Scripture is not proued to be a perfect rule by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being said or written in a booke but only by Tradition you singe out of tune so high in the prayse of Tradition and so decry Holy Scripture as euen our Catholique eares will not endure it except the harsh sound thereof be allayed and tempered by some reasonable restriction to wit that nothing is proued by being written in a Booke as by the last principle or proofe whereon our persuasion doth rest I feare Protestants will be offended at this your speach and iudge your Booke in respect of this Blasphemy worthy of the fire For verily your wordes as they sound make Scripture no rule or principle of fayth at all but cleerely disannull and make voyd that so frequent Protestant argument Scriptumest it is written it is Scripture For how can this argument be of any force if nothing be proued true because written in a booke but only by tradition The best fauour I can do you is to shew Protestants a place of your Booke where you contradict your selfe about this assertion For this may perchance pacify them to wit cap 4. n. 53. lin 33. A man belieuing the Scripture to be the word of God must of necessity belieue it true and if he belieue it true he must belieue it contaynes all necessary directions vnto eternall happinesse because it affirmes it selfe to do so Behold Scripture proued a perfect rule by its owne saying so and not only by tradition The third Conuiction 13 YOur conceit of resoluing by reason discourse implyeth a double blasphemy first by your owne contrary sayings it is proued to imply that God requires of men impossibilities Preface nu 12. If by discourse you meane right reason grounded on diuine Reuelation and common notions written by God in the Hearts of all men and deducing according to the neuer-fayling rules of Logicke deductions from them if this be it you mean by discourse it is meete and reasonable and NECESSARY that men as in all their actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choyce of their way to Happinesse be left vnto it And in saying this I say no more then S. Iohn to all Christians Deerely beloued Belieue not euery spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God or not I say no more then S. Paul in exhorting all Christians to try all thinges and to hold fast that which is good then S. Peter in commanding all Christians to be ready to giue a reason of the hope that is in them then our Sauiour himselfe in forewarning all his followers that if they blindely followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the Ditch and againe in saying euen to the People Yea and why of your selues iudge ye not what is right 14. But are all men able to do this able to giue a reason of their fayth by the rules of logicke Experience sheweth and you confesse they cannot cap. 6. n. 10. l. 10. I could wish with all my part as Moyses did that all the Lords people could prophesy that all that belieue the true Religion were able according to S. Peters iniunction to giue a reason of the hope in them c. But should I affirme that all true belieuers CANDOSO I suppose it would be much against experience and modesty c. Thus you grant that all Christians are not able to giuea reason of their fayth and yet you say that this is commanded vnto all Christians vnder paine of falling into the ditch that is of being damned What is consequēt hereupon That your doctrine that true fayth is finally resolued into human reason that all men and women that will be saued must be able to be their owne iudges able of themselues to iudge of so many Religious and different pretended wayes to Heauen Oxf. edit pag. 18. n. 26. l. 29. Lond. edit cap. 2. n. 26. pag. 18. l. 11. which is the right This your doctrine is to vse your owne wordes against your selfe iniurioust God man robbing God of his goodnes and man of his comfort making God a Tyrant exacting of men what he knowes they cannot doe and causing man to be desperate seing he cannot be saued but by doing thinges which to him are impossible 15. Secondly your way of resoluing by reason by your contrary sayings is proued blasphemous against Iesus Christ making him O vild impiety a blind and false Prophet You say he foretold and forewarned all his followers that if they blindly followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch of damnation And yet else where you say that millions of his followers who blindely and imprudently belieue vpon the word of their father or Maister or Minister haue true faith are saued cap. 2. n. 49. lin 18. There ara millions amongst you and vs who belieue vpon no other reason then their education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers c. And will you proscribe from Heauen all those belieuers of your owne Creed who do indeed lay the foundation of their Faith no deeper then vpon the authority of their Father or Maister or Parish Priest c What if their motiue to belieue be not in reason sufficient Do they therefore not belieue what they do belieue They choose their Faith imprudently perhaps but yet they do choose it vnlesse you will haue vs belieue that is not done which is done because it is not done vpon good reason c. Wherefore you must for shame recant this fancy when you write againe suffer true faith to be many times where your Churches infallibility has no hād in the begetting of it Behold how earnest you are to proue many millions of Christs followers who belieue vpon no good reason but blindely follow their blind fallible leaders a father a maister a Minister haue true faith and are saued consequently that our Lords forewarning that if the blind follow the blind both shall fall into the ditch is not true 16. Thus you make our Lord which I haue horrour to think a blind prophet out of your owne damnable blindnes For our Lords saying is most true and infallibly certaine that if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch but your doctrine is blind and impious that the Catholique Church as a blind guide and many times they that follow it follow a company of beasts Nor is it true that many of ours haue true Christiā faith of the Creed who belieue vpon no better authority then the word of a Father or Master c. For how can they belieue the Creed whereof one article is the holy Catholique Church without apprehending better authority to belieue then the bare word of a Father If they want discretion to conceaue the notion of the holy Catholique Church they want vnderstanding to belieue actually and so are saued by Habituall faith but if they apprehend what is
THE CHVRCH CONQVERANT OVER HVMANE WIT. OR The Churches Authority demonstrated by M. VVilliam Chillingvvorth the Proctour for VVit against her his perpetual Contradictions in his booke entituled The Religion of Protestants a safe VVay to Saluation In ventre Ecclesiae Veritas manet Quisquis ab hoc ventre separatus fuerit necesse est vt falsa loquatur Aug. in Ps 57. v. 4. Permissu Superiorum 1638. THE PREFACE WHOSOEVER hath attentiuely perused the Booke the Confutation wherof I haue vndertaken cannot but with horrour perceaue therein a direct and often iterated exprobation made to the whole Army of the liuing God For he chargeth as subiect to vniuersall damnable Errours not only the present Catholike Church and that of some later tymes before but also the most prime and Primitiue (a) Pag. 292. nu 91. Ages of the 5.4.3.2 by Name yea the Church Apostolicall the (b) Pag. 144. n. 31. Blessed Apostles themselues euen after they had receaued the Holy Ghost 2. Against this Defyer and Challenger of the Church of God as I did hartily wish so did I hopefully expect that of the famous Vniuersity in the sight and hearing wherof this hatefull exprobation was made an Vniuersity stored with so many well experienced warriours and redoubted Champions some one would haue appeared in field with the complete Armour of Christian inuincible learning My desire was grounded on feare least otherwayes in the iudgment of Posterity the most vnpartiall Arbiter of former demerits this Nursery of sciences in ancient tymes so renowned for Christian piety and learning might be thought to haue wanted in this occasion either Knowledge of Theology to discerne or Maturity of Iudgment to consider or Zeale of Christianity to detest or Grace of Elocution to confute such vnchristian Principles 3. What may haue been the cause of this their forbearance I will not passe my Iudgment Whatsoeuer it were I am confident of their Christianity that they will approue fauour and applaud Christianity maintayned and say with S. Paul (c) Philip 1.18 so that Christ be preached any manner of way I ioy therein and will ioy Which Treatise if they haue read ouer perused I dare say they haue found therin a little Dauid short and solid pious and pithy learned and religious armed with smooth stones of cleere Truth gathered from the current of Christian Tradition deliuered by the Pastorall slinge of the Churches Authority On the other side a mighty Giant destitute of all the signes and markes of a Christian souldier armed neither with the authority of the present Christian Church nor perpetuall Traditions nor Councells nor Consent of Fathers nor with their single sentences which he reiects as Bul-rushes of no strength 4. He layeth claime to the Armour of light the Holy Bible but this is only to daunt his Aduersary with words not to vse the same in deeds For neuer Writer appeared in matter of Controuersy more bare then he is of this kind of proofe He hath cited twice or thrice some texts of Scripture so few and so short that I dare say al the words of Scripture vrged in his Booke against vs may be cōprized in ten lynes He cōfideth only in the launce of his Dialectical Discourse (d) Discourse grounded on Scripture by the neuer fayling rules of Logicke Preface n. 12. which he presumeth he can deliuer so assuredly by the stronge Arme of his Human Reason and dexterity of naturall Wit as euer infallibly (e) By discourse no man can possibly be lead into Errour ibid. to hit the marke of reuealed Truth 5. That short Treatise as I said of Christianity maintayned hath foyled this daring challenger by a stroke on the forehead by laying open his Principles how they destroy Christianity wherby he cannot but fall to the ground in the Iudgment of all Christian Churches The spoyles of his victory he leaueth to his Armiger to gather that he may also haue part of the honour and in the glorious victory which is as (f) Epist. 84. S. Hierome sayth cum Dauide extorquere gladium de aduersarij manibus superbissimi Goliae caput proprio mucrone truncare to confute and make away with the heads of his erroneous doctrine by the force of his owne sword his words sayings and principles 6. To take this course for the Confutation of his Booke I was vrged by Necessity and Charity Necessity against an Aduersary who denyeth all the Principles of Christian fayth He often repeates with much pride but still without proofe (g) Pag. 376. lin 6. pag. 131. lin 27. I see plainly and with my owne eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councells against Councels some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselues a consent of Fathers in one age against a consent of Fathers in another age the Church of one age against the Church of another Age. Scripture remaynes which he doth though not so openly and professedly yet cleerely and manifestly discard as a contradictious witnes For he teacheth that in respect of making a thing incredible or of no credit it is all one (h) Pag. 215. lin 16. whether the Contradictions be reall or only seeming So that a writing full of seeming contradictions can be of no more credit with vs then if the contradictions were reall Now he professeth that (i) Pag. 136. n. 9. lin 15. in all Controuersies betwixt Protestants one with another which are innumerable there is still a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture that the Scripture may with so great probabilities be alleaged on both sides that we (k) Pag. 41. l. 7. may expect an Elias to reconcile the repugnances If then the Scripture be to our seeming full of conflicts and irreconciliable repugnances as well as Popes Councells Fathers how can it be of more authority credit 7. Who doth not see that there is no way to deale with this man but to hamper him in the knots of his owne speach from the Authority wherof he will not disclayme He is not (l) Pag. 152. l. 15. an Idolatour of S. Austen but of himselfe D Field (m) Pag. 84. n. 86. is not infallible but he is Optatus (n) Pag. 298. n. 97. his sayings be not fit to determine controuersies of Fayth but his are S. Cyprians (o) Pag. 268. n. 44. sentences be not a rule of faith but his be The Scripture is full of seeming cōflicts Contradictions and irreconciliable Repugnances but he will neuer confesse so much of his owne Booke There be Christian Ages against Christian Ages but he will thinke we do him wronge if we say that in his writings Pages are repugnant to Pages yea many tymes sentences of the same Page are at deadly food the one with the other This then is the way to confute and confound him to shew that being lead by passion one way and by the euidence of truth another he hath spokē seelily vaynely against the Authority of the
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
(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
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
through sinne of the will as millions of them you feare do I pray you is there any hope they shall be saued What hope say you Spes est reâ— incertae nomen There is no doubt but these Protestants shall be saued This you teach for hauing pag. 136. endeauored to excuse their contentions by laying the fault on Scriptures seeming conflicts with it selfe (c) Cap. 3. n. 9. aliter 19. in fine Pag. 137. lin 1. you add Besides though we grant that Scripture Reason and Authority were all on one side the apparences of the other side all answerable yet if we consider the strange power that education preiudices instilled by it haue ouer euen excellent vnderstandings we may well imagine that many truths which in themselues are reuealed plainly inough are yet to such or such a man prepossest with contrary opinions not reuealed playnly NEITHER DOVBTI but God who knowes whereof we are made and what passions we are subiect vnto will compassionate our infirmities and not enter into iudgement with vs for those things which all things considered were vnauoydable Thus you Who are lyke as lyke may be to that naughty Seruant in the Ghospell who hauing obtayned of his Lord remission of a debt of ten thousand talents presently tooke his fellow seruant by the throat and would haue choked him for a debt of an hundred pence 32. Let vs set before vs two men the one a Protester who through the preiudices of pride and presumption on his owne wyt through proud contempt of the whole Catholique Church of generall Councels of consent of Fathers instilled into him by education erreth against plaine Scripture On the other a Roman Catholique who through reuerence to the authority of the present Church to the Church of all ages to generall Councels to the consent of Fathers instilled into him by education neglects to heare your wisedome and thereby is kept in some errour against Scripture which by hearing a man of so great learning and Religion he might as you thinke haue auoyded let any man of discretion and conscience be iudge whether the former Errant do not sin ten hundred thousand tymes that is incomparably more then the later And yet you leaue little hope of saluation to the later Catholique ignorant good-soule who if he sinne at all in neglecting your wisedome persuading him to trust his owne wyt sinneth onely out of a too low conceipt of himselfe and of his owne wyt and through to much respect to generall Councels and Christian consent of holy Fathers Whereas that other Protesting proud foole who both obstinately and erroneously resists all Christian Churches generall Councels and consent of Fathers through confidence on his owne wyt through contempt of all others instilled into him by education shall you say without doubt be saued 33. God say you is infinitely iust and therefore there is litle hope of saluation for Papists if they erre though but of onely negligence and vnwillingnes to seeke the truth But he is infinitely good and therefore though we Protesters hold errours against plain Scripture out of passion and pride auersions contempt of the Church and the Pastours thereof instilled by education there is no danger God knoweth that to these passions of pride presumption contempt we by education are subiect and so without doubt will compassionate our infirmities and not enter into Iudgement with vs for such things which all things considered were vnauoydable Poore men blinded with selfe conceyt who thinke your will and pleasure shall at the last day be the rule and measure of diuine Iustice who vainly flatter your selues and thinke you may deale with God as you do with vs. No no You will suffer vs to speake much truth togeather if it be to no purpose against you or you be willing it should be truth But the truth of Gods most iust sentence you shall endure and suffer will you nil you though it be most hatefull to you and terrible against you Then you will find that as no one sentence was oftner repeated by the Iudge liuing in this world so none will be found more true at the last day then this He that humbleth himselfe shall be exalted and he that exalteth himselfe shal be humbled It is then manifest that with extreme malice partiality iniustice you separate from hope of Saluation the Catho lique Church from which you are separated and soe are guilty of Schisme and of most malicious and damnable Schisme That Protesters are Heretiques CHAP. VII THIS was part of the title of the last Chapter but because the matter is distinct to the end that no one Chapter or matter hold vs euer long I haue deuided the former into two To make the Title good we must declare suppose the definition and nature of Heresy Christian fayth stands vpon two grounds or principles diuine Reuelation and the external Proposition thereof For we cannot by Christian fayth belieue any thing which is not reuealed of God nor what is reuealed of God is credible and worthy to be credited and belieued of vs till the same be externally proposed to vs by some credible witnesse For as we could not belieue the word of God were not the Authour infinitely credible and worthy of credit so likewise our perswasion cannot rest firmely vpon the proposition that God hath reuealed such thinges except the Proponent be euidently credible of it selfe This you affirme Pag. 62. n. 25. pag. 69. lin 7. Cap 2. n. 25 n. 45. That our inquisition of what is reuealed of God neuer ceaseth till at last we find a principle to be rested on for it selfe which may be a rocke and ground vnto our beliefe Hence there be two Aduersaries of Christian fayth Ethnicisme and Heresy Ethnicisme opposeth and denieth expressely Christian doctrine to be diuine reuelation and calleth in question the authority of God Heresy opposeth the authority of the Christian Proponent of diuine Reuelations and though he professe to belieue Christian doctrines diuine reuelations yet in the question which in particular they be he will be his owne chooser as the word Heresy doth declare being in english the same as Choyce 2. Whosoeuer then refuseth to belieue any doctrine proposed to him by the last Christian Principle and rule euidently credible of it selfe such a man is an Heretique and to be accounted as a Heathen and Publican As whome we cannot make to see the light of the sunne shinning at noone day we leaue him for a blind man whome we cannot make to apprehend the prime principles of reason euident of themselues we leaue him for a sot and vncapable of learning So whome we cannot wyn to belieue what is proposed by the last and vttermost euidence Christian Proposition can possibly haue we leaue him for wilfully blind for one voyd of fayth for a heathen and publican For what can we do to him more If such an one be not an Hereticke that is vnder the name of a
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
are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church that they are the highest Tribunals the Church hath on earth that their Authority is immediatly deriued and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and iurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon euident reason Behold D. Potter cryes We Protestants say that Generall Councels are authorized of God to pronounce a Iudiciall definitiue sentence obliging all persons and you cry the contrary We say and are able to demonstrate that God hath not giuen any such authority to any Society Councell or Congregation of men How do you not feare least by thus contradicting your Potter Isa c. 45. you incurre the curse of the Prophet Vaequi contradicis fictori tuo testa de Samijs terrae Woe vnto thee that darest contradict thy Potter though thou art but (a) Samosatenian a Samian Pot-sheard 31. But I can easely make you friends with the Doctour shewing that else where you contradict your selfe and agree with him that Councels are authorized of God to pronounce a definitiue obliging sentence c. 4. n. 18. in fine I willingly confesse that 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 affoard it outward submission for publique peace-sake Hence I thus argue Christian Councels haue power to pronounce a Iudiciall definitiue obliging sentence as you confesse and from that obligation you except no Christian and consequently they can bind all persons of the Church at the least to outward submission and externall obedience for peace-sake But none are fit to pronounce such a sentence but such a Congregation or Society of men as are by God authorized thereto as you also affirme Ergo a Christian Councell or Conuocation of Bishops is authorized of God to pronounce a Iudiciall definitiue sentence obliging the whole Christian world 32. And whereas you say with D. Potter that such Councels be not infallible and so may be questioned or reiected vpon euident reasons and that they do bind vs to externall obedience for peace sake but not to an inward assent that their Decrees are true you contradict what you write pag. 59. n. 17. In Ciuill Controuersies we are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge or not be resist it but not alwayes to belieue it iust But in matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue iudged right So that in ciuill Cōtrouersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible Now seing you say cap. 2. n. 22. That in matters of Religion the office of Iudge may be giuen to none but whome God hath designed for it a Generall Councell which hath the office of iudge to pronounce a Iudiciall obliging sentence in matters of Religion must of necessity be infallible and bind Christians not onely to outward submission but also to belieue that it hath iudged right and according to the word of God Except you will say that God doth assigne and authorize such Iudges as are not sit for the office nor such as the state of Religion doth require Besides to say that Generall Councels haue authority immediatly from Christ to bind all persons to externall obedience and yet that such Councels be fallible and false many times what is it but to say that Christ hath appoynted such Authority gouernement in his Church by the force wherof men are bound to dissemble and play the Hypocrites in matters of Religion For example Generall Councels haue defined That Communion in one kind is lawfull command all Christians to approue and practize it You are persuaded in conscience that this is vnlawfull a sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament and yet by your doctrine That Councels bind at the least to outward submission and externall obedience you are bound outwardly to practise it and to make a shew as if you did iudge the same lawfull It is therefore euident truth the contrary impious that Generall Councels appoynted of Christ as the highest externall Tribunals the Church hath on earth and which bind all persons to externall obedience are infallible And if they be infallible then they who moued with conceyte of their priuate skill in Scripture which they pretend to haue gotten by the excellency of their wit discourse or by singular illumination from God reiect their iudgment and openly Potest that they may erre and haue erred are proued damnable Heretiques The eight Conuiction 33. PRotesters are Heretiques because they condemne and contemne that Church vpon whose authority they haue belieued Christ and Christian Religion For they haue receaued Christ and the grounds of Christianity by the preaching (a) Cap. 2. n. 101. and vpon the Authority of some Church as you say cap. 3. n. 33. lin 10. Now the Authority of this Church ought to be to them to firme and infallible as their Christianity so as they should rather not belieue in Christ then belieue any thing against them by whome they belieued Christ This you teach pag. 90 lin 2. Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was moued to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoeuer you are better declare to me what he sayd whom I would not haue thought to haue beene or to bee if the beliefe thereof had beene recommended to me by you c Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easely persuade my selfe that I were not to belieue in Christ then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whome I belieued him This is your discourse full of impieties because what S. Augustine sayth of the whole Christian Catholique Church you apply to the Protestant Church of England It is false that any true Christian belieues in Christ by resting on the Authority of the Church of England nor doth this Church if it make Christians propose her selfe but the Holy Catholique Church for the irrefragable witnesse of Christ It is impious that you would neuer haue belieued Christ nor Christianity if the beliefe thereof had beene recommended to you by vs that is by preachers of the Roman Church and Holy monkes sent you for that office from Rome It is Antichristian to professe that you would more easely not belieue in Christ then learne any thing concerning him from any other then them the Church of England by whom you belieued him so that if the Church of England should fall away from Christ into Infidelity you professe aforehand that you will fall away and become an Infidell with her 34. Hence it is cleere that the
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
be decided for Christians affirmatiuely by another principle or direction besides naturall wit and iudgment to wit by the testimony of the primitiue Church or by tradition which is a rule to iudge all Controuersies by 3. If you reply that the question which Scriptures be canonicall is indeed determined by the testimony of the primitiue Church but not only by it without the concurence of naturall reason this euasion is stopt by what you write cap. 2. n. 2◠lin 26. The question whether such or such a booke be Canonicall Scripture though it may be decided negatiuely out of Scripture by shewing apparent and inreconcileable contradictions betweene it and some other booke confessedly canonicall yet affirmatiuely it cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Churches Behold the controuersie wherein Scripture is the subiect cannot be decided affirmatiuely by any rule or principle but by tradition only that is by the testimony of the ancient Church a rule distinct from that of naturall wit and iudgement 4. You will say yea you do say that Tradition though a principle distinct from reason yet is not able to stand by it selfe without the support of naturall reason cap. 2. n. 31. Though Scripture be a principle most knowne in Christianity yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a principle more knowne then Scripture but to say it is a principle not in Christianity but in reason not proper to Christians but common to all men And cap. 2. n. 114. You would haue men follow authority on Gods name let them we also would haue them follow authority for it is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue them beleiue the Scripture But then as for the authority you follow you will let them see reason why they should follow it And is not this to goe a little about to leaue reason for a short time then to come to it againe and to do that which you condemne in others It being indeed a plain impossibility to submit reason but to reason for he that does it to authority must of necessity thinke himselfe to haue greater reason to beleiue that Authority Thus you And though you often iterate this falshood that tradition is not rested vpon for it selfe but proued by reason yet you do as often inculcate the contrary truth that it is a principle euident of it selfe independently of any reason besides that credit it hath of it selfe Cap. 2. n. 155. The Scripture is not an absolutely perfect rule but as perfect as a written rule can be which must alwayes need something else which is euidently true or euidently credible to giue attestation to it and that in this case is vniuersall Tradition so that vniuersall Tradition is the rule to iudge all controuersies by Cap. 2. n. 25. lin 3. We belieue not this the bookes of Scripture to be canonicll vpon the authority of your Church but vpon the credibility of vniuersall tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe and therefore fit to be rested on Cap. 4. n. 53. lin 26. you say That Charity maintayned though he differ from D. Potter in many things yet agrees with him in this that tradition is such a principle as may be rested on and requires no other proofe 5. By these later texts of cleere Truth I conuince the falshood of the former that Tradition vniuersall is not a principle in Christianity but in reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men How can tradition vniuersall that is deriued from the Apostles by the full consent of all former Christian ages to this present be a rule to determine all controuersies amongst Christians and yet not be a rule in Christianity but in preason only And whereas you say That tradition is a principle not proper to Christians but common to all men I wonder what mist of disaffection against this truth could be so thicke betweene your vnderstanding and it as to hide it from your sight Is not tradition vniuersall frō the Apostles a rule of beliefe proper to Christians that is for Christians only Do any men in the world but Christians belieue Doctrines to be true Institutions and Lawes holy and pious because they are deliuered as such by full consent from the Apostles who but Christians admit Scriptures to be the word of God because receiued from the Apostles by tradition as such How then is not Apostolicall tradition a principle proper to Christient but common to all men You will say Infidels also belieue the tradition of their Ancestours and so tradition is a principle which Christians haue common with them I answere in like manner Infidels belieue the Scriptures and writings of their ancestours will you then say that Apostolicall Scripture is not a principle proper to Christians but common to all men If not I hope then you will easily vnderstand that though prophane tradition be a principle with Infidels yet Apostolicall tradition may be is a principle proper to Christians 6. The Principle whereby you proue that the authority of Tradition is resolued into Reason because It is impossible that any man should submit his reason but to reason for he that does it to authority must of necessity thinke himselfe to haue greater reason to belieue that authority This principle I say is not onely false but impious For according to it it is impossible that any man should belieue the mystery of the most blessed Trinity except he haue greater reason to belieue it then the authority of God reuealing it For if he haue not then he submits his naturall reason not vnto reason but vnto the authority of God reuealing things farre aboue the reach of reason 7. I conclude the principall intent of this Chapter with a demonstration from your contradictions that with Christians the authority of Apostolicall tradition is not a principle in reason but of Christian faith aboue Reason able to command Reason to belieue euen what may seeme repugnant to reason You affirme that in Scripture there are many irreconcileable contradictions to the seeming of reason ca. 3. n. 19. In all the controuersies of Protestants there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture And cap. 1. n. 13 lin 26. The contrary beliefe may be concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alleaged on both sides that true louers of God and truth may without any fault some goe one way and some another and some and those as good as either of the former suspend their iudgement and expect some Elias to reconcile the repugnancies Now reason cannot but feele much difficulty and repugnance to belieue a book full of seeming contradictions to be the word of God and to containe nothing but infallible truth And yet all true Christians and you professe with them do vpon the authority of Tradition belieue Scripture to be Gods word euery word sillable thereof to be infallible truth notwithstanding all the seeming contradictions which most of
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
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.
the markes wherby the true Christian Catholique Church is knowne which to be found in the Church of Rome only shall be shewed in the seauenth Chapter though I cannot but presume the thing is to euery considering man euident inough Wherefore Catholiques and all true Christians do not choose their Church or Religion by their owne naturall reason and witt but Tradition notorious and euident of it selfe Perpetuall Vniuersall Vniforme shewes them the Church and with her and in her that Religion which was for them chosen ordayned deliuered by the wisedome of Christ Iesus brought by him from the bosome of his heauenly Father You see then that in granting Tradition to be the ground of all Christian beliefe you haue graÌ„ted as much as we can desire and howsoeuer you be pleased to terme vs vnconsidering men yet we haue considered the sequels of your assertions perchance more deeply then you haue done your selfe That the assent to Gods VVord of Christian sauing Faith is not meere human morall and probable but Diuine infallible and certainly vnerring CHAP. II. THE contrary errour cozen german to the refuted in the former Chapter consequent therupon is often inculcated by you in your booke That an infallible faith (a) Cap. 6. n. 6. is not necessary vnto saluation nor for our walking vnto happinesse through a world of oppositions backt by the strength of flesh and blood A weake probable and credible assurance that there is an Heauen sufficeth though (b) Cap. 1. n. 8. versus finem vndiscernable from the beleefe we giue to other human hystories It is inough men belieue the Gospell and mysteries of faith (c) Cap. 6. n. 5. l. 28. as much as Cesars Commentaries or the history of Salust That men are not bound nor is it possible they should belieue (d) Preface n. 8. in fine thinges impossible in human reason (e) Cap. 6. n. 7. in fine That we should belieue the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot be made euident with euidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of vs this for any man to be bouÌ„d to is vniust because to do it is impossible As sure as God is good he will not require impossibilities of vs but (f) Cap. 6. n 7. circa medium infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it selfe yet is not made to appeare to vs to be infallible certaine is an impossibility These and the like nullifidian Pardoxes you often vtter and endeauour to proue which are plausible and applauded by those S. Peter termeth vnlearned and vnstable heads Varro who now passe vnder the name of Gallant wits whose life we may feare is sutable to the leuity and vanity of their Faith Nam quae venustas hic adest Gallantibus Quae casta vestis These doctrines I say be welcome to such as groane vnder the (g) Nam vera Religio omnino sine graui Authoritatis imperâ—o intri rectè nuilo pacto potest August de vtil Cred. Cap. 9. yoke of humble obedience to Gods word vnder Christian duty of belieuing things inuisible the reuealed manner whereof is incomprehensible to humane vnderstanding who because they find difficulty to do it will not endeauour by Gods grace to rayse their erring and wandring thoughts and stay them by firme and fixed faith on high and heauenly obiects For as (h) Ser. 2. de Asconsione S. Leo saith it is the vigour only of generous mindes to belieue without doubt what comes not within sight and there to rest with our heart whither we cannot reach with our eye And because you accuse Catholiques that they require men to yield vpon only probable prudentiall (i) Pag. 79. n. 70. Vpon prudentiall motiues fallible and vncertaine grounds motiues (i) Pag. 79. n. 70. Vpon prudentiall motiues fallible and vncertaine grounds most certaine assent to thinges impossible in human reason that the falshood of this slaunder may be made apparent I must briefly declare our Catholique doctrine together proue it which shall be of this your errour The first Conuiction 2. TO the constitution of an assent absolutely infallible fiue thinges concurre all which by the consent of Catholique Deuines are most certaine and infallible in the assent of Christian faith 1. The Obiect with is doctrine reuealed of God 2. The motiue and reason of belieuing which is the Authority of God reuealing whose veracity is altogether infallible 3. Because we belieue Reuelations not made immediatly to our selues but to the blessed Apostles it is necessary there be a Proponent of Gods word that is a Witnesse worthy of all credit an Authority whereon we may securely rely that those Christian doctrines were deliuered and preached by the Apostles as Diuine Reuelations This Proponent and Witnesse is the present Catholique Church deliuering what she receaued by full vniuersall tradition from her Ancestours or which is the same in effect vniuersall Tradition Now we hold tradition to be altogether as infallible as Scripture and that it ought to be receaued with the same reuerence with the same submissiue deuotion of pious beliefe as Scripture as you acknowledge that we do chap. 2. n. 1. 3. Fourthly that an assent be infallible it is necessary that the thing belieued be represented and proposed to the Vnderstanding of the belieuer in such manner as he may know the same to be infallible and that in belieuing it he cannot possibly erre For the manner of belieuing if it be not knowne to the belieuer to be infallible though it be infallible in it selfe will not make him sure and infallible This condition is found in the assent of Christian fayth for the things to be belieued are represented as cleer by noted and marked with diuine and supernaturall proofes that is confirmed with innumerable manifest miracles which the belieuers haue seen with their eyes or else know them by the report of whole worlds of those that beheld them by report so full constant brim as it is equiualent to the euidence of sense These Diuine proofes and markes euidently shew that the things marked with them are vnder the speciall care of God and of his infinite goodnesse that he cannot but prouide that the pious belieuer be not deceaued about them 4. Hereby is concluded that the Christian manner of apprehending the mysteries of faith is infallible more sure and certaine then any manner of naturall representation and apprehension of things can possibly be Naturall knowledge is eyther Physicall whereby we apprehend things as true because represented as such by the euidence of sense or Metaphysicall whereby we apprehend things as true by the light of vnderstanding which cleerly beholds the necessary connexion the thing apprehended hath with truth As in this proposition Euery whole thing is greater then any single part thereof our vnderstanding by the notion of the single wordes presently without discourse sees and belieues the truth of the speach Neyther of these
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.
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
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