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
(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
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.
three arguments as well to be briefe as because these be so full conuincing and well grounded euen by such an Aduersary as you are that more will not be required The first Conuiction 1. IF the Church be an infallible guide in fundamentals or which is all one an infallible teacher of all necessary truth then is she a certaine Society of ChristiaÌ„s of one denomination of one obedience subiect to one visible head in fallible in all her Proposals But the Church is such an infallible teacher of all necessary truth or such a guide in fundamentals In this argument both propositions are yours and I shall set downe your words fully whereby you not onely deliuer but also demonstrate them The Major you acknowledge ca. 2. n. 139. You must know that there is a wide difference betwixt being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible guide in Fundamentals The former we grant for it is no more but this that there shall be a Church in the world for euer But we vtterly deny the Church to be the later for to say so were to oblige our selues to find some certaine Society of men of whome we might be certayne that they neither do nor can erre in fundamentals nor in declaring what is fundamentall and what is not and consequently to make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all thinges she proposes to be belieued This therefore we deny both to your Church to all Churches of one denomination that is indeed we deny it simply to any Church For no Church can be fit to be a guide but only a Church of some certain denomination For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church but by a praeexamination of the doctrine controuerted and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine but by the true doctrine to the Church Heereafter therefore when you heare Protestants say the Church is infallible in fundamentalls you must not conceaue them as if they meane as you do some Society of Christians which may be knowne by adhering to some one Head for example to the Pope or Bishop of Constantinople c. Thus you deliuer the sequells of this proposition the Church is an infallible guide in fundamentalls which are in a word our whole Catholique doctrine about the Church that if that proposition be by you granted expressely and cleerely yea proued inuincibly from Scripture you must returne againe to the Church of Rome or else by your owne iudgment be damned to Hell specially because you repeate the same consequences of the granting of an infallible guide in fundamentalls and both approue and proue them Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 11. speaking to your Aduersary Good Sir you must needes do vs this fauour to be so accute as to diâ—tinguish between being infallible in Fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in Fundamentalls That shee shall be alwayes a Church infallible in Fundamentalls we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be alwayes a Church But that there shall be alwayes such a Church which is an infallible guide in Fundamentalls this we deny For this cannot be without setling a knowne infallibility in some one knowne Society of Christians as the Greeke or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which guide men might be guided to belieue aright in all Fundamentalls A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himselfe and to himselfe be infallible but he could not be a guide to others A Man or a Church that were inuisible so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible guide and yet he might be vnto himselfe infallible 2. Thus you haue told vs cleerely and fully what will follow if you grant the Church to be an infallible guide in Fundamentalls which sequells be so much denyed and detested by you as one would thinke it were impossible you should be so forgetfull as to affirme it And yet you do cleerely say that the Church is not only infallible in Fundamentalls but also an infallible guide in Fundamentalls being euen by essence not only a belieuer of all necessary truth but also a teacher or mistresse thereof Cap. 2. n. 164. initio The visible Church shall alwayes WITHOVT FAYLE PROPOSE so much of Gods reuelation as is sufficient to bring men to heauen for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometymes adde things hurtfull nay in themselues damnable And cap. 2. n. 77. in fiae n. 73. initio you grant that the Apostle termeth the Church of God the pillar and ground of truth not only because by duty it is still the teacher of all truth though not so euer in fact but also because it alwayes shall and will be so yet say you this is short to prooue your intent that the Church is infallible in all her proposals vnles you can shew that by Truth is certainly meant not only necessary to SaluatioÌ„ but all that is profitable absolutly simply ALL. For that the true Church alwayes shall be the MAINTAINER and TEACHER of ALL NECESSARY TRVTH you know We grant and â—â—st grant for it is of the ESSENCE of the Church to be so and any coÌ„pany of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man not be reasonable Thus you Verily were it possible for a creature to be a man not reasonable you deserue to carry away the title of a true vnreasonable man from all men that hitherto haue ranked themselues in the number of Writers You are a true man for that you deliuer manifest truth made good by strong reasons you are an vnreasonable man in that you wilfully and obstinately stand in defence of the contrary falshood I will briefly note first your contradictions secondly the sequels therof 3. In the words cited in the first place you distinguish betwixt a Church infallible in Fundamentals and such a Church as is an infallible guide in Fundamentals granting the true Church to be the former but not the later iesting at your Aduersary as though his confounding them did argue in him want of such an acute wyt as you suppose your selfe to haue But in the second citations you do vs the fauour to be so acute so perspicacious so sharpe-sighted as to penetrate into the very essence of the Church and out of that Closet of Truth pronounce that to be infallible in Fundamentals and to be an infallible guide in Fundamentals be inseparably coÌ„ioyned in the Church and that to grant the former to the Church and deny the later were to deuide the Church from its very essence For I hope you will not be so acute as to distinguish betwixt an infallible guide in Fundamentals and such a Church as is alwayes in fact without fayle the teacher the proposer the maintayner in a word the
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
the common Head and Pastour of the Church or indirect when he standeth peremptory against the Church either obstinately against her Doctrines or contumaciously against her Commandes For such an one is hocipso cut of and cast away out of the Church in the sight of God and the sentence of the Church doth declare him to be such an one and makes him knowne for such an one to them of the Church This supposed I come to prooue that they who separate or oppose against the Church of Rome are Schismatiques The first Conuiction 5. YOu say Cap. 5. n. 36. initio For men to forsake the external Communion of them with whome they agree in fayth is the most formal proper crime of schisme very true Thus you But Protestants agree with the visible vniuersal Church in all fundamental points of fayth as you pretend and yet they haue forsaken her externall Communion For cap. 5. n. 52. initio you speake thus to your aduersary Whereas you say that Protestants diuided themselues from the externall Communion of the visible Church adde which externall communion was corrupted and we shall confesse the accusation and glory in it And cap. 5. n. 55. As for the externall Communion of the visible Church we haue without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it Ergo it is very true that Protestants in separating from the Church of Rome did commit the proper and for mall crime of Schisme 6. This Syllogisme doth consist of propositions which are formally verbally yours yet because you falter and halt in the assertion of them contradicting your selfe to make this demonstration conuincing I will proue both the Premises cleerely by such truths as you are forced to acknowledge The maior Proposition that it is formall Schisme to forsake the visible Church or her externall Communion which you grant in the words I cired you deny cap. 5. n. 25. lin 3. in these words to your aduersary Whereas you take for granted as an vndoubied truth that whosoeuer leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church are Schismaticall I tell you Sir you presume to much vpon vs and would haue vs grant that which is the maine point in question Behold now that is false which before you sayd was very true Which also to be absolutely true I proue by what you write cap. 5. n. 45 lin 16. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Prouided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church doth consist And c. 3. n. 66. lin 9. You may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be This you Now I subsume but externall Communion that is externall Society fellowship and vnity of the members of the Church in their subordination to the common Head and supreme external Authority therof is one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist one of the thinges which make it to be a Church This is cleere because as it is of the essence of an human organicall Body not only to haue a multitude of members locally layd together in one heape but also that they be knit and compacted together in the vnity of one Body by ioint subordination to the head so it is of the essence of euery morall or mysticall body not only to haue a multitude of members or persons but also that the persons members and subiects be knit together and vnited in the Society of one Communion that is of one common vnion of subordination to the Head 7. And this Communion or common subiection must in the members of the Church be external and visible because it is of the essence of the Church to be an externall and visible Society or Body which is proued because you say Cap. 3. n. 78. That it is of the essence of the Church to be the rocke and pillar that is still in fact a proposer mantayner and teacher of all necessary truth But it is of the essentiall necessity of a teaching Church to be visible and externall as you suppose Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 23. A Church that were inuisible so that none could repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible guide that is a teacher of truth yet it might be in it selfe infallible Wherfore external Communion or common Vnion of the members of the Church in their subiection to one common Head or visible supreme gouerning Authority is of the essence of the Church it is one of the thinges which make the Church a Church But Protesters forsooke the externall Communion the common Vnion knot with their fellow-members in the vnity of subiection to one visible gouerning Church-Authority and made to themselues new Conuenticles and Churches vnder new Gouernours and formes of gouerment as is notorious It is therefore manifest that they forsaking the externall Communion of the visible Church because in their iudgment corrupted forsooke the Church of God in one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist in one of the thinges which make the Church a Church and consequently are Schismatiques The second Conuiction 8. IT is you say of the essence of the Church of Christ to be by office the pillar and ground that is the teacher of truth of all truth alwayes in fact the teacher and guide of men in all truth necessary to Saluation Consequently it is of the essence of the Church to be able to performe this office Cap. 3. n. 7â— and to be still in act a Direstour of men to heauen But you say Pag. 163. lin 6. That Church alone can performe the office of Guide or Directour which is of one denomination that is a setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for their guide in Fundamentalls Ergo it is of the essence of the visible Catholique Church of Christ to be of one denomination adhering to one common Bishop as to their guide in Fundamentalls This supposed that Protestants be seuered from the way of Saluation Schismatiques aliens from the only Church that can be the guide to heauen I shall not need to proue you grant it (a) Cap. 5. n. 27. versus finem Pag. 264. lin 4. Put case I should grant of meere fauour that there must be alwaies some Church of one denomination free from all errors in Doctrine and that Protestants had not alwayes such a Church it would indeed follow that I must not be a Protestant but that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence then this If you will leaue England your must of necessity goe to Rome Thus you From which saying I argue If there must be alwayes some Church of one denomination free from all errors in doctrine subiect to one visible head and guide then you must
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