that Protestāts if they were wise wold do so too to wit agre that those things onely wherein they agree be matters of fayth then stop our mouthes when we reproach them with disagreements by saying they agree in all matters of fayth because matters of fayth be those onely wherein they agree Is this discourse coherent If it be ridiculous in us to do so how were it wisedome for Protestants to do the same And how haue they reason reason inough why they might do so Though also it be false that we define matters of fayth to be those wherein we agree We define matters of fayth to be all doctrines proposed by the Church as her traditions or definitions wherein all Catholiques must agree The fourth Conuiction 18. I proue directly by the word of God the Roman Church that is the Church subiect to S. Peter and his successour to be the Church of one denomination which is the pillar and ground of truth There was alwayes as you haue confessed by force a Catholique visible Church by duty in deed the teacher of necessary truth that no Church is fit or able to performe this office which is not of one denomination Ergo this church was built dependently vpō one Rocke subordinately to one visible head by Christ Iesus our Lord because such a Church could not be instituted but by him as is manifest But Christ did not institute or build any Church of one denomination but onely on S. Peter Thou art Peter a Rocke and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church Math. 16. Ioan 21. To the I will giue thee keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen Doest thou loue me feed my lambes feed my sheepe What can be more cleere Now this power of Rocke to vphold this authority of Pastour to guide this Superiority of Head to gouerne the vniuersall Church of one denomination was to descend and did descend to S. Peters successours This cannot be denied because this Church was to be alwayes successiuely in the world Ergo the Rocke sustayning it the Pastour guiding it the Head ruling it was to be alwayes successiuely in the world which is to say that S. Peter must alwayes haue a successour in the Headship of the one Church which I further more prooue in this manner 19. If the institution of the Apostles to be Priests by these wordes do this in remembrance of me do import that the Apostles should haue successours in their Priesthood then this institution of S. Peter to be the one Pastour and Guide of the Church doth import that he should haue a successour in that office of Pastour For as Priesthood was not instituted for the Apostles sake but for the diuine worship which was to continue in the Christian Church till the world ended So the Pastourship of S. Peter ouer the one Christian Church flocke was not instituted for S. Peters sake but for the good of Christians that by adhering to one guide they might all vnitedly be lead into all truth But the Institution Do this in remembrance of me doth import successours in Priesthood Ergo this Institution feede my sheepe Cap. 2. n. 23. doth import the office of Guide and Pastour was to go to S. Peters successours vntill the consumamtion of the world But you say pag. 62. n. 23. If our Sauiour had intended that all Controuersies in Religion should be by some visible Iudge finally determined who can doubt but in playne tearmes he would haue expressed himselfe about this matter He would haue sayd playnly The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all controuersies Thus you 20. And this is your perpetuall impertinency of arguing by interrogations supposing that to be vndeniable truth which is manifest falshood for which you can say nothing This manner of arguing you vse often through whole pages and leaues togeather that should I transcribe the places I might set downe more then halfe of your booke But now to your question Who can doubt but Christ would haue said plainely the Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all Controuersies I answer euery man that hath any braines or wit in his head For such an one cannot but see that Christ our Lord could not haue said as you would haue him to haue spoken without vntruth For though he did appoint that S. Peter and his successour should be the Guide and Pastour of his flocke yet that S. Peter or his successour should be the Bishop of Rome more then of Hierusalem or Antioch this he did not appoint at the least whiles he liued on earth Why may it not suffice you that by cleere Scripture and by what you your selfe grant S. Peters successour is to be for euer the guide and Pastour of the Church of one denomination the pillar and ground of Truth Do you doubt whether the Roman Bishop be S. Peters successour or no Of this you cannot doubt if you will not stagger at your owne principle which you deliuer as vndeniable Cap. 4. nu 53. li. 20. All wise men for the assurance of truth in all matters of beliefe relye vpon the consent of ancient Records and vniuersal Tradition Now vniuersal Tradition doth deliuer by full consent that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome is his successour Or if you doubt of this you may as well doubt whether euer Iulius Caesar was at Rome The fifth Conuiction 21. THat the Bishop of Rome is appointed of God to decide all emergent Controuersies I proue by Principles acknowledged and set downe by your selfe For whereas the Mainteyner of Charity sayth that Protestants depriue S. Peter and his successours of the Authority which Christ our Lord conferred vpon them ouer his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which they reproue diuers of the most holy Ancient Fathers as Brerely sheweth at large you c. 5. n. 98. first question the worth and authority of the holy Fathers as no certaine rule of fayth then write in this sort lin 14. Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point for the point here issuable is not Whether S. Peter were head of the Church nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church nor whether he had any authority ouer it giuen him by the
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
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
themselues to discerne assuredly betwixt sauing truth damnable falshood guilded with many seeming cleere texts of Scripture But the true way of Saluation euen fooles cannot erre from it except they be willfull against the teaching and voyce of the visible Church telling them this is the way walke therein Ergo the way of belieuing simply the voyce of the Church is the sole way of Saluation and your way of Wit and proud Disdayne of the Church is the way to the bottomlesse pit The fifth Conuiction 21. YOVR way of resoluing your fayth by reason is refuted because by this meanes you may be forced vnder paine of damnation to admit the Diuel himselfe to be your Maister bound to receaue his false suggestions as the word of God What absurdity more immane vast horrible then this And yet it doth so necessarely follow vpon your foresayd Doctrine as you are forced to grant it cap. 2. n. 12. lin 22. If by the Discourse of the Diuell himselfe I be I will not say conuinced but persuaded though falsely that it is a Diuine reuelation shall deny to belieue it I shall be a formal though not a materiall Heretique 22. You will perhaps say I do you wrong and mistake your meaning For you do not meane that you are bound to belieue any falshood proposed vnto you by the Diuel in persuasiue or conuictiue discourse but onely if you haue belieued vpon the Diuels persuasion any thing to be Diuine Reuelation you cannot this supposed disbeleeue it or thinke it to be false I answer the drift of your discourse sheweth this could not be your meaning and if it were the same is proued by your owne confession sottish In that place you discourse vpon a difficulty debated betweene D. Potter and the Maintayner of Charity what is required to sufficient proposition obliging men to beleeue D. Potter (a) D. Pot. pag. 247. a Be it by a Preacher or lay man or reading Scriptures or hearing them read that a point be cleered to him thinkes that to be sufficiently proposed as God's Word which is proposed by seeming euident proofe from Scripture whosoeuer the Propounder be The Mantayner iudgeth sufficiency of Proposition to depend not so much on the seeming clarity of Scripture as on the Authority of the propounder that he be worthy of credit and such an one as on his word and proposition we may securely rely You take part with D. Potter affirme that what is proposed by good and sufficient proofe by conuictiue or persuasiue discourse as the word of God is sufficiently propounded vnto fayth though the propounder be the Diuell himselfe Be the meanes of proposal what it will sufficient or in sufficient worthy of credit or not worthy though it were the discourse of the Diuel himselfe yet if I be I will not say conuinced but persuaded though falsely that it is a Diuine reuelation and shall deny to belieue it I shal be a formal though not a material Heretique These be your wordes which shew euidently your mind to be that men are bound to belieue the Diuel himselfe if his discourse be sufficient that is conuictiue or euidently probable and persuasiue 23. For the sense that if you were persuaded by the Diuel that it is a diuine Reuelation yet should refuse to belieue it to be true that then you should be a formal Heretique this sense is idle and sottish not formall heresy but plain impossibility as you say (u) Second edition pag. 10. lin 2. Pag. 10. lin 12. How is it not apparent contradiction that a man should disbelieue what himselfe vnderstandes to be a truth or any Christian what he vnderstandes or but belieues to be testified by God D. Potter might well thinke it superfluous to tell you This is damnable because indeed it is impossible 24. Moreouer this obligation of belieuing the Diuels Discourse and Conference if it seeme to you to be conuictiue or persuasiue is necessarily consequent vpon these your principles 1. That proposition sufficient doth not depend on the authority of the propounder but only on the apparent goodnesse or seeming euidence of his discourse 2. That he who followes God only and his owne reason cannot possibly erre 3. That by discourse no man can possibly be led into errour For all men are bound to belieue that to be the word of God and infallible truth which they iudge sufficiently propounded as such But you iudge that sufficiently propounded which is propounded by conuictiue or persuasiue discourse from Scripture whosoeuer the propounder be though he be the Diuel himselfe Therfore you are by your principles bound to belieue euen the Diuel himselfe when his discourse to you seemeth conuictiue or persuasiue as Luther did and by diabolical persuasion was induced to abrogate the Masse This being so that your way of resolution bindeth you to belieue the Diuells discourse I subsume But in the true Christian way of resolution none can be bound to belieue the Diuel when he knows him to be the Diuel Therfore this your Wit-way of resolution of fayth is the right way to make the Diuell the ruler guide of your wit You say (y) Second Edit pag 340. lin 22. Pag. 357. lin 13. That our Diuells at Lowden doing tricks against the Gospell shall not moue you I am persuaded the Diuell will not giue so much as a false miracle for your soule seing he may haue it at an easier rate For he can easier frame an hundred arguments of conuictiue discourse from Scripture in the behalfe of his falshoods that is such as you with all your wit shall not be able to solue then do such tricks as he is said to be forced to do at Lowden And yet you do not aske so much as a conuictiue Argument for your soule if he can by probable reasons from Scripture hammer into your head that his doctrine is diuine reuelation you are sure his owne The sixt Conuiction 25. WHereas the Directour offers you the perpetuall visible Church descended by neuer interrupted succession from our Sauiour for your guide instred of your natural wit and reason you reiect the offer Preface n. 12. saying He that followeth reason in all his opinions followeth God whereas he that followeth a company of men may oftentimes follow a company of beasts And against the Catholique Romane Church thus you declame Cap. 6 n. 72. If I follow your Church for my guide I shall do all one as I should follow a company of blind men in a iudgment of colours or in the choyce of a way For euery inconsidering man is blind in that which he doth not consider Now what is your Church but a company of vnconsidering men who comfort themselus because they are a great company togeather but all of them either out of idelnesse refuse a seuere trial of their Religion or out of superstition feare the euent of such a triall that they may be scrupuled and staggered by it c.