that these Bookes be the word of God resteth finally not vpō the credit of human Tradition but vpon the Scripture onely which shewes it selfe with euident certitude to be diuine and supernaturall truth and so reuealed of God Euen as light is seene by its owne brightnesse and hony is proued to be sweet by the very tast thereof But this point of Protestancy you reiect as fond vaine ridiculous pag. 371. n. 51. and proue it to be such Because if the Bookes of Scripture were euidently certayne if they did with euident certitude demonstrate themselues to be Diuine truth then all men that haue vnderstanding and capacity to apprehend the right sense and sentence of Scripture would belieue them to be true which experience sheweth be otherwise If Protestants answere that such as haue their tast distempered to them hony is bitter so Infidels through preiudice and distemper of passions do not perceaue and tast the Diuinity of the Doctrines of the Scripture Against this the reply is ready and conuincing For they who through distemper of their palate iudge hony to be bitter do not apprehend the true tast of hony but a tast contrary to the true tast thereof which being in their palate they conceaue it to be in the meate But Infidels by their vnderstanding do rightly apprehend and conceaue the true senses of Scripture and the mysteries of fayth deliuered therein more cleerely then many Christians of meane capacity do and yet they do not iudge them to be Diuine truth or truth at all Ergo the very true sense and sentence of Scripture doth not with euident certainty shew it selfe to be Supernaturall truth such as could not be reuealed but of God 6. Finally if the Protestants beliefe of Scripture be grounded vpon sight of the truth thereof this their beliefe is not sauing fayth for Fayth by which men are saued as hath beene sayd is that wherby they submit by voluntary obedience their vnderstanding to Gods word belieuing firmely and assuredly vpon the Authority thereof things in themselues incredible and aboue the reach of human reason But Protestants do not belieue the doctrine of Scripture because it is the word of God but because as they say they see it to be Diuine truth and consequētly the word of God Ergo they haue not the fayth of humble submission to Gods word which is the onely fayth that pleaseth God and by which men are saued 7. The third Argument Protestants haue not fayth of infallible adherence that is fayth worthy of God about the sense and interpretation of Scripture For holding the Churches interpretation to be fallible they pretend to be sure by this rule that what they belieue to them seemes plainely cleerely euidently reuealed and proposed in the Scripture But this rule of assurance is not infallible but very fallible and deceytfull For euen Protestants thēselues contend that many texts and places of Scripture which seeme plaine and cleere are to be vnderstood figuratiuely against the plaine proper and literall sense For example the words of our Lord about the chiefe Sacrament mystery of fayth THIS is My Body This is My BLOVD in their plaine proper and literall sense deliuer and establish Transubstantiation as Protestants grant Hence Protestants that are resolued not to belieue a mystery so high aboue reason seemingly repugnant to sense will by no meanes allow these wordes to be true in their proper and literal sense they will not yield to the plain euidence of the Diuine text Whereupon it is euidently consequent that they cannot be sure about any mystery of fayth by vertue of the sole seeming euidence of the sacred Text. For instance take the most fundamental text of Scripture about the most fundamētal mystery of Christian Religion to wit the Incarnation of the Sonne of God The Word was made flesh How doth this text euidently conuince that the Eternal Word and Sonne of God was made Man truely substantially personally What Protestants say of the word of Christ This is my Body why may not Nestorians affirme about this text The Word was made ffesh that it is not true in a proper plaine and literal sense but metaphorically figuratiuely that God and Man were made one in Christ by affectual vnion as two great friendes are said to be one How can Protestants be themselues assured or how can they proue by the sole euidence of the text that this Nestorian interpretation is false And if their beliefe of the mystery of the Incarnation be not solide and firme grounded on a rule of interpretation infallibly certaine how can they be saued 8. Learned and iudicious Readers may find in your booke a world of laughter about your answering the arguments of Charity Maintayned you do it so vnscholler-like so okerly and vntowardly Let your answere to this argument serue for a patterne Our Maintayner vrgeth D. Potter that if the Church may erre in points of fayth not fundamentall you can neuer be sure of any such point For as you erre about some deceyued by the seeming euidence of the Scripture so you cannot be sure you do not erre about other You answere Pag. 117. n. 160. A pretty Sophisme depending vpon this principle that whosoeuer possibly may erre he can neuer be certaine that he doth not erre A Iudge may possibly erre in iudgment can he therefore neuer be sure he hath iudged aright A Traualler may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my chamber Or can our London-Carrier haue no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London And a litle after nu 161. whereas our Mayntainer argueth that you cannot be sure it is an errour to make the Church Iudge of Controuersies because you pretend to be sure by the seeming euidence of Scripture but this rule is not infallible so you cānot be sure by the warrant thereof The ground of this Sophisme say you is very like the former viz. that we can be certaine of the falshood of no proposition but those only that are damnable errours But I pray good Sir giue me your opinion of these The snow is balcke the fire is cold M. Knot is Arch-Bishop of Toledo the whole is not greater then a part of the whole that twise two make not foure in your opinion good Sir are these damnable heresies Or because they are not so haue we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir consider seriously with what strāge captions you haue gone about to delude your King and your Country if you be conuinced they are so giue glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which standes vpon such deceytfull foundations This you write which you could neuer haue written had you been with your London Carrier sober and in your wits You haue proued Gusman de
all men are bound vpon their saluation to know and belieue them in particular and yet obstinatly refuse to giue them an exact account which in particular they be 13. Besides what an intricate and infinite obligation do you charge vpon Protestantes in saying that there is as thinges now stand at great necessity of belieuing those truths of Scripture which are not fundamentall as those that are so For the necessity of belieuing fundamentals deliuered in holy Scripture is vnder paine of damnation to know them in particular and distinctly which obligation is so strict that you say it implies contradiction that Saluation be had without the least of them Now if the necessity of belieuing not fundamentals be as great as this yea the same with this no Protestant can be saued that doth not belieue such passages of Scripture as be not fundamentall distinctly in particular euen as he is bound to belieue fundamentals You often as pa. 169. lin 12. eagerly and bitterly declame against vs for requiring harder and heauier conditions of Saluation then God requires or then were required in the dayes of the Apostles Who more guilty of this crime then your selfe For this your necessity of belieuing the not fundamentall truthes of Scripture as much as the fundamental was not euer in Gods Church seeing your selfe onely say it is so as matters now stand Wherby you insinuate that as matters stood anciently this great necessity and obligation had no place in Gods Church Nor can you say that it is required of God for then it would be deliuered in Scripture and consequētly perpetuall in the Church euer since the Ghospell was written wheras your wordes vrging this obligation onely as now matters stand imply the contrary It is therefore manifest that this necessity so heauy and direfull is layd vpon Protestants not by Apostolicall commaund not by diuine Precept but by your selfe and other proud ignorant Ministers who neither know which be Fundamentals nor can agree vpon any short rule within the compasse of which they are all comprized Hence they are forced to send euery Protestant to fish for Fundamentals in the vast and deepe Ocean of holy Scripture not giuing them any direction any rule any assurance of finding them all except they can comprehend cleerly and distinctly all the innumerable truthes plainely reuealed therein 14. Finally what you say pag. 134. lin 24. That may be sufficiently declared to one which is not sufficiently declared to another and consequently that may be fundamentall to one which to another is not And pag. 281. lin 4. The same errour may be not Capitall to men that want meanes of finding the truth and Capitall to others who haue meanes and neglect to vse them This doctrine by you often repeated driueth Protestants into a Thicket of Thornes and briers into new insuperable difficulties vncertainties of their Saluation For though a Protestant were sure which in Protestācy he can neuer be that he distinctly belieues all capital essential truthes which are to be belieued of all how shall he be sure that he belieues all truthes which to him in particular in regard of his greater knowledge and capacity are you say Capitall and Fundamentall How can he be certaine that there are not some capitall and substantiall truths which he hath not found in Scripture though he had meanes of finding them And if he want beliefe of these Fundamentall and Capitall truths how can he possibly be saued For though you should say that these are the least of thinges fundamentally necessary to saluation yet this will not possibilitate their saluation it being contradiction to say that Saluation may be had without any the LEAST thing necessary to Saluation as you affirme Pag. 382 lin 1. The fourth Conuiction YOu could find no Way to make good the Saluation of English Protestants against the demonstrations of Charity maintayned but onely such a Way wherein the vildest Heretiques that now liue or euer liued vnder the cope of Heauen may be saued as well as they yea euen Iewes and Turkes these two consequences frō your principles I will demonstrate in two Sections of this Conuiction That in your VVay English Protestants cannot be saued more then Socinians with fixproofes that you are of this impious Sect. §. 1. 1. YOu say in your Preface n. 39. that you haue not vndertaken the particular defence of the Church of England but the common Cause and Religion of all Protestants And pag. 375. n. 56. you professe that by the Religion of Protestants which you mayntaine to be a safeway to saluation you do not vnderstand the doctrine of Luther or Caluin or Melancton nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneua nor the Catechisme of Hiedelberge nor the articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmonie of Protestants Confessions but that wherin they all agree as a perfect rule of their fayth and actions the BIBLE the BIBLE I say the BIBLE onely is the Religion of Protestants This is the onely Religion the onely way you could find to saue English Protestants wherin they can no more be saued then any other that belieue the Bible and only the Bible as a perfect rule of their life and actions Now in the number of Protestants Ghospelers and Biblists the new Ebionites or Samosatenians whon we terme Socinians are comprehended the most blasphemous Heretiques against the Fundamentall articles of Christianity that euer breathed worse then Arians For Arians acknowledged the Eternity of our Lord Christ Iesus that he had an Eternall most perfect diuine Essence only they would not confesse him to be coequall and consubstantiall to his Father But Socinians deny him to be the eternall Sonne of God affirme him to be meere man and tearmed the sonne of God as other Iust and holy men and Prophets are 2. Now that Socinians are by your account in the number of them that goe the safe way to Saluation as well as English Protestants is manifest not only because they professe the Bible and onely the Bible but also because they are that sort of Christians whose Religion you follow as these six arguments euince 3. First because being so much suspected and accused euen in publique writing to be of that impious Sect and if you were not prouoked to make a cleere profession of the Christian fayth against them you haue not done it you say sometimes that Christ is the Sonne of God but neuer his Eternall Sonne which omission of the word Eternall in a man so suspected of Socinianisme as you are is in the iudgement of our late Soueraigne King Iames a signe of guiltines maketh your Booke worthy of the fagot 4. Secondly because you dislike words about matters of Fayth not found in the Scripture which Christians vse for the better declaration of the Creed This you tearme a vayne conceit that we can speake of the things of God better then in the word of God You declame also bitterly
consequently of the Doctrines contained therein only as an opinion very probable as is hereafter shewed Ergo you question the holy Scripture the Religion and Gospell of Christ you make an if of the truth and certainty thereof You examine it doubtingly with liberty of iudgment prepared in mind to leaue it if perchance you find the grounds thereof apparently false What is this but to be a Nullifidian a man setled in no Religion but doubtfull of all Such an one as they were whome the Apostle checketh terming them men still learning but neuer attayning to the assured knowledge of any thinge Againe Pag. 307. n. 107. you write thus speaking vnto our Maintayner Your eleauenth falshood is that our first reformers ought to haue doubted whether their opinions were certaine which is to say they ought to haue doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formall and expresse termes contaynes many of these opinions From this testimony I conclude that you doubt of the cetainty of the Scripture You professe to examine and question all your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters to make a doubt of the certainty of them But you contend that some of your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters be such as to make a doubt or question of the certainty of them is to doubt of the certainty of formall and expresse Scripture Ergo your Way and practise of doubting of all your opinions about Diuine matters is doubting euen of the truth of the Christian Scripture and Ghospell of Christ A thinge most impious and execrable as you now suppose yet so fond and forgetfull you are as to say you should haue litle hope of Saluation did you not do it or endeauour to do it 6. In fine your safe Way is a Labyrinth of implicatory and inextricable errours Protestants that are concluded therein are lost in a maze of vncertainties and in an intricate mixture of contrary doctrines being sure to find nothing therein but damnation which way so euer they turne themselues Do they doubt of the truth of their Religion which they belieue to be the Ghospell They are both according to truth and in your doctrine damnable wretches as being formall Heretiques Be they so firme in their Religion as they ranke doubting thereof among deadly sinnes Then they are you say obstinately blind sure to fall into the pit of perdition as much as we are at the least you affoard them litle hope of obtayning Saluation The sixt Conuiction 1. THis Conuiction sheweth that only Roman Catholiques haue sauing fayth which is demonstrated by three Arguments The first Sauing fayth is that without which it is impossible to please God Now fayth which pleaseth Gods must be on the one side certaine and infallible otherwise it is not worthy of God to whose word we owe so firme beliefe that if an Angel from heauen should Euangelize against that we haue receaued as his word he were not to be heard but to be accursed On the other side it must be a free and voluntary assent not enforced by the euidence of the thinge For if the reason of belieuing be euident and such as doth necessitate the Vnderstanding to assent the assent is not pleasing to God because it is not voluntary obedience and submission to his word Roman Catholiques by belieuing the Church to be infallible in all her proposals obtaine a persuasion about Diuine mysteries firme and infallible and yet of voluntary obedience and submission But the Opposers of the Roman Church not only want certainty in truth but also know not which way to challenge infallible certainty without euidence 2. This may be proued by what you write Pag. 329. lin 31. The infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it selfe yet is not made appeare to vs infallibly certaine to my vnderstanding is an impossibility What is this but to say that fayth of a thing cannot be infallibly certaine except the thinge belieued be made so cleere and apparent that the vnderstanding cannot choose but assent vnto it For what appeares to vs to be infallibly certaine is seen of vs to be infallibly certaine What we see to be infallible certaine we cannot choose but assent that it is so So that a firme grounded beliefe of the truth of thinges not appearing without which it is impossible to please God is by your doctrine to Protestants impossible 3. Moreouer that Protestants cannot haue fayth pleasing to God that is fayth infallibly certayne not grounded on euidence I demonstrate in this sort No man can be assured infallibly of the truth of things not seene nor to him euidently certaine but by the word of an Authour infallibly veracious in all his words deliuered vnto him by a witnesse of infallible truth For if the witnesse or messenger of the word be fallible let the Authour of the word be neuer so infallible our assent to the truth of the thing proposed cannot be infallible Now Protestants haue not the word of God by meanes of a witnesse and messinger infallible For the witnesse proposer and messenger of the word of God is the visible Catholique Church which Protestants hold to be fallible full of false Traditions not free so you say from errour in it selfe damnable and in this sense Fundamentall Wherfore it is demonstratiuely certaine that onely Roman Catholiques who belieue the Church to be infallible can haue Fayth worthy of God Fayth of voluntary submission to Gods word that is fayth of things to them not euidently yet infallibly certayne and consequently they only please God by their belieuing and are saued 4. The second Argument You say pag. 148. lin 16. There is no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but onely because it is Gods word so that you cannot belieue the doctrines and myestries reuealed in Scripture to be true more firmely and infallibly then you belieue the Scripture to be Gods word for we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued thereby otherwise it is no proofe as you say pag. 37â— n. 59. But your assurance that the Scripture is the word of God is onely human probable and so absolutely fallible For you belieue the bookes which were neuer doubted of in the Church to be Gods word and a perfect rule of fayth onely by the tradition or testimonies of the ancient Churches pag. 63. lin 35. But the ioynt tradition of all the Apostolicall Churches with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same doctrine is onely a very probable argument as you affirme pag. 361. n. 40. Ergo your fayth that Scripture is Gods word consequently of all the mysteries therin reuealed is but human and probable and therefore vnworthy of God being not firmer then the credit we yield to euery morall honest man For to vs his word is probable and credible and to you the word of God is no more 5. Protestants commonely pretend that their fayth