4. For as you say pag. 337. n. o. lin 23. A doubtfull and questionable guide is as good as none at all Is it then impious to thinke that men being in necessity of a guide to heauen and for want of one in termes of perishing eternally God hath commended and commanded vnto them for their guide a doubtfull questionable Church which men neyther know where to find nor being found how to trust 14. What you say of a penitent sinner that God will not damne him for the secret defect in his desired absolution because his Ghostly Father was perhaps an Atheist and could not or a villaine and would not giue him absolution First you are deceaued in thinking that a secret Atheist cannot giue absolution for he may if he haue intention to do what Christ instituted and this intention he may haue though he esteeme of that institution no better then of a foppery As for a Villaine it is not credible that any Christian Priest will be such a villaine as not to giue his Penitent absolution in which case if perhaps it fall out we thinke God of his goodnes will not permit such a Penitent to perish yet the case being rare extraordinary he hath appointed no ordinary meanes of succour but he will supply such defects as he many wayes may easily do by his speciall prouidence Now the necessity of Christians for the defect in their assurance of the true text of Scripture and vncorrupt translation is continuall ordinary and it implies incertainty in all matters of fayth in respect of all Christians For there be scarre any that can assure themselues of the true Text or of the truth of the Translation they vse by searching into the Originalls and ancient coppies Wherefore God hath prouided for them an ordinary meanes of assurance continually at hand and for the capacity of all to wit a Church infallible and so conspicuous as shee may be seene of all The fourth Conuiction 15. ANother Principle you deliuer c. 3. n. 33. li. 10. wherin you cōtradict your selfe depriue Scripture of being the only or the prime Christian rule of fayth I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cānot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a man as Christ that he taught such doctrine that he his disciples did such miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is the word of God vnlesse I be taught it So that the Church is though not a certain foundation and proofe of my Fayth yet a necessary introduction to it Thus you and in like manner you make the Creed contayning all Fundamental articles of simple beleefe independent of Scripture Cap. 4. n. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and contaynes the principles of fayth I ground it not vpon Scripture c. But the contrary to this in formall termes your affirme Cap. 3. n. 37. lin 9. saying of Protestants They ground their beleefe that such and such thinges only are Fundamental on Scripture only goe about to proue their assertion by Scripture only Behold contradiction vpon contradiction For to say you ground your beliefe of the Fundamental articles or Principles of fayth not vpon Scripture and you ground it on Scripture only is direct contradiction What you say that you belieue such and such thinges only to be fundamental proue it by Scripture is repugnant with what you contest more then in an hundred passages of your Booke that you neyther know nor can know exactly which points be Fundamental 16. But omitting your contradiction I conuince that Scripture cānot be the rule of our faith about Fūdamentalls Cap. 2. n. 48 circa finem which must of necessity be knowne and belieued before Scripture I proue by what you write Pag. 70. lin 29. If our vnderstanding did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed how is it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a sonne that he hath already or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can be made againe before it be vnmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of errour will easily perceaue that iam factum facere and factum infectum facere be equally impossible These be your wordes from which I thus argue The Scripture cannot be the rule and reason of belieuing such points of fayth which must of necessity be belieued before we can receaue Scripture But before we belieue Scripture we must belieue the fundamentall articles of Christianity that Christ was and taught such and such doctrine essential to the Gospell that he chose Apostles to preach it who confirmed it with new miracles and left it vs written in these bookes of Scripture These thinges and the like you confesse must of necessity be knowne vpon the Tradition and Authority of the Church before we can belieue Scripture Ergo the assent we yield vnto the truth of these articles is not by Scripture but by the Churches Tradition precedently to our beliefe of Scripture And so the Church teaching vs the Christian Tradition is the fundamentall and essentiall rule of fayth and the Scripture is requisite not to the being of Christian fayth nor for the begetting thereof but only ad melius esse to the wel being thereof to confirme vs more more in what we are taught by the Church The fifth Conuiction 17. CAp. 2. n. 19. (a) For so should it be though it be in the booke n. 9. lin 15. you write In all the Controuersies of Protestants betwixt themselues there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture reason with reason authority with authority which how it can subsist with manifest reuealing of the truth I cannot well vnderstand And cap. 1. n. 13. lin 25. The contrary beliefe may be concerning points wherin Scripture may with so great probability be alleadged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and vpright hrearts true louers of God and the truth such as desire aboue all thinges to know Gods will and to do it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another and some and those as good men as any of the former suspend their iudgment and expect some Elias to solue doubts and reconcile repugnances And Preface n. 30. There is no more certaine signe that a thing is not euident then that honest vnderstanding and indifferent men after a mature deliberation of the matter differ about it From this your confession that there be seeming contradictions and conflicts of one part of Scripture with another which set good and honest men of your stampe together by the eares I gather three arguments which conuince that Scripture by it selfe cannot
be the only rule of fayth First That cannot be a rule of belieuing with is incredible it selfe But Scripture being seemingly contrary to it selfe and contradicting it selfe is by it selfe incredible therefore it cannot be a rule of fayth by it selfe but to be a rule of fayth it must be made credible by some extrinsecall Authority with is so worthy of credit as vpon the warrant therof we may belieue things incredible which is as you grant the rule of vniuersall Tradition 18. Secondly that cannot be the only rule or by it selfe a rule of Christian fayth with is not able to assure vs about the chiefest articles of our fayth as the Trinity Incarnation Reall presence the knowledge whereof is for Christians essentally necessary vnto saluation For if Christ Iesus be the true God consubstantiall to his father then Heretiques to wit Socinian and Arian Protesters against the Church of Rome cannot be saued by Christ seeing they refuse to belieue and worship him as the true God On the other side if Christ be not the true God then Roman Catholiques cannot be saued by the true God seing they were worshippers of a false God Now this article that Christ Iesus is the true God so absolutely necessary cannot be proued vnto them by Scripture only for about this poynt (a) Arius did alleage against the God head of Christ 40. places of Scripture and Catholiques alleage no fewer Scriptures are alleaged with so great probability on both sides that of learned Christians honest and vnderstanding men estemed pious religious true louers of God and his truth Pastours and guides in the Christian Church some haue gone one way some another as is notorious Wherefore what you say that this so probable allegation of Scriptures on both sides is a sure signe of a poynt not necessary implies Atheisme to wit that it doth not import Christians to know whether in worshipping Christ Iesus as the true God they be not worshippers of a false God And if this be Atheisme thē is it blasphemy to say that Scripture onely is the rule of Christian fayth and that Christians cannot be assured of any doctrine whereof they be not assured by the rule of Scripture onely For it is euident truth and vndeniable though other Protesters against vs will not confesse it so cleerely as you doe that where there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture where Scripture is alleadged on both sides with so great probability that learned vnderstanding and indifferent men differ about it it is cleere I say that about such points there cannot be any decision of controuersyes by Scripture onely 19. Thirdly by defending the Scripture to be the onely rule besides this blasphemy that Christians by their rule of fayth cannot be assured that they be not worshipers of a false God you are forced to adde another that on God and his word the fault lyeth that there be so many factions of fayth and so great dissenssion amongst vpright hearted Protestants for that these your true louers of God and his truth stand for contrary beliefe that in matters of Religion Christendome is deuided into Factions and Sects that some go one way and some another cursing and damning ech other to Hell is no doubt a great fault a mighty scandall an huge mischiefe which must of necessity lye heauily either vpon such Dicisioners or vpon God But you excuse the Diuisioners saying that (b) Cap. 1. n. 13. they goe some one way some another without any fault at all Ergo the whole fault must rest on God who gaue to these true louers of him his truth the Scripture for their onely rule which being it selfe as you say seemingly factious contradictious and one part therof fighting agaynst another set these innocent honest vpright hearts togeather by the eares one with the other in good earnest and implacably Thus to excuse Protestāts you protest against God that he is not the God of peace but of dissension and the authour of all the discord among Christians in matter of Religion and of all the mischiefs that are consequent thereupon by giuing a Scripture so full of seeming conflicts for the sole rule of their fayth The day will come that these boasters of their honest and vpright heart of their true loue to God and his truth shall sind the Apostles saying true Not who commendes himselfe but whome God commendes he is approued They shall see that in their trusting onely the Scripture and their owne reason in expounding it contemning the Tradition of the Church they were not louers of God his truth but fast freinds to their owne fancy and fond conceits louers of themselues adorers of their owne poore miserable wit The sixt Conuiction 20. THough we were sure that the Scripture is the word of God that we haue the incorrupt text the true translation thereof cleered from seeming contradictions yet for all this Scripture could not be to vs a rule of fayth alone by it selfe by reason of the high senses of Scripture incredible and incomprehensible to humane reason This I proue by your owne writing wherin you deliuer a grand Catholique verity which ouerthrowes the Scriptures being the onely rule Protestants pretend they know their doctrine and interpretation of Scripture to be the word of God by the diuine light and euident certainty thereof you will not belieue this resolution to be theirs and affirme the contrary cap. 6. n. 5◠That the Scripture is not euidently certaine nor of it selfe disuested of the motiues of credibility euidently credible For Protestants say you are not so vaine as to pretend that all men do assent to it which they would do if it were euidently certaine nor so ridiculous as to imagine if an Indian who had neuer heard of Christ should by chance find a Bible in his owne language that he would by reading it without miracle certainly belieue it to be the word of God which he could not choose if it were euidently credible Thus you and hence I thus argue 21. That Authority cannot be of it selfe and by it selfe alone the rule and guide of Christian sauing fayth in the vnderstanding and belieuing of Scripture which is not of it selfe euidently credible and worthy of all credit This I proue because the rule and reason to belieue the Scripture must be able to conuince the vnderstanding and to resolue it to belieue many high and incomprehensible mysteries For these are taught and deliuered in Scripture and must be belieued by euery Christian that will be saued But an authority which of it selfe is not euidently credible or worthy of all credit is not of it selfe a sufficient reason or a good rule for me to belieue incredible things incomprehensible to my humane reason as is manifest to euery man that hath wit to apprehend the sense of this speach Ergo the Scripture alone by it selfe not ioyned with the euidently credible authority of some other witnesse cānot be the rule of
fayth This may be made manifest by examples as by this What the Scripture sayth Asonne of thirty yeares was Dauid when he began to reigne and he reigned fourty yeares I easily belieue in the plaine sense because there is no incredibility therin But whē the Scripture sayth a sonne of one yeare was Saul when he began to reigne and he reigned two yeares the incredibility of the sense the Scripture in other places assuring me that whē he began to reigne he was higher by head shoulders then any man in Israel makes me presently stagger and to seeke for some stronger pillar then the euidence of the text in my priuate seeming and finding none my reason is presently ouercome and wone to forsake the seeming euidence of the the text The same no doubt would happen in other texts of Scripture about the B. Trinity Incarnation and other mysteries of fayth My fayth I say would giue backe had I no stronger rule and reason of belieuing them then the euidence of the text in my priuate Iudgement But whē I perceaue the euidence of the text in my priuate Iudgment to be vpheld and confirmed by the Iudgement of the Catholique Church which did euer vnderstand belieue such texts in that incredible and incomprehensible sense then am I fully confirmed and Christianly resolued to belieue those high senses though neuer so impossible to the seeming of my reason because tradition or traditine Interpretation as you speake that is the perpetuall doctrine and beleefe of Christians in all former ages is able to ouercome all incredulity which the incredibility of the thing may represent vnto reasō For it is as you are forced to confesse the rule to iudge all controuersies by Cap. 2. n. 25. ca. 3. n. 45. being Gods infallible word euidently credible of it selfe and so a fit rule whereon Christian fayth may rely for what witnesse can be more illustrious and knowne and of more eminent credit then the Church founded by Christ Iesus and his Apostles bathed with the blood of innumerable Martyrs adorned by the glorious liues and miracles of millions of holy men 22. I confesse the Protestants opinion that the doctrine of Scripture is to them euident that they see the truth thereof as cleerely as they do the light of the sunne to be absurd fond ridiculous as you tear me it But also I must acknowledge that they speake consequently other wise they could not say their fayth doth finally rest on the Scripture nor pretend the Scripture to be their onely rule And you who reiect this Protestants conceit of the intrinsecall light of Scripture do not onely harbour Infidelity in your heart but also professe it openly in words pag. 330. lin 28. I deny not 2. Edit n. 318. lin 24. but I am bound to belieue the truth of many texts of Scripture the sense whereof is to me obscure and the truth of many articles of fayth the manner whereof is obscure and to humane vnderstanding incomprehensible But then it is to be obserued that not the sense of such texts nor the MANNER of such things is that which I am bound to belieue but the truth of them for that I should belieue the truth of any thing the truth whereof cannot be made euident to me with an euidence proportionable to the fayth required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is vniust and vnreasonable because to do it is impossible Thus you professe that you neither do nor can belieue the incomprehensible mysteries of Christian Religion For when the manner is the very substance of the mystery then the very substance is incomprehensible For example in the B. Trinity that Three Father Sonne and Holy Ghost be One the mystery is not that these three names signifie one thing as Sabellians and Socinians vnderstand it but that in the vnity of the Godhead there be three Persons distinct of one substance But you professe not to belieue the manner of these mysteries because it is incomprehensible Ergo you do not belieue the substance of the mysterie the substance thereof being a manner of being incomprehensible Moreouer he is no faythfull Christian who belieues not the articles of Christianity according to the Christian manner and sense But the Christian manner of belieuing them is according as they are incomprehensible to humane vnderstanding and seeme to prophane Wit and Gentilisme follies and absurdities as S. Paul doth declare 1. Cor. 1. 23. Ergo you are no Christian who openly shew your selfe a shamed to belieue any MANNER of things reuealed by Christ vpon his word that is incomprehensible except he make it euident to your vnderstanding and then if you belieue him he shall be much beholding vnto you for belieuing him so farre as you see he speakes truth and no further that is so farre as you will trust any liar whatsoeuer The summe of all is that seeing you reiect the Puritanical conceipt that Scripture is knowne to be the word of God by its owne light as a foolerie for so really it is you must either deny the Scripture to be the only rule or else continue to professe vnbeliefe of Christianity and of all manner of incomprehensible mysteries The seauenth Conuiction 23. YOur Aduersary often vrgeth you to set downe an exact Catalogue of fundamentalls or necessary truths without the particular and distinct beliefe of which you contend that it implyes contradiction that any man be saued You hauing vsed many tergiuersations to diuert the mind of the Reader at last confesse (a) 2. Edit pag. 22. lin 13. 2. Edition Pag. 129. lin 15. Pag. 23 lin 8. That it is an intricate peece of buisinesse of extreme great difficultie and of extreme little necessitie almost impossible And pag. 134. lin 28. This variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls And (b) 2. Edition cap. 4. n. 19. pag. 193. l. 10. Cap. 4. n. ◠pag. 201. lin 23. A Catalogue of Fundamentalls because to some more is fundamentall to others lesse to others none at all had been impossible By this confession you ouerthrowe your Principle that Scripture is the only rule wherein all necessary things are euidently conteyned For fundamentall points being the essentiall parts of the Ghospell Doctrines intrinsecall to the couenant betwixt God and man Cap. 4. 〈◊〉 4. lin 29. not only cleerely reuealed and so certaine truths but also commanded vnder payne of damnation to be distinctly knowne and belieued of all and so necessary truths I demand whether these diuine fundamentall and essentiall lawes about the distinct knowing and belieuing of these points in particular be cleerely deliuered in Scripture or not If not Ergo there be some diuine Lawes necessary vnto saluation without the obseruance of which it implyes contradiction any man should be saued Cap. 6. in fine not cleerely deliuered in Scripture If they be cleerely deliuered then points fundamentall be cleerely discernable from
intellectum in obsequium Christi head and the Vnicornes horne of his singular Wit in the lappe of her Communion choosing to be rather taken captiue by voluntary subiection to her Truth then shewed a thrall of errour in the chaines of insoluble Contradictions against himselfe 14. In citing his testimonies I haue been exact punctual euen to a line and to set downe formally fully and largely his wordes and whole discourses more perhaps then some may thinke necessary or fitting but I had rather be found faulty for excesse in sincerity then for defect Yea the wordes that were vpon some occasion cited before I haue when in other occasiōs I make vse of the same repeated them againe at large for the Readers greater ease not to bind him to seeke for them in the place of the former citation I haue quoted not the Pages but the Chapter Number line of the number that so the quotations may be common both to the first second Edition which agree in Chapters Numbers and lines but not in Pages Yet sometimes when the numbers are long I haue quoted the page and the line of the first Edition in the text of the second in the margin The Chapters of the booke be these following 1. That Christian fayth is not resolued finally into natural wit and Reason but into the Authority of the Church 2. That Christian fayth is absolutely certaine and infallible 3. That the current of Christian Tradition is incorrupt both in the fountaine and in the streame 4. That the Scripture is not the only Rule 5. That the Church is infallible in all her Proposalls of fayth 6. That all Protesters against the Church of Rome are Schismatiques 7. That they are also Heretiques An Aduertisement to the Reader THis Treatise Good Reader was to the last word and syllable thereof finished reuiewed and ready for the Print longe since euen in April of this yeere 1638. so that it might haue been printed and published and haue come to thy sight in the last Trinity Tearme but for the tempests and stormes of warre which infested vltra-marine Countries neere vnto England and were no where more boisterous then ouer that place where this Treatise should haue been pressed into the light For this thundering noise of Mars frighted workemen and droue them away into other calmer coastes and afterward brought sharpe and longe sickenesse both on the Printer and Authour which hath been the cause it commeth so late vnto publique view I hope this remissnes and tardity will be recompenced and satisfyed by ensuing speed and diligence in deliuering vnto the world other Treatises which haue been also longe since ready for the Print against this cunning and close Vnderminer of Christian Religion whiles he pretendes to be an opposer but of the Catholique Roman The Church conquerant ouer Humane Wit That true Christian fayth is not finally resolued by naturall Wit and Reason but by the Churches Authority CHAP. I. CHRISTIAN resolution about belieuing the mysteries of our fayth Cap. 1 n 8. as you also note standes vpon two Principles The one Whatsoeuer God reueales for true is true or which is the same The word of God is certaine truth The other The articles of our fayth are reuealed of God About the truth of the first Principle we are fully and abundantly resolued by the Authority of God Reuealing who can neither be deceiued himselfe nor deceiue vs. The question is by what meanes may Christians be sure that the articles of their Religion are the word of God Catholiques make their last resolution into the word of God vnwritten deliuered by vniuersall Tradition euidently credible for it selfe or which is all one into the authority of the Church deliuering what by the full consent of Christian Catholique Ancestors she hath receiued frō the Apostles Protestants resolue to rest finally on Scripture which as they pretend by the cleere beames of its owne light sheweth it selfe and the sense they make thereof to be Diuine supernaturall Truth and consequently the word of God You agreeing nether with the one nor the other both reiect resolution by the inward euident certainty of Scripture as a fond conceypt and also banish the infallible authority of the present Church as an intolerable vsurpation so finally you come to rest vpon the iudgment and choyce of naturall Reason pretending that euery man and woman in the choyce of their Religion must at last follow their owne best wit vnderstanding and discourse In which conceit you are not constant you contradict it often yea you are so vncertaine and vnsetled in all your discourses as you say nothing in one place which you do not in some other place vtterly deny The discouery of this your perpetuail iarring and fighting with your selfe is the marke this Treatise aymeth at wherby it will appeare whether you had reason to write as you do in the conclusion of your worke Though the musick I haue made be dull and flat and euen downe right plainesong yet your curious and Criticall cares shall discouer no discord in it Mare c. 7. I hope together with this discourse the fingar of our Sauiour will enter into the deafe cares of your soule opē them to discerne the perpetuall iarring of your voyce with it selfe and also make you see that it will be alwayes so except you giue ouer singing the canticle of our Lord in the high strayne of quauering and wauering diuision from the Church according to the crochets of your owne conceyt and fall to the plaine Gregorian Ecclesiasticall tune humbling your Treble-wit to sing the base in the lowest note of subiection to the Holy Catholique Church The first Conuiction 2. THis Conuiction is groūded on this contradicting your selfe that cap. 2. n. 3. in fine you say The Scripture is the sole iudge of controuersies that is the sole rule to iudge them by those onely excepted wherein the Scripture is the subiect of the question which cannot be determined but by naturall reason the only principle besides Scripture which is common to Christians To the contrary cap. 2. n. 153. you write Vniuersall tradition is the Rule to iudge all controuersies by Preface n. 13. to the Directours assertion That if the true Church may erre in defining Canonicall Scripture then we must receiue Scripture either by the priuate spirit or by naturall wit and iudgment or by preexamination of the doctrine contayned therein you answer Though the present Church may possibly erre in her iudgment touching this matter yet haue we other directions besides either of these three and that is the testimony of the Primitiue Christians Thus you consider what sweet harmony and concent there is betwixt these two sayings Controuersies wherin Scripture it selfe is the subiect of the question cannot be determined but by naturall reason the only principle besides Scripture cōmon to Christians The controuersy which Scripture is canonicall wherin Scripture it selfe is the subiect of the question may
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
Christians know not how to compose but must expect some Elias to reconcile them Ergo they hold and you professe to hold Tradition as a Principle aboue reason and so high in authority aboue it as it is able to command reason to belieue what to the seeming of reason cannot possibly be true Thus by your owne contradictions the resolution of faith that Scriptures be the word of God is conuinced to rest finally not on Reason but on Tradition a Principle superiour to all human Reason The second Conuiction AS the text of holy Scripture so likewise the sense thereof is proued to be Diuine and true not because congruous and conforme to the rule of natural Reason but because deliuered by Tradition vnwritten This truth I am to make good by your sayings wherein you contradict your selfe leauing the victory to that part of your contradiction which standes for the Catholique side 8. Cap. 2. n. 1. lin 24. you reprehend the Roman Church Because we settle in the minds of men that the sense of Scripture is not that which seemes to mens reason and vnderstanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome declares to be so by tradition vnwritten seeme it neuer so vnreasonable and incongruous Your saying contradictory of this and whereby this may be refuted you deliuer some three pages after to wit Cap. 2. n. 8. (k) Lon. Edit p. 55. in 8. Though a Writing could not be proued to vs to be a perfect rule of faith by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being sayd or written in a booke but only by tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe c. By this saying the former is proued to be false that the Scripture is to be vnderstood according to the seeming of mans reason and not according to Tradition or doctrine vnwriten If nothing be proued true by being writen in a booke but only by Tradition vnwritten then no doctrine or sentence is proued true because written in a booke of Scripture according to the iudgment of mans vnderstanding but only because deliuered by Tradition as diuine doctrine the true sense of Scripture Consequently not Scripture vnderstood according to human sense and reason but Scripture vnderstood in the sense of perpetual tradition from the Apostles is the rule of Christian truth and fayth 9. This you also suppose preface n. 12. Where you say That Discourse guiding it selfe only by the principles of Nature is by no meanes the guide of Christian faythin the vnderstanding of Scripture and drawing consequences from it but the rule is right Reason grounded on diuine Reuelation Now right Reason not guided by the principles of Nature but by the light of diuine Reuclation is not natural wit nor human vnderstanding but dunne fupernaturall sense and Reason Nor can our Reason precedently vnto Scripture be grounded on and guided by the light of Diuine Reuelation written as is cleere Frgo the rule to proue any doctrine to be Diuine truth is not Scripture vnderstood according to mans vnderstanding according to the light of natural Reason but Scripture vnderstood according to the wisedome of God knowne by the light of Diuine Reuelation vnwritten to wit by Tradition which is you say credible of it selfe 10. This resolution of Fayth finally and lastly not into natural Reason but into diuine Reuelation vnwritten is gathered from the saying of S. Peter 2. Pet 1.20 No prophesy of the Scripture is made by priuate interpretation for not by the 〈◊〉 of man Prophesy came in at any time but holy men of God spake inspired by the Holy Ghost This discourse of S. Peter is demonstratiue and may be redueed to this syllogisticall forme The Scripture cannot be interpreted by any spirit wit or mind inferiour to that from which it did originally proceed For an inferiour spirit as is the naturall wit and spirit of man 1 Cor. 2.14 is not able so much as to conceaue the thinges of God Yea that which is wisedome with God is folly with men But all holy Scripture proceedes originally from the spirit wit and mind of God Ergo it is not to be interpreted that is the sense therof is not to be iudged true or false by the seeming of naturall reason or wit but by the spirit and wisedome of God which spake in Christ Iesus and his Apostles the sound of whose voyce hath been by perpetual tradition continued and conueyed vnto the present Catholique Church 11. Nor do you pag. 95. lin 1. sufficiently excuse your course of Resolution frō being priuate interpretation condemned by S. Peter where you say Is there not a manifest difference between saying the spirit of God tels me that this is the meaning of such a text which no man can possibly know to be true it being a secret thing and between saying these and these reasons I haue to shew that this is the meaning of such a Scripture Reasōn being a publique and certaine thing and exposed to all mens trial examination But if by priuate spirit you vnderstand the particular reason of euery man your inconueniences against resoluing by the priuate spirit will be reduced to none at all Thus you vnderstāding by priuate a thing that is hidden secret insearchable not exposed to the sight and examination of all But this notion of priuate is against the meaning of S. Peter in this place because in this sense euen the Holy Ghost is priuate the true sense of Scripture is priuate because hidden and secret not to be discerned nor iudged by the naturall man S Peter then by priuate interpretation vnderstands interpretation made by priuate men who haue no publique authority nor power to command in the Church of God Now your particular reason I William Chillingworth haue this reason that this is the meaning of such a Scripture is priuate not endued with publique authority nor with any right to command priuate men to submit their priuate reason and iudgment vnto yours Ergo your rule of interpretation I william Chillingworth haue these reasons for this sense is priuate and cōsequently of no authority in Gods Church I adde that interpretation by the priuate spirit that is by the spirit of God speaking in priuate men is not so abhorrent and exorbitant from truth as yours by the naturall wit of euery man For extraordinarily it may fall out that that may be the true fense of Scripture which is taught by the Holy Ghost vnto some priuate and particular person but it is impossible that that should be the true sense of Scripture about the mysteries of fayth which seemes reasonable and congruous to human vnderstanding because the wisedome of God reuealed in Scripture seemes folly vnto the natural man So that of necessity in many texts of Scripture that must be the true sense which seemes vnreasonable incongruous to mans naturall vnderstanding 12. I must here finally note that in saying that
Tradition of Christian doctrine from age to age from Father to sonne cannot be a fit ground but of morall assurance Cap. 3. n. 44. lin 55. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall Thus you 9. This is your discourse to proue your Paradoxe that the assent of Christian fayth is fallible and only morally certaine But the foundation wheron you build your maine Principle Vniuersall Tradition is not infallible you your selfe ouer throw and establish the contrary ground that tradition vnwritten is as infallible as Scripture Cap. 4 n. 13. lin 19. Vniuersall and neuer-fayling Tradition giueth this testimony both to the Creed and Scripture that they both by the workes of God were sealed and testified to be the word of God Behold the Hypothesis that the articles of Christian Religion that is of the Christian Creed and Scripture are reuealed of God standes vpon a pillar firme and neuer failing If you say morally certaine and neuer failing not absolutely I reply obiecting vnto you another place where you expressely suppose your certainty of the Scripture to be absolute to wit of those bookes of which there was neuer doubt made Pag. 69. We do not professe our selues so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those bookes with haue been doubted as of those that neuer haue How cleerly and in expresse termes do you professe that your certainty of the Scriptures that were neuer questioned is not only probable and morall but absolute certainty vndoubted And how can it be otherwise seeing Tradition by liuely voyce conueyeth vnto vs what the Apostles deliuered about the Canon of the Scripture to wit which bookes were to be held as the word of God For no man can doubt but the Apostles deliuered what they had by diuine reuelation from Christ Iesns and the holy Ghost consequently that these bookes be the word of God is a diuine reuelation vnwritten as certaine as if it were written For as D. Field (b) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 238. sayth It is not the writing that giueth thinges their authority but the worth and credit of him that deliuereth though by word and liuely voice only 10. Perhaps you will tell me as you do Charity maintayn'd vpon another occasion cap. 2. n. 86. If D. Field were infallible and these wordes had not slipt vnaduisedly frō him this had been the best argument in your Booke Well then I must I see bring an Authour infallible in proofe that Tradition is equall in certainty vnto Scripture one so aduised as all Catholiques compared to his wisdome be but a company of blind vnconsidering men What if I find this Doctrine in your booke proued euen by the same argument D. Field vseth because being written giues not Authority to God's word then I hope you will say without any if that this is the best argument in my booke But where is this passage to be found Perchance if you were to find it your selfe you would be to seeke more to seeke if you goe about to reconcile your contradictions In which case you who vaunt your selfe for the witty Oedipus in soluing the Sophismes and Knots of Charity maintayned will perhaps be at a stop and be forced to say with Oedipus being to solue his owne riddle Ego ille victae spolia qui Sphyngis tuli Haerebo * Scripti fati tardus interpres mei 11. The place is Pag. 153. n. 45. where you speake thus to your Aduersary No lesse say you is S. Chrysostome for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to proue the Church infallible not in Traditions which we willingly grant if they be vniuersall as the Traditiō of the vndoubted bookes of Scripture is to be AS INFALLIBLE AS THE SCRIPTVRE is For neither doth being written make the word of God more infallible or being vnwritten make it lesse infallible In these words you affirme that Traditions vniuersall namely and principally that Tradition that the vndoubted bookes of the Scripture be the word of God are as infallible as Scripture You proue it because Neyther doth being written make the word of God more infallible or being vnwritten make it lesse infallible In which proofe you suppose that as Scripture is the written word of God so Tradition is the word of God vnwritten and therefore equall in certainty and infallibility to Scripture 12. Now the ground of your errour being by your contradiction thereof and by your confession yea by your demonstration of the contrary truth ouerthrowne I proue the assent of Christian fayth to be absolutely certaine in this manner Christian faith is an assent to this conclusion The doctrine of Christianity is true This conclusion is deduced from this Thesis Whatsoeuer God reueales for true is true and this Hypothesis The Christian Creed and Scripture be the word of God So that if both these propositions be absolutely certaine then the assent to the conclusion is infallible and absolutely certaine Now that both these Premises or Propositions be absolutely certaine I proue The Thesis Whatsoeuer God reueales is truth you grant to be absolutely and metaphysically certaine But the Hypothesis The Christian Creed and Scripture is diuine reuelation and the word of God is also absolutely certaine First because it is as you grant an vniuersall Traditiō as infallible as Scripture But Scripture is absolutely and metaphysically certaine truth because it is doctrine reuealed of God Secondly whatsoeuer God reueales whether it be deliuered in writing or by liuely voyce only is absolutely and metaphysically certaine But the Tradition That the Creed and Scripture is the word of God is diuine reuelation which the Apostles deliuered by liuely voyce sealing and confirming the truth thereof with workes of God as you confesse Ergo the Tradition that the Christian Creed and Scripture is of God is absolutely certaine and infallible Finally you say cap. 1. n. 8. in sine 2. edition cap. 2. n. 8. infine If a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit by a messenger that is not so my confidence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the relatour This you I subsume But the message of the Gospell is brought to me and to euery Christian from a man of absolute credit Christ Iesus the Eternall Sonne of God in whome are all the treasures of Diuine wisedome by a messenger of absolute credit to wit by the Church deliuering vniuersall Tradition which is as you confesse as infallible as Scripture Therefore our faith of the Creed and Scripture is not rebated or lessened by being deliuered by the perpetuall visible Church of Christ but is as infallible as if we had had the message immediatly from the mouth of our Lord and Sauiour 13. Iadde Tradition vniuersall is not only as infallible as Scripture but also more certaine in respect of vs. This I ground
pure and pions Christian fayth did hold against this conceyt of Christs earthly Kingdome 8. More false you are about the Communicating of Infants for you are not able to name so much as one Father of the second age which holds it The words of Dionysius Arcepagita the only witnesse produced in this cause being short of this sense as Vasquez (r) Tom. 3. in 3. p. Disput 212. c. 2. n. 13. sheweth S. Cyprian (s) Serm. delapsis is the first that mentioned this custome to communicate sucking Infants vnder one kind to wit giuing them to (t) Paruulis saltem sub specie vini tradatur drinke of the Chalice which custome was good lawfull as all Catholiks defend (u) Concil Trid. sess 21 c. 4. It is cleere that Pope Innocentius with (w) Nisi manducauerint carnem cius non habebuÌ„t vitam significat Baptizatos vitam habere non posse praeter Christi corpus cui vt incorporentur Sacramento baptismatis imbuuntur de poceat merit râ—â— miss lib. 5. c. 4. vide serm eiusdenâ— citatum a Beda in cap. 10. ad Cor. Claud. Sanchez Rep. 6. c. 7. S. Austine and other Fathers disputing against Pelagius who denied Originall sinne and taught that Children were saued dying without Baptisme did by the eating of the body of Christ and drinking his bloud necessary for Infants vnderstand no more then incorporation into the mysticall body of Christ which was done by Baptisme And this was in Infants to eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud not with their owne (x) QuaÌ„uis suo corde ore id non agant August de peccat merit remiss lib 1. c. 20. mouth but by the mouth of the body wherof they are members to wit of the Church 9. I haue cleared the Catholick primitiue Church shewed her innocent of your slanders now I come to the second that mentitus es in caput tuum your owne false accusations light vpon your owne head that by your depositions you are proued more impudent then impudencieit selfe For c. 2. n. 163. in fine you say That it is euident and to impudence it selfe vndentable that vpon this ground of belieuing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Errour was held For example the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants and that by S. Austen himselfe and therefore certayne this is no certayne ground of truth Thus you Now what you here prononce vndeniable by impudence it selfe your selfe deny contending that S. Austin held the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants vpoÌ„ the warrant of the Tradition of all ages since the Apostles which is a proofe distinct from the doctrine and practice of the present vniuersall Chusch as you say cap. 2. n. 53. lin vlt. The credit of Tradition is not the Tradition of the present Church which we pretend may deuiate from the ancient Now that S. Austen did ground vpon the credit of Tradition Apostolicall or of all ages you say cap. 3. n. 47. in fine The pactice of communicating Infants had euen then in the tyme of S. Augustine got the credit and authority not only of Vniuersall custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition Behold the necessity of Communicating Infants is held by S. Augustine vpon the warrant not of the present Church but of the Church of all ages and places which you euen in that very place allow to be a good warrant Yea you affirme that S. Augustine in thinking the necessity of giuing the Eucharist to Infants to be a Tradition of all ages since the Apostles to his tyme was not deceiued saying pag. 152. lin 32. The doctrines of the Millenaries and the Eucharist necessity for Infants haue beene taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages you meane the. 2.3.4.5 without any (y) A manifest falshood They were contradicted by Dion Areop de Eccles Hierar c. 7. By Clem. Alex. 3. Strom. in the secoÌ„d age By Caius S. Cyprian Dionys Alexan. Euseb in the 3. opposition from any of their contemporaries and were deliuered by them not as Doctours but as Witnesses not as their owne (z) Another impudent falshood For they deliuered their Millenary doctrine as an exposition of Mille Anni of the Apocalyps c. 20. v. 3. Opinions but as Apostolick Traditions Thus you Who now is more impudeÌ„t then impudence it selfe Do not you deny S. Austins persuasion of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants to haue beene grounded on the bare vniuersall custome of the present Church And yet it is also false that S. Austine grounded the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants on the custome of the present Church or on the Tradition of all ages For though there were an vniuersall perpetuall custome of communicating Infants yet that doth not enforce that it was a thing necessary but only lawfull and godly because all vniuersall customes vsed in the primitiue Church were not necessary but pious S. Austine then his persuasion that the eating of the body of Christ was necessary for Infants he did build on the Scripture only the euidence thereof vpon this text (a) Ioan. 6.36 Except you eate the flesh and drinke the blooud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in your which testimony he termeth (b) De peccat merit remiss lib. 1. c. 20. Nisi pertinacia pugnaces neruos aduersus constantiamperspicuae veriatiâ— intendat diuinâ luce clarissimum diuinâ auctoritate certissimum so cleere as it cannot be resisted but by pertinacity it selfe 10. You contradict your selfe so farre as to proue your selfe to be a formall Heretike against God and his Word For you say (c) cap. 1. n. 13. cap. 4. n. 11. it is most impious for one to deny that to be true which he knowes or belieues to be Gods word In so much that if one be persuaded though falsely euen by the Diuell himselfe that it is the word of God if he disbelieue it you say he is (d) cap. 2. n. 122. a formall Heretike But you professe your selfe not only persuaded but conuinced not by the Diuels discourse but by the (e) cap. 2. n. 25. euident credibility of the thing that vniuersall Tradition since the Apostles is the word of God vnwritten as certaine and infallible as Scripture (f) cap. 3. n. 45. the rule of fayth to iudge all controuersies by And yet you say that this Tradition this word of God vnwritten is fallible yea false and erroneous in some particulars Could you haue professed greater impiety or more formall emnity agaynst God and his word 11. Thirdly by your contradictions and diuisions agaynst yourselfe you deuide your selfe from Christ saluatioÌ„ cap. 6. n. 1. you say that it is most absolutely indispensablely destructiue of saluation to deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the word of God But you are conuinced by your owne words to doe this by charging
with fallibility and falshood euen the Tradition of the primitiue Church of the very first age since the Apostles For you confesse that the Scripture cannot be proued to be the word of God by the diuinity light of the matter nor by any Apostolicall writing but by tradition c. 2. n. 8. lin 9. and cap. 2. n. 27. lin 33. ONELY by the testimony of the ancient Church Now if the only meanes to know that the Scripture is the word of God be the testimony of the anccient Church and of the primitiue Christians if you make as you do their testimony to be fallible obnoxious to errour and in many things false you make all assurance of this necessary poynt that the Scripture is the word of God impossible You contend our Catholicke Roman Church to be fallible and to haue erred in many things and thence conclude you can rely on her authority in nothing I might say you cap. 2. n. 25. lin 9. as well rest vpon the iudgement of the next man I meet or vpon the chaunce of a Lottery for it For by this meanes I only know I might erre but relying on your Church I know I should erre Thus you of the Roman church which agrees to Tradition vniuersal of the primitiue Christiās for if it be as you say it is fallible we cannot be possibly warranted that it doth not giue quid for quo a scorpion for an egge an errour in steed of Apostolicall doctrine for she hath done so you say in some other vniuersall Traditions and what was done in some was possible in others The primitiue Church as you contend did by vniuersall Tradition and full consent deliuer the doctrine of the Millenaries and of the Communion of Infants for Apostolicall which you say be errours and so it may be that the same consent of primitiue Christians hath deliuered vnto vs the Ghospell of S. Luke and of S. Marke as approued by (g) Cap. 1. n. 7. Wrote indeed by some but approued by all all the Apostles though there were neuer any such thing nor haue we any possible meanes to know whether heerein we be deceaued or no. You say cap. 2. n. 93. lin 11. It was necessary that by his prouidence he should preserue the Scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things he would haue knowne otherwise they could not haue beene knowne the onely meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished Now the onely meanes to know which Scriptures be the word of God and rule of sayth is as you confesse the testimony of the ancient Churches since the Apostles and yet you say God hath not preserued the same from vndiscernable corruption for the Church hath beene corrupt in some of her vniuersal Traditions from the Apostles so that there is no meanes to be sure that her Tradition about Scripture is incorrupt For you say what was done in some was possible in others and so we haue no warrant that the canon of Scripture is not corrupt vniuersall Tradition of the Church since the Apostles You see that I sayd true that by being a false witnesse against the incorrupt purity of the Primitiue Church you haue beene false agaynst your owne Saluation and haue lost all meanes to be assured of Sauing fayth The fourth Conuiction 12. FROM the second age you proceed affirming that still the mystery of iniquity wrought more openly in the ensuing ages and that in the dayes of S. Austin (h) Pag. 155. lin 20. cap. 3. n. 47. Second Edition pag. 149. 150. the Catholike Church it selfe did tolerate and dissemble vayne superstitions and human presumptions suffer all places to be full of them suffer them to be more seuerely exacted then the Commandements of God (i) Pag. 156. lin 1 doing therein directly against the command of the holy Ghost (k) Ibid. lin 11. permitting the diuine precepts euery where to be layd aside so that these superstitious Christians euery where might be said to worship God in vaine as well as Scribes Pharises Great variety of superstitions in this Kind were then already spread ouer the Church being different in diuers places That (m) Pag. 156. li. 36. this vniuersal superstition in the Church nourished cherished strengthened by the practise of the most and vrged with great violence vpon others as the Commandements of God might in tyme take deep roote and passe for vniuersall custome of the Church and an Apostolique Tradition he that doth not see sees nothing Finally that in S. Austins dayes the Church did not tolerate only such superstitions for but a part only and farre the lesser did tolerate them in silence but the Church or the farre greater part publiquely allowed them practised them and vrged them vpon others with great violence c. 13. Thus you write and make the face of the Church in S. Austines dayes to haue been most miserable full of superstition in which not so much as one could be saued but by repentance and leauing their superstitions which they neuer did But as it is your fury against Gods Church to vtter whatsoeuer comes into your mind to her disgrace without any care of truth so your folly is to forget presently what you haue said and speake the contrary For Cap. 6. n. 101. lin 12. you say that in S. Austin's tyme the publike seruice wherin men are to communicate was impolluted and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion which was so true as euen the Donatists did not deny it And c. 6. in fine you say The Church which then was a Virgin now may be an harlot Now if a man would haue studied to contradict your slaunder against the Church of S. Augustins tyme could he haue done it more directly The Church being then as you say it was in her communion and diuine seruice an impolluted virgin how can it stand with what you said before that Christians in all places were vrged with great violence to communicate in superstitions and vaine worships and to lay the commandments of God aside Againe you cleere the Church of that age cap. 6. n. 101. versus finem The Donatists in S. Augustines tyme were separated from the whole world of Christians vnited in one communion professing the same fayth seruing God after the same manner which was a great argument they could not haue cause to leaue them according to that of Tertullian that where there is erring there is variety of errings And is not this a variety yea a direct contradiction in your writing an vnanswerable argument that you erre and wander from the truth Now you say there was then euery where the same fayth the same communion one manner of seruing and worshipping God without any variety of superstitions and errours wheras before you said that in S. Austins dayes all places were full of vaine superstitions vaine worships with great variety of them spread ouer the Church being different in diuers places vrged with great seuerity and
(x) Radicem matricem Eeclesiae Catholicae Cyp Ep. 45. the Fathers terme it to the rest of the Church to crush Satan that is sayth Origen euery contradictious spirit that teacheth agaynst the doctrine of Tradition vnder their feete Which speach hath no small allusion to the Reuerence vsed by Catholicke Christians to the feete of S. Peters Successour If you had any text in Scripture but halfe as cleere agaynst the infallible authority of the Roman Church and Bishop as this is for it your triumphing vociferations that the text is cleere as the sunne would hardly be contayned vnder the cope of heauen This appeareth by your vrging the place Be not high minded but feare as threatning the whole Church of Rome with possibility of falling from Christ which seing you could not do without inuoluing in the same damnation and defectibility the whole Church of the Gentiles you professe the whole Church of God may fall away into Infidelity agaynst the promises of Christ (z) Infra c. 7. conu 9. yea agaynst what your selfe affirme an hundred tymes That scripture is not the onely Meanes or Rule to know all necessary truths or that all necessary things are not euidently contayned in Scripture CHAP. IIII. 1. IN this Chapter I lay the axe to the roote of your vnfruitfull tree couered with greene leaues of assertions without any branch or bow of strong proofe I digge vp the ruinous foundation of your Babilonicall building of confused language full of doctrines different yea opposit the one to the other I shall demonstrate that you mistake the Protestant sense of this their principle The Scripture is the onely Rule o◠All necessary poynts of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture that you vnderstand not the state of the Controuersy betwixt vs and them about Tradition vnwritten that you runne headlong on with this principle in your mouth without any bit of true sense or Christian beliefe stumbling agaynst all the Articles of Christianity whereby you get many new noble victories ouer your selfe by falling downe in flat contradiction vpon your selfe 2. To vnderstand this we must obserue that a thing may be contayned most cleerely to the seeming in some text of Scripture taken singly by it selfe which yet if places of Scripture be conferred and all things considered is but darkely and doubtfully deliuered therein For example by the saying of S. Luke that Ioseph the husbād of the Virgin Mary was the Sonne of Hely it seemes most cleere and euident that Hely was his true and naturall father neyther would any Christian haue doubted thereof had not S. Matthew written that Iacob begat Ioseph the husband of Mary so that the two texts which taken by themselselues seeme most cleere being conferred together do mutually darken obscure ech other This truth supposed the doctrine of Protestants about the question whether all poynts of necessary fayth be contayned in Scripture consists in two assertions in the one they agree in the other they disagree from vs. 3. First they teach that all necessary things of Fayth are not contayned cleerely in Scripture vnderstood by conference of places but for the cleering of ambiguytyes the Rule of fayth deliuered by Traditiō is necessary which Rule comprehends all poynts of fayth which haue beene alwayes notoriously knowne and explicitely belieued of all Christians Thus farre they and we consent There is (y) D. field of the Church lib. 4. c. 16. item c. 14. sayth D. Field betwixt our Aduersaries and vs no difference in this matter for we confesse that neyther conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the Originals ARE OF ANY FORCE vnlesse we find the things we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of fayth c. neyther is there any of our Deuines that teach otherwise Thus he 4. Secondly Protestants teach that all necessary points of fayth are cleerly contayned in Scripture in some text or texts of Scripture cleer and conspicuous taken by themselues so that though we need the rule of Tradition that we may assuredly vnderstand the Scriptures cōferred together yet not to deliuer vnto vs some necessary matters of fayth (z) D. Field lib. 4. c. 14. We do not so make Scripture the rule of our fayth as we neglect the other of Tradition nor so admit the other as to detractany thing from the plenitude of Scripture in which al things are contayned that must be belieued which are no wayes deliuered in Scripture Heerin there is some disagreement betwixt them and vs because we hold that some verities of necessary beliefe cannot be proued by any text of Scripture sufficiently to be a matter of fayth by that sole proofe without the help of Tradition Now you agree neither with Protestants nor with vs you maintayne that all necessary things are euidently certayne in Scripture expounded by conference of places without any rule of Traditiue interpretation yea you contend that no such rule is extant This you do not as Protestants do to establish the totall sufficiency clarity of Scriptures about the receaued articles of Christian fayth but to ouerthrow totally all explicite belief of any Christian mystery whatsoeuer as by the ensuing Conuictiō of your errour from your owne sayings will manifestly appeare For whiles you endeauour to spread this Infidelity couertly vnder the maske of a Protestant or of a Christian for want of consideration memory and wit you euery where contradict your selfe affirme and deny say and vnsay build and vnbuild The first Conuiction 5. THus you write cap. 2. n. 159. lin 9. The bookes of Scripture are not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine as requisit to the well being thereof men may be saued without belieuing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without belieuing it to be a rule and perfect rule of fayth And cap. 2. n. 33. lin 7. If men aid belieue the doctrine contayned in Scripture it would no way hinder their saluation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations S. Irenaeus speakes of were in this case yet no doubt they might be saued Yea say (b) Cap. 2. n. 159. lin 20. you though they had reiected the bookes of Scripture proposed vnto them by all the rest of the Church which receaued them I do not doubt but they might be saued God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation onely to belieue the verityes therein contayned and not the diuine authority of the bookes wherein they are contayned Thus you destroying your Principle that Scripture is the onely rule and the onely safe way to heauen as I proue by three arguments from these words which indeed are euident truths The first argument Christian fayth cannot be ruled and guided to saluation and attayne to heauen without the onely rule without the onely guide without the onely meanes No man in his wits can deny this Now
you say men may attaine by fayth vnto saluation without Scripture though they be wholy ignorant of Scripture as you truly say with vs yea though they actually reiect Scripture and refuse to be ruled by it though the same be proposed to them by the whole Church as you say without vs and truth Ergo Scripture is not the only rule and meanes of Saluation 6. Hence you contradict your self when you say To (c) Cap. 6. n. 19. reiect Christ or to deny the Scripture is such an heresy the beliefe of whose contrary is necessary not only necessitate praecepti sed medij and therfore is so absolutly destructiue of saluation that no ignorance can excuse it so that the Church may most truly be said to perish if she Apostate from Christ absolutly or directly reiect the Scripture denying it to be the word of God Thus you so conrradicting you selfe that if what here you write so absolutly be true your doctrine that men wholy ignorant of Scripture yea though they reiect and deny it to be Gods word may be saued is not only heresy damnable in it selfe but also Heresy Apostaticall so absolutly and indispensably destructiue of saluation as no ignorance can excuse it You are a fit man to teach others the safe way of saluation who by your owne words are conuinced to runne a way absolutly destructiue of saluation 7. The second argument If the diuine authority of the Scripture be the only rule and guide of fayth then it is so appointed of God and God requireth of men that they should belieue Scripture to be their rule as being his infallible word his only doctrine But you say God requires not that men belieue the diuine Authority of Scripture yea they may reiect this light and the direction therof without doing against any diuine ordinance or appointment How then is Scripture the only rule of fayth the only meanes and way to saluation except you will say it is the rule appointed not of God but by your selfe the deep wisdome of your excellent wit We shall doubtlesse be well guided and besure not so misse if we follow you for our guide you will teach vs to goe euery way yea contrary wayes at once to belieue contradictions at the same tyme. Consider I pray you this your saying now refuted how contrary the same is to what you write cap. 6. n. 54. in fine where you set downe the totall Summe of your new chosen Religion I am fully assured that God does not and therfore that men ought not to require any more of any man but this To belieue the Scripture to be the word of God to endeauour to find the true sense therof and to liue according to it Quo te Maeripedes Quae te via ducet ad Orcum You goe contrary wayes yet both be damnable errours and lead directly to Hell One way to damnation is belieuing that God doth require nothing els no more then that we belieue the Scripture to be his word not the verityes contayned therin but only that we endeauour to find them This way you take and it is your (d) Cap. 6. n. 57. I am verily persuaded that I haue wisely chosen after a long deliberation new wise choyce the only (e) After a long vnpartiall search I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but vpon this rock only rock of rest for the sole of your foot wearied with a long search of the true way to eternal happinesse You haue indeed found rest not for the foot of your soule but for the sole of your foot because your Religion newly chosen hath no footing in your soule but only Ventosâ linguâ pedibusque fugacibus Hence your sole in your foot wearied to stand longe vpon any persuasion flyes from this way God requires of vs that we belieue the Scripture to be his word and no more to the playne contrary That God requires of vs that we belieue the verityes contained in Scripture not the diuine authority of Scripture or that it is his word Betwixt these two contraries you fly from the one to the other without any rest or end 8. Poore wearied commiserable creature One of those wauering babes tossed this way and that way with euery gust of different fancyes Behold the only rock of rest for Christian fayth is offered you in your owne words you haue it if you know what you say if you will not stand ouer by proud ignorance but vnderstand or stand with humble beliefe vnder this your owne saying Scripture is not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being therof For on this Catholicke saying of inuincible truth I ground my third argument and by it proue that not so much the being written in Scripture as the Being taught by the Church is the rule to know which is the Christian Doctrine and to belieue it For the Being proposed and taught externally is requisit not to the well being only but to the very being of Christian Doctrine because it cannot be credible and fit to be belieued of Christian men except it be externally proposed and taught them to be of God by some credible witnesse But the Being taught which is so much of the being of Christian Doctrine is not the being taught in Scripture For this is requisit but to the well being therof as you say Ergo besides being written and taught by Scripture another external being taught is requisite which is of the very essence of Christian doctrine which makes the same credible and fit to be belieued and this can be no other but the Being taught by the Church of Christ the pillar and ground of truth So that the rocke the solid firme substantiall reason of belieuing Christian Doctrine is the Being taught by the Church and the Being written in Scripture is requisit ad melius esse to the well being thereof because we belieue it better and more assuredly when we find that which is taught by the Church to be also written in Scripture though this be not absolutly necessary to the constitution of Christian Doctrine Behold what is contayned in your words Hoc fac viues hic sta quiesces follow the counsell of S. Austin (f) Si iam satis tibi ia ctatus videris finemque huiusmodi laboribus vis imponere sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos vsque manauit de vtil The cred c. 8. which I I haue noted for you in the margent and abandon that sandy banck an imaginary rocke the Scripture is the only rule of fayth from which you are carried away into a sea of inconstant swelling fancyes which fight together like waues to the dissolution of ech other The second Conuiction 9. THis Conuiction I ground vpon this truth◠that Scripture cannot proue it selfe to be the word of God which truth you deliuer ca. 2. n. 46. That the
Diuinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it selfe alone but by some extrinsicall authority you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of vniuersall Tradition not of your Church From this truth by you granted I thus argue That cannot be the onely rule or by it selfe alone a rule of fayth with is not of it selfe able to proue and shew that which it contaynes to be the word of God For the matter of Christian Faith being the word of God onely that which caÌ„not shew it selfe to be the word of God cannot shew it selfe to be matter of Christian fayth But Scripture alone by it selfe cannot proue it selfe nor consequently the doctrine it contaynes to be the word of God but to this end needeth the extrinsecall Authority of Tradition Therefore not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned with the extrinsecall authority of Tradition is the rule of fayth 10. This defect of Scripture in respect of being the onely rule or by it selfe alone any rule of fayth you lay open cap. 2. n. 8. lin 7. Though a writing could not be proued to vs to be a perfect rule of fayth by its owne saying so for nothing is proued true by being said or written in a booke but onely by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe Thus you I would gladly know how can Scripture be the onely rule of fayth or by it selfe any rule of fayth if nothing be proued true nothing shewed to be the word of God barely by being written therein but onely by the light of Tradition ioyned vnto Scripture 11. Hence I inferre if Scripture by it selfe without Tradition cannot be a rule of Fayth nor shew any doctrine to be of God how much lesse can it be a rule of fayth against the vniuersal Tradition of the Church It is deep vanity in you and dull inconsideration of the consequences of your doctrine to boast as you do cap. 3. n. 40. that by Scripture you can confute the Church which taught you Scripture to be the word of God aswel say you as of my Maister in Physicke or the Mathematickes I may learne those rules and principles by which I may confute his erroneous Conclusions Thus you who verily are such a maister you speake of For you deliuer rules and principles by which you may be confuted your selfe For do not you often inculcate this Principle that the Scripture is knowne to be the word of God only by Tradition onely by the testimony of the ancient Churches If then you proue by Scripture any TraditioÌ„ of the ancieÌ„t Church to be against Scripture you shall not proue that TraditioÌ„ of the Church to be against the word of God but that you haue no sure ground to belieue the Scripture to be of God and that you were vnwise to belieue it vpon the warrant of Tradition as you say you do For the rule which may be false in one thing caÌ„not be a sure ground of beliefe in any thing May I learne this lesson of my good Maister your booke which being your scholler hath taught me many rules and principles by which I might confute his maister Pag. â—5 lin 23. The meanes to decide Controuersies in Fayth and Religion must be endued with vniuersall infallibility in whatsoeuer it propoundeth as a diuine truth For if it may be false in one thing of this nature we can yeld vnto it but a wauering and fearfull assent in any thing Thus you Wherefore if Tradition be not endued with vniuersall infallibility if it may be false in any one thing it proposeth for diuine truth it cannot be belieued with firme assent in any thing at all Now the principles of Physicke or Mathematicks are belieued because euident of themselues and not vpon the bare word tradition and authority of the maister For a scholler if he be not assured of those rules principles otherwise then by the word of his maister cannot by the authority of these rules and principles proue any thing against his maister but onely against himselfe that he is a foole eyther in belieuing these rules vpon his Maisters bare word or else in thinking he can by those rules conuince his maister of falshood In like sort you shew small iudgement discretion who persuade your selfe you are able to proue some Church-TraditioÌ„ to be against the word of God by Scripture which Scripture you belieue to be the word of God onely vpon the warrant of vniuersall Church Tradition for this is a thing impossible and implicatory as any considering man will see wherfore not only Scripture but Scripture ioyned with Tradition is a rule of Fayth consequently it is not possible to confute any Church-Tradition by Scripture The third Conuiction 12. THis conuiction is grounded on this truth that vnlearned men cannot be assured they haue the incorrupt text or the true TranslatioÌ„ of Scripture but onely by the word of the Church This you affirme pag. 79. lin 7. 2. Edit pag. 75. lin 36. It were altogether as abhorrent from the goodnesse of God and repugnant to it to suffer an ignorant lay mans soule to perish meerly for being mislead by an indiscernable false Translation which yet was commended vnto him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he hath reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired absolution Thus you from which I conuince two thinges First that the Scripture is not the rule Secondly that the Church must of necessity be still visible and infallible in guiding men to heauen The first I proue in this fort The only rule of fayth must be for the capacity of all men aswell vnlearned as learned simple as iudicious occupied in worldly affaires as disoccupied The only rule I say must be able to assure all men of the Scripture that the Text and the Translation thereof is not corrupt in any substantiall matter But Scripture is not able to do this as you do confesse and consequently there is a necessity that men vnlearned men of meane capacity men occupied in worldly affaires trust the Church Ergo not Scripture alone but Scripture ioyned vnto the authority of the Church is the rule of fayth 13. Secondly that the Church is visible and an infallible guide I proue You say It is repugnant to the goodnesse of God to suffer the soules of men to perish for their trusting the Church which they had reason to trust aboue all other being of necessity to trust some If this be true and it is most true then God is bound in his goodnesse to prouide that the Church which is to be trusted aboue all other be not so bidden as it cannot without extreme difficulty be found nor fallible that it cannot without extreme danger be trusted 2. Edit cap. 6. n. 20. pag. 322. li.
points not fundamentall as being not only cleerely reuealed in Scripture as some points not fundamentall may be but also cleerely commanded vnto the beliefe of all vnder paine of damnation as vn-fundamentall points cannot be What more easy for a man that hath eyes then to discerne the places of a garden on which the Sunne shineth from those on which it shineth not but are shaded from his beames When light from heauen shined on the howses and habitations of the Israëlites Exod 10. and not on the houses and habitations of the Aegyptians was it an intricate peece of businesse for a man not blind to haue discerned the one from the other But you affirme often and earnestly that it is a thing of extreme great diffieulty yea morally impossible to distinguish in Scripture things fundamentall from things not fundamentall Ergo they are not cleerely commaunded in Scripture and consequently some things necessary to wit Cap. 4. n. 42. some diuine commandes of fayth the obseruance of which is fundamentall to the couenant betwixt God and man for their Saluation are not contayned in Scripture at all or else only intricately and obscurely (a) Cap. 4. n. 40. n. 43. lin 4. The eighth Conuiction 24. BY the discouery of this contradiction your cheefe or rather onely argument for the sufficiency of Scripture is answered (a) Cap. 4. n. 40. n. 43. lin 4. Pag. 210. lin 28. pag. 212. lin 1. you affirme that in the sole Ghospell of S. Lake all necessary things are contayned so that in other bookes of Scripture (b) Cap. 4. n. 42. namely in the Ghospell of S. Iohn whatsoeuer is reuealed ouer and aboue that in S. Luke is indeed profitable truth but not necessary or fundamentall This you proue because S. Luke in the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles sayth The former treatise haue I made O Theophilus of all that Iesus began to do and teach This argument you of ten inculcate and prosecute with great vehemency and according to your almost perpetual ridiculous manner of disputing with a cart load of interrogations but in fine the substance of all the difficultie is how could S. Luke truly say that he had written a treatise of all that Iesus began to do and teach if he haue left some necessary doctrines and fundamentall matters vnwritten 25. In this argument you contradict in plaine tearmes both S. Iohn and your selfe shewing your want of Christianity in the one your want of wit memory consideration in the other The Eternall Generation of Christ whereby he is the only begotten of God in the bosome of his Father is no where cleerely deliuered in the Ghospell of S. Luke yea your Socinians collect out of his Ghospell many strong arguments as they conceaue against this article of our fayth And yet the same is cleerely deliuered in the Ghospell of S. Iohn and the beliefe thereof commanded vnto all expressely vnder payne of damnation Iohn 3.18 He that belieueth is not iudged he that belieueth not is already iudged because he hath not belieued in the name of the only begotten Sonne of God (a) Also ver 36. He that belieueth not the Sone shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth in him How can you belieue in the Ghospell of S. Iohn not belieue the Eternall Generation of the Sonne of God and the eternal damnation of the disbelieuers thereof and consequently that there is some necessary commanded truth in S. Iohns Ghospell aboue the Ghospell of S. Luke 26. You also contradict your selfe and ouerthrow this your so often asserted plenitude of S. Lukes Ghospell by obiecting out of the Ghospell of S. Iohn the Precept of Communion in both kinds as a thing necessary to be knowne belieued yea practised of all aswell of the Clergy as Laytie for in proofe of this in your conceite so necessary truth you produce not any text word or syllable out of S. Luke Yea S. Luke is so farre from teaching the necessity of both kindes as he signifies the contrary cleerely inough Luke â— 22. v. 19. For in his narration of the Eucharist how it was instituted he doth expressely note that our Lord deliuering the Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread said Do this in remembrance of me but in deliuering the Chalice he makes no mention of any such command To this institution coÌ„formable was our Lords practice recorded by (c) Luke 24.21 S. Luke that in Emmaus he gaue the two difciples that were laymen the Eucharist in the forme only of consecrated bread Nor is S. Luke his saying that he had written his former treatise of all things Iesus began to do and teach to be restrayned to necessary things onely his words being all thinges absolutely without limitation He writ then all thinges not only necessary but also profitable which he iudged fit for the end purpose of his writing which was not as you fondly imagine to set out a Catechisme or briefe Summe of Christian doctrine but to write such a History of the whole life of our Lord as might serue to confirme and assure (d) Luk. cap. 1. v. 4. That thou mightst know the certainty of these things wherein thou hast beene instructed Christians in the beliefe of that forme of Doctrine in which they had been instructed catechized and christened by the Apostles and other Apostolicall men 27. I coÌ„clude this Chapter with noting the extreme misery pouerty futility of your whole booke Do not you say in your Preface n. 34. that this Principle all things necessary are euidently contayned in Scripture is not onely the corner stone and chiefe pillar but euen the base and adaequate fouÌ„dation of your answer Now this Principle not being prime immediate or euident of it selfe you haue not brought for it any solide argument or proofe The plenitude of the other Ghospels besides S. Lukes you dare not so confidently maintayne you (e) Pag. 210. lin 25. Of all the foure Euangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent Cap. 4. n. 43. say no more but that it is very probable that in ech of them all necessary things are deliuered you (f) Pag. 212. lin 2. stand absolutely only vpon the Ghospel of S. Luke that therein all is contayned which is so false and vayne as it is contradicted euen by your selfe nor do any Protestants hold it but onely Socinâ—aâ—s who by pretending this fulnes of S. Luke his Gospell would put off the necessity of belieuing the Gospell of S. Iohn and the high mysteries therof and so you had good reason to terme this principle by you so stoutly and perpetually auouched so poorely and miserably proued the adaequate Base of your Booke That there is one visible Society of Christians infallible in all her Proposalls knowne vnto all by subordination to one visible Head or Pastour CHAP. V. IN proofe of this Title omitting many other I produce only two or
Communion in one kind for Laymen was not practised by our Lord and Sauiour giuen vnto the two (a) Luc. 24.30.31 lay Disciples in Emmaus Was not the Latin seruice euery where in vse during the Primitiue tymes I meane (b) Ang. lib 2 de doctrine Christ. c. 11. in all Countryes of Europe and Africke which did pertayne to the Latin part of the word Was not Purgatory belieued and (c) Machab l. 2. c. 12. prayer for the reliefe of the dead practised by the people of God euen before the Ghospell was written Do not (d) Morton of the Sacramēt lib. 2. c. 1. pag. 91. If the words of Christ be certainly true in proper and literal sense then are we to yield Transubstantiation c. Protestants professe that Transubstantiation is as true and ancient as the Ghospell if the words of our Lord be certainly true in the plaine and proper sense And be not his words true in that sense he spake them though the same be neuer so high obscure to human vnderstanding incomprehensible But your discourse though alwayes without hornes of Conuiction of what you obiect to vs you will be sure it shall neuer be without hornes of stiffe and direct Contradiction against your selfe for euen this short period hath two hornes of this kind First where you say We damne all to Hell fire that any way differ from vs whereas more then fourty times in your booke you say you (e) pag. 404. lin 7. We censure your errours as heauily as you do ours damne vs to Hell as much as we do you and that we grant (f) Pag. 283. n. 74. lin 15. You your selfe affirme that ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may be saued Saluation to Protestants as much as they do to vs. Secondly you say heere that the Scripture is the sole and adaequate obiect of your faith but else where you say often that it is no obiect of your fayth at all but only the meanes of belieuing Cap. 2. n. 32. lin 5. Scripture conteynes all materiall obiects of fayth whereof the Scripture is NONE but ONELY the meanes of conueying them to vs. 14. Now to our purpose I take out of your dunghill this gem of cleere and manifest truth worthy of S. Austin his diuine wit and fayth that the Church which preferreth authority which is euidently credible of it selfe the pillar and ground of truth must not consist of a few but be diffused and spread ouer the world nor of turbulent persons that are full of discord and contention one against another but all agreeing in full vnity about matters of fayth not a new Church founded in after tymes but instituted by the blessed Apostles adorned with an illustrious succession of knowne Bishops to this present which is the very Maior proposition of my Argument which was that the Church which is the pillar and ground that is the teacher alwaies without fayle of all necessary truth must be both of one Denomination and Catholique that is vniuersally Apostolicall by succession of Bishops from them one and the same euery where for matters of faith For if it be not such but a company of a few in one corner of the world deuided into innumerable factions and sectes founded not by the Apostles but only yesterday or within the memory of men it can preferre no authority 15. Now Ecclesia totum poffidet quod a viro accepit in dotem quaecunque congregatio cuiustibet haeresis in angulis sedet concubina est non matrona Augustin l. 4. de symb c. 10. what more euident then the Minor of my former argument No Church of the World but the Roman is adorned with these glorious markes she wing the euident credibility of that Church in which they are For dare you say your Protesting Church is dilated ouer the word Is it not confined to one corner of Europe and reigneth most in the climate which is most North Quod latus mundi nebulae malusque Iupiter vrget Can you say that your Church is one the same euery where and not deuided into turbulent factions and iects Do not you say (a) Pag. 90. lin 12. there is among them infinite variance and King Iames (b) Against D. Vorstius pag. 65. an infinite diuersity of Sects agreeing in nothing but in vnion against the Pope Can you say it is Apostolicall hauing succession from the Apostles Do not you confesse it began but yesterday by deuiding themselues from the externall communion of the Roman and whole Catholique Church 16. On the other side can you deny the Roman to be spread ouer the world to be in Europe Africke Asia America almost in all countries of these foure quaters of the world euery where famously knowne that euery man that will be saued may come to this rocke be built thereon vnto euerlasting saluation For what you say cap. 6. n. 53. That the Roman Church is like the frog in the fable who thoght the ditch he liued in to be all the world is a speach not of truth and reason but of preiudice passion which education hath instilled into you the passion I say and custome of lying and vttering any falshood or scornefull reproach that may disgrace the Roman Church This you do without remorse of Conscience because you say you are sure without doubt Pag. 137. n. 19. God will not enter into Iudgement with you for such passions which custome and education haue made to you vnauoydahle Which I will belieue if you can make me sure that God did not damne to Hell Nero Domitian and such other Monsters for their pride and contempt of God and preiudices against Religion which by education and custome were to them all things considered vnauoydable 17. The Church of Rome is also Apostolicall by a notorious succession of Bishops from S. Peter that we may with S. Austyn (c) Aug. in Psal contra partem Donati say to you Number the Bishops succeeding in the sea of Peter this is the Rocke the proud gates of Hell do not conquer This Church is also the same euery where in all the professours thereof for matters of Fayth This you confesse pag. 129. and very wittily and prettily contradict your selfe within few lines In that pag. 129. n. 4. you speake to vs If you say you do agree in matters of Fayth I say this is ridiculous For you define matters of Fayth to be those things wherein you agree so that to say you agree in all matters of fayth is to say you agree in those things wherein you do agree But you are all agreed that onely those things wherein you agree are matters of Fayth And Protestants if they were wyse would do so to Sure I am they haue reason inough to do so seeing all of them agree with explicite fayth in all those things which are plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Thus you Is not this a wise discourse of a man who
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
you to do vs courtesies impossible which are I confesse troublesome things to be done and the doing of them requires time longer then Eternity only we will beseech you as you tender the good of your soule to do a courtesy to your selfe very possible to be done That you will reflect that you being a man witty and brought vp in learning it were not possible you should fall into such contradictions as these are were not the hand of diuine permission therin for the eure of your capital euil which is Confidence in your owne wit and contempt of the Whole Catholique Church as of a company of only blindmen and beasts It is not weaknesse of wit but dizzinesse of pride which makes you thus reele in your writing as euen here you do againe You auerre that to some more is fundamental to others lesse to others nothing at all Which is not only against D. Potter but your selfe haue in your booke contradicted it I am sure more then twenty times as Cap. 3. n. 20. lin 9. Points fundamental be those only which are reuealed by God and commanded to be prach't to all and to be belieued of all If fundamentall points be those only which are to be (b) D. Potter p. â—11 preacht vnto all and to be belieued of all how is it possible that there should be some points fundamental for some only and not for all The seauenth Conuiction 30. VVIth this Conuiction I meane to conclude this first Chapter and answere your chiefe argument against our grounding Fayth on the authority of the Church for say you the infallibility of the Church the Principle we build on is not euident of it selfe and therfore needeth proofe It cannot be proued by tradition because none can be shewed for it nor by Scripture because the Scripture is receaued vpon the authority of the Church and so the Church must be belieued infallible before we belieue Scripture wherefore it cannot be proued by Scripture except we will runne round in a circle saying We belieue the Scripture to be Canonical because the Church which is infallible sayth so and We belieue the Church to be infallible because the Scripture Canonicall sayth so To get out of this circle we must say that we belieue the Scripture to be the word of God because the Church infallible in all her proposalls doth so affirme and the Church to be infallible we belieue because our natural reason guided by the motiues of credibility and prudential motiues doth persuade vs that it is so This argument by the repetition whereof your booke is growne into a great bulk I could answere by retorsion and shew that you are forced to dance the round in a circle though many times you runne in and out by contradicting your selfe But I will not goe so far about I answere directly that the Church may be considered either as deliuering Traditions receaued from the Apostles or as defining Controuersies of fayth which for the present arise The infallibility of the Church as deliuering Traditions is not proued by Scripture nor by tradition but is euident of it selfe for the authority of the Church deliuering Traditions by liuely voyce is nothing else See conuict 1. n. 7. but the authority of vniuersall tradition which Authority you graunt to be euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on And on what principle can Christian Fayth rest but on that which is infallible by relying wheron we cannot be deceaued 31. You are a man so courteous and kind to the Church of Rome as for her sake you will deny your selfe you will destroy your owne writing you will grant this infallibility of the Church in plaine termes to do her a pleasure Cap. 2. n. 44. lin 6. There is no repugnance but we may be certaine inough of the vniuersal Tradition of the ancient Church c. and not certaine inough of the definitions of the present Church vnlesse you can shew which I am sure you neuer can do that the infallibility of the present Church was alwaies a Tradition of the ancient Church Now your maine businesse is to proue the present Church infallible not so much in consigning ancient traditions as in defining emergent controuersies Thus you In which words I note how you shuffle and imply in saying We cannot shew tradition for the infallibility of the present Church for tradition is a liuely voyce to be heard and belieued of such as haue eares to heare not a thing of sight to be shewed in books Do not you say nothing is proued true by being written in a booke but only by tradition of liuely voyce which is credible for it selfe Why then do you require proofe of that which you say nedeth (a) Cap. 4. n. 53. l. 24. Tradition is such a principle as may be rested on and which requires no other proofe no proofe And how can you deny the tradition for the infallibility of present Church against emergent Heresies seing it is consigned to her Children by the present Church which you do not deny to be infallible in consigning ancient traditions It is true you do not in this place make vs of this truth an absolute deed of gift you are afrayd it goes something against your heart but you will be presently more kind-hearted For in the next Cap. 3. n. 45. you speak thus to your aduersary You were to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as vniuersal as the tradition of the vndoubted bookes of Scripture c. not therfore in her vniuersall traditions were you to proue the Church infallible but in all her decrees and definitions of Controuersies Behold now you grant willingly and with all your heart that the present Church is infallible in her vniuersall Traditions but not in all her definitions With this your grant we remaine content for the present and for the grant of the second we shall expect your leasure for you will grant it in the end as shall be shewed in the 7. Chapter 32. This grant of the Churches infallibility in deliuering Traditions you confirme vnto vs by the authority of S. Austine cap. 3. n. 43. For to his testimony broght by Charity mantayned That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwais been kept is most rightly belieued to be deliuered by Apostolicall authority you answer Very right and what then therfore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controuersies Thus you and then you fall to skoffe at your learned Aduersary saying You are at your wits end to find some glue or soder or cement or chaine or thred or any thing to tye togeather the Autecedent and the Consequent of his Enthimemes and so wish him when he writes againe to write nothing but syllogismes I belieue what you say that in writing thus scornefully and crakingly you were at your wits end that is at that end of your wit you prefixed vnto it when
you vndertooke to answer Charity mantayned For it appeareth by your vntaught base manner of answering that your end was only by petulant abusing the modesty of the Authour to obscure as much as you might the cleere truth of that excellent Worke. So you doe here forging an Enthimeme he neuer thought on making a conclusion which he did not intend to proue in this place and yet would you turne your wit the right way and vse it to that end for which God bestowed the same on you you would easily find a proposition which doth tye the Antecedent and Consequent euen of this by you so scorned Enthymene with an vnsoluble knot 33. But to my purpose you grant with S. Austin that whatsoeuer the whole Church holds and deliuers not as a thing ordayned by Councels but as alwaies kept is most righty beliened to be an Apâ—stolical Tradition so that the testimony of the present Church in deliuering traditions is credible and most worthy to be belicued for it selfe without other proofe and (p) Edit pag 113. n. 163. li. 26. pag. 119. n. 12. you say S. Austen sayes that Christ hath recommended the Church to vs for a credible Witnesse of ancient Tradition not for an infallible Definer of all emergent CoÌ„trouersies which supposed I would know how with this truth that can consist which you write (q) 2. Edit p. 61. lin 1. Pag. 63. lin 30. The truth is that neither the Scripture nor the present Church hath any thing to do in this matter for the question which be Canonical bookes cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Church How hath the present Church nothing to do in deciding the question which be canonical bookes if her testimony be infallible in this matter if herein she do the part of a credible witnesse Haue you any glue or sodder or cement or chayne or threed to tye these your two sayings togeather Or rather haue you any chaine to kepe them asunder that they come not to fight and mutually to murther ech other Also what you say (r) 2. Edit pag. 147. lin 1. Paeg. 152. lin 44. Who can warrant vs that the vniuersall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical c. who can secure vs that human inuentions might not in a short time gayne reputation of Apostolique how doth this agree with what you say in the next lines after Cap. 3. n. 45. That the Church in her vniuersall Traditions is as infallible as Scripture Do not you also affirme That Tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by credible for it selfe fit to be rested on how can this be true if we can haue no warrant no security but that the vniuersal Traditions of the Church may be false and forged not deliuered by the Apostles but à quocunque traditore inuentions of men and if there be no warrant but that vniuersal Traditions may be false what warrant is there that you haue the true vncorupt text of Scripture not depraued by the secret creeping in of damnable errours Do not you say Pag. 55. n. 8. that these bookes cannot be proued Canonicall but only by Tradition and cap. 2. n. 114. It is vpon the authority of vniuersall Tradition that we would haue men to belieue Scripture If then vniuersal Tradition be fallible if there be no warrant no security of the certainty therof how are you secure that you haue the true text of the true Canonical bookes of Scripture But of this more in the next Chapter 34. By what hath bene said your so often repeated yea perpetuall and only argument of the circle is shewed to be friuolous and you running about therin haue made your head so dizzy as you forget your selfe For in arguing you alwayes presume without any proofe that the infallibility of the present Church deliuering Traditions or which is all one that the credibility of the vniuersal Tradition of the Church is not euident of it selfe A supposition which you neuer would haue presumed had not that bene out of your mind which you often affirme and confirme that the authority of vniuersal Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe and fit to be rested on No lesse vnproued yea more worthy to be reprou'd is your other b presumption that we do not so much as pretend that there are certaine euident notes to know the true Church and discerne it from all others nor that it is euident of it selfe that those notes agree only to our Church all men will wonder how you could be so ignorant or not being ignorant how you would be so bold For who doth not know we teach that the Church is knowne by visible markes euen euident to sense as succession Vniuersality and Vnity and that these markes do shine manifestly and conspicuosly only in the Roman Christianity Which truth is a necessary sequele of your doctrine That tradition vniuersal is the rule to iudge all Controuersies by fit to be rested on and euidently credible for it selfe Behold the deduction therof 35. That Church only is the true christian Church which hath vniuersall Tradition of Doctrines euidently credible for it selfe This is cleare because if Tradition credible of it selfe be the rule to iudge all Controuersies by and the only meanes to know which be Canonicall Scriptures then the Church which wants Tradition credible of it selfe wants the fundamentall Principle and ground of all Christianity and so cannot be the true christian Church But that Church only hath Tradition of doctrines credible of it selfe whose Tradition of Doctrines is euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles euidently vniuersall by diffusion ouer the world euidently one and the same in the mouth of all the reporters therof For Tradition which is not perpetuall from the Apostles but hath a knowne after-beginning wants credibility that it is Christian Tradition which is not vniuersall and notorious to the whole world but clancular and in a corner wants credibility that it is from the Apostles and the sound of their vniuersall preaching Tradition which is not one and the same but dissonant in the mouth of diuers reporters wants credibility that it is from truth and not a deuise of human fiction or of deceiued discourse from Scripture Ergo the Church whose Tradition is euidently credible of it selfe must be euidently perpetuall by succession from the Apostles Vniuersall by the notorious preaching of her Tradition diffused ouer the world One and the same and vniforme in all her Professours so that they all agree in the beleefe of all doctrine deliuered vnto them by the full consent of Tradition For they who of Traditions deliuered by full consent choose some and reiect others are Choosers that is Heretiques Nor can such Choosers choose but there will be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ variety of choyce and consequently dissension wherby they will appeare a company voyd of all authority and credit to testify what is the true Christian Tradition from the Apostles These be
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
vpon what you write Cap. 6. n. 59. We must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued thereby otherwise it it no proofe that is the certainty of the proofe must be better knowne and more euident to vs then the thing proued But cap. 2. n. 8. you say the Scripture cannot be proued to be the word of God and a perfect rule of faith but onely by Tradition which is credible for it selfe Ergo the certainty of Tradition is surer that is better knowne and more euident to vs then the Scripture Yea further Tradition is a Rocke of our beliefe a principle so euident that it needes no further proofe This I proue by this argument grounded vpon your sayings That which is credible for it selfe and fit to be rested on must be so euident that it need no further euidence This you suppose Cap. 2. n. 45. lin 8. where you say I will neuer cease multiplying demaunds vpon demaunds vntill you settle me vpon a Rocke I meane giue me such an answere whose truth is so euident that it needs no further euidence But Cap. 2. n. 25 lin 5. you say The credibility of vniuersall Tradition is a thing credible of it selfe and therfore fit to be rested on Ergo the Authority of Tradition vniuersall or of the Catholique Church is a Rocke a rule a reason of belieuing so euident and credible of it selfe as it needes no further euidence The third Conuiction 14. VVE haue conuinced your errour by the ouerthrow of the ground thereof Now I proue the absolute infallibility of Christiā faith by the proper cause shewing why it is so and must of necessity be so grounding my proofes on truthes so cleere as they are by you granted Cap. 6. n. 9. lin 2. you say If we were required to belieue with certainty I meane a morall certainty thinges no way represented as infallible and certaine I meane morally an vnreasonable obedience were required of vs. And so likewise were it were we required to belieue as absolutely certaine that which is no way represented to vs as absolutely certaine Thus you Now I subsume But the Articles of our faith are represented vnto you as absolutely infallible not only as morally but as metaphysically and mathematically certaine in themselues This I proue by what you write Cap. 6. n. 3. lin 6. I do heartily acknowledge and belieue the articles of our faith be in themselues Truthes as certaine as the very common principles of Geometry and Metaphysickes But that there is required of vs a knowledge of them an adherence to them as certaine as that of sense or science that such a certainty is required of vs vnder paine of damnation this I haue shewed to be an errour c. Thus you Here you professe that you do heartily belieue the articles of our faith to be in themselues truths altogether infallible euen metaphysically certaine But you could not belieue them heartily as absolutely certaine Truth were they no wayes represented to your vnderstanding as absolutely metaphysically certaine What more cleere then this For how can you apprehend that truth by firme hearty faith which you do not apprehend at all Or how can you apprehend that truth at all with is no wayes represented to your vnderstanding Ergo the mysteries of Christian Religion are by the reasons and motiues of Christian Tradition represented to your vnderstanding as truthes most certaine and infallible in themselues How then are you not bound to belieue them as Truth absolutely and metaphysically certaine in themselues with an hearty adherence to them as certaine as that of sense and science The mysteries of Christian faith being represented to you as morally certaine you are bound as our confesse vnder paine of damnation to belieue them with morall assurance Ergo if they be represented to your vnderstanding as truth absolutely certaine you are bound to belieue them with absolute certainty equall to the certainty of mathematicall and metaphysicall science But they are so represented to your vnderstanding and you heartily apprehend them as absolutely infallible in themselues The fourth Conuiction 15. I conuince the absolute infallibility of Christian fayth by what you write Cap. 4. n. 11. lin 20. Which of vs euer taught that it was not damnable eyther to deny or to so much as doubt of the truth of any thing whereof we either know or belieue that God hath reuealed it Thus you I do not know of what sect you are and so I not say which of you but I cā say that you of what Sect soeuer you be haue taught that it is not damnable for men not to doubt of that doctrine which they belieue to be reuealed for you accuse Catholiques as blind as peruerse enemies of truth and of many the like crimes and in proofe thereof you say Cap. 6. n. 72. lin 15. My owne experience assures me that in this imputation I do you no iniury but it is very apparent to all men by your ranking doubting of any part of your doctrine among mortall sinnes Here you reprehend our doctrine that to doubt deliberately of the doctrine we belieue to be reuealed of God is a mortall sinne that is damnable for I hope your owne experience assures you that we belieue our Catholique doctrine and euery part thereof to be the word of God written or vnwritten With what reason and congruence then can you reprehend vs for holding that it is a mortall sinne to doubt of any part of our Religion which we hold to be the word of God Especially seeing you say Cap. 2. n. 122. lin 12. That if you be persuaded by the Deuil though falsely that it is diuine reuelation you are bound not to disbelieue it vnder paine of formall heresy But to our purpose we will take of your contradictions that part which is manifest truth that it is damnable to doubt of the truth of any doctrine we belieue to be reuealed of God and then I dispute thus There can be no more certaine nor stronger adherence to any doctrine then that which is so firme and vndoubted as the belieuer esteemeth it damnable and an heynous crime so much as to doubt thereof But this adherence to Christian doctrine you require as necessary damning all those that admit any voluntary doubt of the verity thereof Ergo an adherence to Christian doctrine most certayne equall to that men giue to the principles of Metaphysicke is required of Christians vnder paine of damnation yea stronger adherence seing a Christian is ready and ought to be ready to deny the principles of Metaphysicke rather then doubt of Christian doctrine proposed to him as Gods word by perpetuall Christian Tradition Finally it is vnreasonable that men should be bound vnder paine of damnation neuer to doubt of that doctrine which is not so much as represented vnto them as vndoubtedly and absolutely certaine It is a burthen intollerable to maintayne a thing without any staggering and doubting which is proposed only as
is as euident to your vnderstanding as it is euident that God is true Your fayth then in this place is most infallible but in other places it standes vpon weake leggs vpon Tradition which is fallible vpon (e) Cap. 2. n 154 Highly credible but not infallible motiues onely probable motiues Fourthly Prudent foolish Foolish because you say cap. 6. n. 10. many of yours belieue a right which are not wise And cap. 6. n. 74. in fine The imprudent fayth of Protestants may proceed from Diuine motion Is not this to say your Faith is prudent foolish Prudent because they that follow it goe to heauen and follow therein the spirit of wisedome Foolish because you say they be not wise their belieuing is iustly (f) Cap. 6. n. 9. in fine condemned of leuity and rashnesse (g) Cap. 2. n. 49. lin 35. a foolish and imprudent action Fiftly your assent is naturall vnnaturall Naturall because (h) Preface n 12. resolued by Logicke finally determined (i) Cap. 2 n. 3 in fine by natural reason Vnnatural because it cā against nature against the prime rule of natural reason discourse stand with the contradictory assent at the same tyme (l) Pag. 215. lin 4. 2. Edition pag. 206. lin 6. your fayth I say of this truth Christ is the eternall sonne of God with your beliefe of this Socinian Heresy Christ is not the eternall sonne of God Is not your fayth then naturall unnaturall noble base Catholicke hereticall reasonable vnreasonable all at once Finally vndernaturall supernaturall which is proued by what you write Cap. 6. n. 62. Reason will conuince any man vnlesse he be of a peruerse mind that the Scripture is the word of God and then no reason can be greater then this God sayes so therefore it is true From these words I gather first that your faith of the Scripture is vndernatural and inferiour in certainty to naturall reason for you say by naturall reason the same is conuincingly proued to be the word of God but in the same Cap. 6. n. 60. you say we must be surer of the proof then of the thing proued by it Ergo your fayths certainty of Scripture is vnder naturall reason and not so sure and infallible as your reason And yet it is also supernaturall certainty because you say no reason can be greater then this God sayes so therefore it is true And preface n. 2. pag. 2. lin 14. I submit all other reasons to this one God sayes so therefore it is true Now that one reasou to which all other naturall reasons yield and submit themselues must needs be supernaturall and superiour in certaynty to all naturall reason so that I haue proued by your owne playne expresse words that your Religion of Wit is contradictious free enforced euident obscure certayne vncertayne prudent foolish naturall vnnaturall vndernatural supernaturall wherby one may see your assertion that Christian faith is not certayne and infallible but onely highly credible what a mayne and mighty contradiction the same is and what a world of grosse absurdityes and repugnances are inuolued therein The seauenth Conuiction 20. CAP. 2. n. 154. lin 8. you giue this reason why the assent of Christiā fayth is not certayne and infallible and why God cannot require it of Christians because say you No man can giue and so cannot be required to giue a greater assent to the conclusion then the premises deserue And Cap. 6. nu 7. ante finem Nothing is more repugnant then that a man shold be required to giue most certayne credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare most certaine credible But c. 5. n. 8. to the contrary you write Of this that we are to belieue Christian Religion we are may be made infallibly certaine And c. 6. n. 9. Arguments so credible that though they cannot make vs see what we belieue yet they euidently connince that in true wisedome and prudence the articles of it deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things reuealed of God Thus you And are you so dull as not to see how frō these your two sayings ioyned together in discourse vild blasphemy may be concluded The mysteries of Christian Religion cannot you say by the motiues of credibility be made certayne or fit to be credited with infallible fayth But the mysteries of Christian Religion can be made credible and fit to becredited as things reuealed of God Ergo things credible as reuealed of God are not credible with infallible faith And consequētly to things reuealed of God a most certayne and infallible assent is not due Is not this to deny the infinit verity and veracity of God and his word Hence grounding vpon the contradictory I dispute in this manner What we may must belieue as the word of God that we may and must belieue with a most certayne and infallible assent for nothing can be more certayne and so nothing can more deserue to be vndoubtedly credited then the word of God But we are as you say infallibly certayne and arguments euidently conuince that we may and must belieue the articles of our fayth as the Word of God or as things reuealed of God Ergo we may and we are bound by Christian duty to adhere to the articles of our Fayth with a most certayne and infallible assent The eight Conuiction 21. IN your Preface n. 2. you say I am most apt and most willing to be lead by reason alwayes submitting al other reasons to this one God sayes it Ergo it is so This saying doth imply of necessity that the adherence of fayth vnto Gods word is more certaine then that of sense or any knowledge grounded on reason Because if all other reasons must yeld submit to this one reason Gods saies it therefore it is so then this reason I see this with my eyes Ergo it is so must yeeld to this God sayes it is not so Ergo it is not so But if the assent due to the word of God were not more certayn and infallible then that of sense the conclusion from the euidence of sense were not to yield to the conclusion from the certainty of Gods word Ergo by your owne profession you are conuinced to be false in saying the adherence by fayth to the word of God is not more certayne then that of sense or else you cogge and dissemble to hide your infidelity when you say I submit all other reasons to this one God said so Ergo it is so 22. Hence I further inferre that Christians ought you are bound to belieue the mysteries reueased in Scripture though they seeme implicatory and impossible to your human reason which you deny Pag. 215. 2. Edit pag. 206. lin 18. lin 16. For if all other reasons must yield to this one God sayes so therfore it is so then also this reason The mysteries of the Trinity of Hypostaticall vnion of two natures in Christ of the Real Presence seeme manifestly
this office may be giuen to none but whome God hath designed for it And pag. 59. n. 17. In ciuill Controuersies euery henest vnderstanding man is fit to be Iudge but in matters of Religion none but he that is infallible 10. The Minor also you deliuer often but specially in two places Cap. 2. n. 162. explicating a Conclusion defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. That the Church hath authority to determine Controuersies of fayth obrected by your Aduersary you answere Me thinkes so subtill a man as you are should easily apprehend a wyde difference betweene authority to do a thing and infallibility in doing it againe betweene a conditionall infallibility and an absolute The former the Doctour togeather with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church and I subscribe to this opinion that is an authority in determining Controuersies of fayth according to plain and euident Scripture and vniuersall Tradition infallibility so long as they proceed according to this rule As if there arise an Heretique that should call in question Christs Passion and Resurrection the Church had authority to decred this Controuersie and infallible direction how to do it and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in errour I hope you will not deny but that Iudges haue authority to determine criminall and ciuill Controuersies and yet I hope you wil not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallible while they proceed according to law if they do so but not infallibly that they shall euer do so Thus you Now let the Reader be Iudge whether it be not a thing in you both ridiculous and hatefull to be still vanting of the subtilty of your wit and reproaching want thereof to your Aduersarie whereas your subtilties be grosse contradictions of your selfe that I am euen amazed how any man could be so forgetfull and voyd of consideration You say there is a wyde difference betweene authority to decide matters of Religion and Infallibility in doing it which you proue because Iudges haue authority to determine criminal and ciuill Controuersies and yet are not absolutely infallible but infallible only conditionally if they proceed according to law Now this your subtility your selfe condemnes for ignorant folly as not considering the wide difference betwixt Iudges in ciuill Controuersies and Iudges with authority to determine matters of fayth that the former may be fallible but not the later Be not these your very wordes pag. 59. lin vlt. and pag. 60. lin 1. In ciuill Controuersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible How then do you now distinguish betwixt a Iudge and an infallible Iudge in matters of Religion 11. Your other distinction also of Infallibility absolute and conditionall is a meere fopperie as you declare it and by attributing only conditionall infallibility to the Church you contradict your selfe For you say in ciuill Contronersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible heere you attribute greater infallibility to the Church or Ecclesiasticall Iudge then to a Iudge in ciuill causes But you say a Iudge in ciuill affaires is infallible conditionally if he proceed according to law Ergo the Church is infallible absolutely so that she cānot erre in her definitions and sentences but still proceed according to the diuine law or sacred Scripture Besides the Church is infallible in a higher and absoluter manner then euery priuate Christian But euery priuate Christian is infallible conditionally to wit while he proceeds according to the true and vndoubted sense of Scripture Ergo the Conclusion of Oxford The Church hath authority to determine Controuersies of fayth was by the defendant Doctour vnderstood of infallible authority or els it was a meere mockery Moreouer authority to determine Controuersies of fayth must be sufficient to make the determination to be an assured stay wheron Christian fayth may securely rely which before was not knowne to be such otherwise there is no determination of fayth but fayth about that point remaynes as vncertayne and vnderermined as it was before But a Iudge absolutely fallible and only conditionally infallible cannot determine any controuersy infallibly that Fayth may determine to belieue it without danger of being deceaued Againe you say pag. 337. n. 20. A questionable guide for mens direction is as good as none at all But the Church infallible only conditionally that is if perchance she hit vpon the true sense of Scripture is a guide or determiner of Controuersies questionable because after such a determination the question still remaynes vndecided whether that be the true sense of Scripture Adde heereunto that Protestants do not attribute so much as this conditionall infallibility to the Church that her determinations are infallible when they are according to plaine and euident Scripture For they will not belieue Transubstantiation though they grant that the Lateran Councell defining it proceeded according to the plaine and euident sense of Scripture Morton of the Sacrament lib. 2. initio If sayth D. Morton the words of Christ This is my Body be certainly true in the proper literall sense we must yield to Papists the whole cause Transubstantiation corporall and materiall Presence c So that the Church is not infallible with Protestants if she proceed according to the plaine proper and litterall sense of Scripture but only when she hits on those figuratiue tropicall improper senses they fancy to themselues And I pray you giue me a reason why the Catholike Church may not condemne you for expounding figuratiuely symbolically tropically the text of Scripture deliuering Transubstantiation according to the playne proper and literall sense as well as she may condemne any Heretique that should expound the place of Scripture about our Lords Passion and Resurrection figuratiuely against the plaine proper and litteral sense Finally wheras you say the Church is to determine Controuersies not only by the rule of plaine Scripture but also of vniuersall Tradition you say a truth against the whole drift of your booke that the Bible is the only rule and against what you write Cap. 2. n. 155. nothing but Scripture comes to vs with a full streame of Tradition and so besides Scripture there is no vnwritten doctrine 12. A third place yet more cleere for the Churches totall infallibility you haue cap. 2. n. 77. where you grant the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth by office Our Sauiour sayd to his disciples yee are the salt of the earth not that this quality was inseparable from their persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity in vaine had he put them in feare of that which followes If the salt haue lost his sauour wherewith shall it be salted So the Church may be by duty the pillar ground of Truth of all truth not onely necessary but also
not be a Protestant if you will be saued that is then Protestants be not a true Church but a Company that hath forsaken the true Church and cannot be saued if they continue where they are But that there alwayes was alwayes must be such a Church of Christ such a Society of Christians which is the ground and rocke of all truth setled and certaine and of one denomination was in the precedent Chapter not by you granted of meere fauour but extorted from you by the euidence of truth vndeniable texts of Scripture Ergo Protestants are Schismatiques separated from the Church the rocke and ground of fayth and cannot be saued except they remoue to the one Church be built thereupon by dependance on the Rocke by subordination to the Head thereof Now if there must be such a Catholique Church of one denomination whether the Roman be that Church and not rather the Graecian or Abissine is in the iudgment euen of Protestants I dare say a ridiculous doubt and a fond fancy but more hereof in the next Chapter The third Conuiction 9. YOu are conuinced of proper and formall Schisme by the Confutation of your excuses whereby you would cleere your reuolt from so heynous a crime which you set downe Cap. 5. nu 36. I would faine know wherein I may not without Schisme forsake the externall Communion of them with whome I agree in fayth whether I be bound for feare of Schisme to communicate with those that belieue as I do only in lawfull thinges or absolutely in euery thing whether I am to ioyne with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common confession of fayth wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abiuration of it These your questions or excuses be friuolous and idle for many reasons First because you suppose without proofe that the vniuersal visible Church may be stayned with superstition Idolatrie which is the mayne point in question And your supposition to be false we prooue euen by this argument That Church cannot be stayned with superstition and Idolatry whose external Communion or vnion of the members thereof vnder one head cannot be forsaken without the most proper and formall crime of Schisme But to forsake the externall Communion of the visible Church you confesse to be the most formall crime of Schisme Ergo the external Communion of the visible Church cannot be stayned vniuersally with superstition and Idolatrie 10. Secondly your questions are vaine because they imply contradiction destroy ech other For how can it consist together that you do agree in fayth with the Church in fundamentals and that yet she teach Idolatry and vrge you to abiure with her the fayth wherein you she both agree Thirdly if the Church be supposed to be stayned with vniuersall errour and Idolatry it doth indeed follow that you must not communicate with her in Idolatry but not that you may forsake the external common Vnion of all the members thereof to the Head and vniuersall Authority which ioyneth them together in one Society of a Christian Church But Protestants forsooke the vnity of their follow-members refusing to communicate with them not onely in superstition but also in the vnity of subiection to the Head-authority of the whole body They did deuide themselues from that Body erecting to themselues new Conuenticlss new Churches vnder new chosen heades guides pastours Ergo they cannot be excused from the formall and proper crime of Schisme and Rebellion against the Church 11. You will say had they not forsaken that vnity of subiection to the common head they must haue professed Idolatry or else haue beene burnt I answere if the supposition be true of Idolatry in the Church they had byn blessed Martyrs in choosing rather to dye then eyther to commit Idolatry or deuide the Church But because they did not so but sought to deuide the Church to saue their lyues they be now damned Schismatiques For will you dare to say that men may commit the most formall crime of Schisme and rebellion against the Church rather then be put to death Then if a Prince perfecute men for Religion they may rebell and deuide his Kingdome if they be able rather then dye for their Religion 12. You say Cap. 5. n. 55. in fine No man can haue cause to be a Schismaque I assume But to forsake the externall vnity of Gods Church or the fellowship of subordination to the head-authority of the whole Body is to be a most formall and proper Schismatique Ergo No feare of being eyther stayned with superstitiō or put to death could iustifie your relinquishing the externall Communion or vnion with Gods Church nor your erecting of new Conuenticles vnder new Superiours from being formall and proper Schisme 13. Moreouer you say that in the dayes of S. Austine there (a) Pag. 156. lin 50. was vniuersall superstition in the Church that (b) pag. 155. lin 21. Second Edit c. 3. n. 47. pag. 149. 150. all places were full of superstitions humane presumptions vayne worships which were (c) Pag. 156. lin 36. vrged vpon others with great violence the streame of them was growne (d) Pag. 156. lin 24. so stronge that S. Austin durst not oppose it And yet S. Austin did not therefore forsake the Church and his subordination to the Pastours thereof nay he doth euery where most earnestly and seuerely as you confesse iustly rebuke and conuince the Donatists of damnable sinne for deuiding the Church and erecting new Conuenticles Altars Churches vnder new Pastours It is manifest therefore euen by your owne Principles and Professions that Protesters cannot be excused from damnable Schisme though the visible Church had beene as in S. Austins tyme you make it so when Luther reuolted full of superstitions human presumptions and vaine worships which yet to haue byn or to be in the church you neither do nor can prooue otherwyse then by your bare word which I hope is no rule of Fayth more then S. Cyprians which being obiected to you you reiect (e) Cap. ◠43.4◠saying angerly to your Aduersary Why in a contronersy of fayth do you cite any thing which is confessed on all bands not to be a rule of fayth The fourth Conuiction 14. VVE proceed to conuince Protesters of Schisme euen though your most false suppositions were true Let vs suppose ineuitable necessity to haue beene vrgent vpon them as you say it was eyther to abandon the vnity of subordination to Gods Church Cap. 5. n. 72. or else against their conscience to professe her errours I say they should in that case rather haue vndergone this hypocriticall dissimulation then that Schismaticall separation This I proue because though that be true which S. Paul teaches That euill is not to done that good may follow yet that is false which you affirme pag. 283. n. 72. We must not do euill to auoydeuil This is against the knowne Principle of reason
Christian a wilfull obstinate opposer of diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed to him how can any man possibly be an Hereticke 3. Some may say if he see the doctrine to be contayned in Scripture and yet disbelieue it then is he an Hereticke I answere then he is not an heretique but a Heathen openly and formally an Infidell For you say (a) Sec. edition cap. 4. n. 4 post medium Pag. 194. lin 14. To disbelieue any doctrine which one knowes to be reuealed in Scripture is for a Christian not only impious but also impossible D. Field of the Church l. 5. c. 5. 4. Some may also pretend that an Hereticke is one that erreth about some truth which doth directly and essentially concerne matter of Saluation though he ioyne not obstinacy to his errour But this is manifestly false An Hereticke is one hatefull horrible and detestable but a man that erreth in matters of saluation ignorantly for want of sufficient instruction and proposition is commiserable and to be pittied not to be abhorred He that being in the darke seeth not the meate that is neere him and so starueth for want of food cannot be said to be a blind man or a wilfull staruer of himselfe so the Christian who doth erre about some essentiall points of Saluation the necessary food of the soule so perisheth because the light of credibility doth not shine vpon it in respect of him cannot be said to be an Hereticke or an Infidell but only in this respect an vnhappy wretch though this case among Christians can hardly happen Finally an Hereticke is one that erreth through inward indisposition to belieue but the man that doth disbelieue a truth only because he is not sufficiently in structed may want no good disposition and readines of mind to belieue Ergo he cannot be an Hereticke 5. Now this mayne and last principle for resolution of the Controuersy which be diuine Reuelations is the Christian Catholique Church deliuering perpetuall Traditions from the Apostles or which is all one as you confesse (a) Cap. 2.155 Vniuersall Tradition is the rule to iudge all controuersies by (b) Cap. 2 n. 28. being a thing credible of it selfe and therefore fit to be rested on Other principles and rules though they be not euident of themselues yet are good stayes of our fayth because euidently (c) Cap. 2. n. 8. That Scripture cannot be proued to be a perfect rule by its owne saying so but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe conioyned with this principle of Tradition credible of it selfe against all which your Protestants or Protesters directly oppose and so erre fundamentally and are Heretickes as these Arguments conuince The first Conuiction 6. FIrst I prooue them to be Heretickes against their owne last Principle and rule their rocke pillar and ground the Scripture euident of it selfe and known to be the word of God by its owne glorious beames rayes Though somtimes you reiect this Principle as not onely false but also (a) Cap. 6. n. 55. Cap. 2. n. 47. fond ridiculous vnworthy to be the conceyt of any wise man yet to keepe your good purpose of contradicting your selfe in euery thing you approue it also c. 4. n. 53. lin 25. where to the question What assurance is there that the Scripture is the word of God you answere The doctrine it selfe is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat What is this but to make the Scripture credible and worthy of credit for it selfe seeing the credibility or worthines of credit Scripture hath from its owne doctrine stile language it hath of it selfe But howsoeuer Scripture be not the last stay of your beliefe in the question Whether it be the word of God yet in respect of your Fayth of the sense of Scripture you make Scripture the last Principle yea the onely rule thereof cleere manifest euident of it selfe This supposed I subsume but Protestants disbelieue doctrines proposed cleerly and plainly by Scripture through preiudices and passions instilled into them by education Cap. 3. n. 19. lin 18. Second Edit pa. 21. lin 4. as you confesse pag. 137. lin 6. and there be millions of them that are betrayed into errour not by ignorance but by the sinfull and damnable passions of their will pag. 21. lin 40. Ergo Protestants erre fundamentally and are prooued Heretickes by their owne fundamentall rule and last Principle of fayth for if they be not Heretickes who contradict a doctrine which is propoposed vnto them by cleere plaine and euident texts of Scripture it is not possible there should be any Hereticke by their grounds 7. This is confirmed because the same Protestants belieue truths proposed vnto them by texts not so cleer and euident as those are the true sense whereof they disbelieue Ergo the cause why they do not belieue other more plainly and cleerely proposed Truths is not want of credibility in the proposition nor of faculty in their vnderstandings but want of disposition to belieue in their wils This you confesse saying Pag. 137. lin 6. That truths reuealed in Scripture plainly inough in the mselues be not plainly reuealed to such and such men into whome passions and preiudices against such truths haue beene by education instilled Now to disbelieue truths proposed sufficiently and inough by plaine texts of Scripture that is in your way with the vttermost light and euidence of credibility any Christian proposition can possibly haue not to belieue I say truths so proposed through passion and preiudice is the formall crime of Hereticall obstinacy wilfull blindnes 8. Hence we may further conclude that disagreeing Protestants are Heretiques to ech other and their dissensions Hereticall on the one side or on both As to say of one he wants light to see the sunne shining at noone day is to say he is starke blind To say of one he wants wit to appehend the truthes that are euident of themselues is to say he is a foole so to say of one that he wants disposition to belieue Christian doctrine proposed by cleare and manifest Scripture is to say he is an Infidell and voyd of Fayth if doctrine proposed by cleere texts of Scripture be hoc ipso proposed to Christian belieuers sufficiently and inough as Protesters teach and must teach else no doctrine can be in their Religion proposed sufficiently and inough What you so often (a) Pag. 336. n. 19. and else where a hundred times obiect that then the Dominicans should be Heretiques vnto Iesuites because in the opinion of Iesuites their opinion is cleerely repugnant to Scripture is friuolous and vaine For to Iesuits and Dominicans the sole euidence of the text of Scripture is not sufficient proposition because many plaine texts are not to be vnderstood in the plaine and litterall sense but that the proposition of Scripture be sufficient the euidence of the text must be backt and strengthned by the Tradition
definition or declaration of the Church Now you and your Protesters hold the sense of Scripture proposed by the meere in ward euidence of the text onely and alone to be the last and vttermost euidence of credibility a Christian doctrine can haue the rocke and pillar of beliefe Ergo when you accuse ech other of disbelieuing euident and plaine Scripture you accuse ech other of the formall proper crime of heresy so that Protesters are according to S. Paul delinquishers of the Church conuinced and condemned by their owne Iudgement The second Conuiction 10. THey that protest against the pillar ground rocke of that Credit and Authority which doth vp hold propose and expose all truth of Saluation vnto Christian beliefe and make the same worthy of all credit in respect of us erre fundamentally and are damned Heretickes This is manifest by what is prooued in the Preface of this Chapter But you protest against such a Rocke for you protest against the Catholique present Church of euery age since the Apostles Cap. 5. n. â—â— circa medium Cap. 5. n. 91. paulo post medium as subiect to fundamentall and damnable errours and euer stayned euen in the second age immediately vpon the death of the Apostles with vniuersall errours whose Catholique externall Communion you haue forsaken because vniuersally polluted with superstitions as you confesse and professe to glory therein Now that the present Catholique vniuersall Church in euery age is the pillar (c) Cap. 5. n. 52. Cap. 3. n. 77. n. 78. ground rocke that is teacher of all Christian truth by duty and office and in fact alwayes the pillar and ground that is the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth which she could not be vnles she were infallible in all her proposals (d) Pag. 108. n. 139. Cap. 2. n. 139. these things you grant as hath bin shewed at large in the fift Chapter Ergo Protesters are guilty of Heresy as ouer throwers of the rocke pillar last Principle of Christian fayth 11. Moreouer you graunt Tradition vniuersall to be the last Principle of Christian fayth euident of it selfe and so the pillar and ground of all truth fit to be rested on But by making the Church fallible and subiect to errour in deliuering Apostolicall Traditions you destroy this Rocke and make the same no ground to be rested on in any kind of truth For say you an authority subiect (e) Cap. 3. n 36. lin 12. to errour cannot be a firme foundation of my beliefe in any thing and Cap. 5. n. 91. lin 40. expressely to this purpose you say If the Church were obnoxious to corruptions as we pretend who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption did not get in and preuaile in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age c. The errour of the Millenaries was you say in the second age vniuersall and what was done in some was possible in others Now seing the authority of the Scripture and of the foure Ghospels and our whole Christian fayth depend vpon the tradition of the primitiue Church you that make the authority of the primitiue Church and Tradition subiect to errour and fallible how do not you erre most fundamentally destroying the last stay and only rocke to be rested on by Christian beliefe Tradition primitiue vniuersall being vncertaine and fallible what certainty can Christians haue of the Scriptures being from God (f) Pag. 63. lin 34. Only by the testimony of the ancient Churches the testimony of the ancient Churches the only meanes of our certainty in this point being vncertaine The third Conuiction 12. IF the Roman Church be the pillar ground rocke that is the teacher both by duty and in deed of all Christian truth then Protesters against the Church of Rome be Heretickes as you graunt and must needes graunt But the Antecedent is true and proued euidently by what you graunt and by what hath been shewed to be consequent of your grants that there must be alwayes a Church of one denomination alwayes in fact euen by essence the teacher of all fundamentall truth visibly discerned from other Christian Societies by this note of Vnity and Subordination to One. Now if there must be alwayes such a one Church the Roman must of necessity be this Church Supra c. 6. conuict 2. This consequence you denied as we noted before which now I make good by this Argument The Church which can must and in fact doth performe the office of guide and directour must be of one denomination subiect to one certain Bishop and also vniuersal Apostolicall one the same euery where for matters of fayth But there is no Church of one denomination in the world noted with these markes but only the Roman Ergo the Roman and only the Roman is that Church of one denomination and obedience Cap. 3. n. 39. lin 18. wherein a knowne infallibility is settled by adhering to which men are guided to belieue aright in all fundamentals The maior proposition of this argument I prooue by what you write pag. 91. (a) Cap. 2. n. 101. where you apply a testimony of S. Austin against vs Euery one may see that you so few in comparison of all those on whose consent we ground our beliefe of Scripture so turbulent that you damne all to the fire and to Hell that any way differ from you c. Lastly so new in many of your doctrines as in the lawfulnes and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramentall Cup the lawfulnes expedience of your Latin seruice Transubstantiation Purgatory the Popes infallibility authority ouer Kings c. So new I say in respect of the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture which contayneth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adaequate obiect of our fayth I say euery one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deseruing authority 13. This whole discourse though the last two lines only be sufficient to my purpose I haue produced at large that the Reader might see by this patterne for all your Booke is of the same stile methode and pith what a Kilcow-Disputant you are that is a curst Cow with short hornes yea without hornes at all for your Heart is not so curst and fierce in vttering what you conceaue to the discredit of the Roman Church but your Vnderstanding is as weake and faynt in proouing what you say You haue heaped togeather many doctrines of the Roman Church which you traduce as nouelties but in all your discourse there is not any strength of Argument to shew them to be such So we cannot say of you Cornu ferit ille caueto for you strike vs only with the bare forehead of impudent assertion without proofe yea without offer or proffer of proofe Nor could you prooue them these being for the most part all manifest Christian truths which you would haue taken vpon your bare word to be errours For how can you prooue that
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