that these Bookes be the word of God resteth finally not vpō the credit of human Tradition but vpon the Scripture onely which shewes it selfe with euident certitude to be diuine and supernaturall truth and so reuealed of God Euen as light is seene by its owne brightnesse and hony is proued to be sweet by the very tast thereof But this point of Protestancy you reiect as fond vaine ridiculous pag. 371. n. 51. and proue it to be such Because if the Bookes of Scripture were euidently certayne if they did with euident certitude demonstrate themselues to be Diuine truth then all men that haue vnderstanding and capacity to apprehend the right sense and sentence of Scripture would belieue them to be true which experience sheweth be otherwise If Protestants answere that such as haue their tast distempered to them hony is bitter so Infidels through preiudice and distemper of passions do not perceaue and tast the Diuinity of the Doctrines of the Scripture Against this the reply is ready and conuincing For they who through distemper of their palate iudge hony to be bitter do not apprehend the true tast of hony but a tast contrary to the true tast thereof which being in their palate they conceaue it to be in the meate But Infidels by their vnderstanding do rightly apprehend and conceaue the true senses of Scripture and the mysteries of fayth deliuered therein more cleerely then many Christians of meane capacity do and yet they do not iudge them to be Diuine truth or truth at all Ergo the very true sense and sentence of Scripture doth not with euident certainty shew it selfe to be Supernaturall truth such as could not be reuealed but of God 6. Finally if the Protestants beliefe of Scripture be grounded vpon sight of the truth thereof this their beliefe is not sauing fayth for Fayth by which men are saued as hath beene sayd is that wherby they submit by voluntary obedience their vnderstanding to Gods word belieuing firmely and assuredly vpon the Authority thereof things in themselues incredible and aboue the reach of human reason But Protestants do not belieue the doctrine of Scripture because it is the word of God but because as they say they see it to be Diuine truth and consequētly the word of God Ergo they haue not the fayth of humble submission to Gods word which is the onely fayth that pleaseth God and by which men are saued 7. The third Argument Protestants haue not fayth of infallible adherence that is fayth worthy of God about the sense and interpretation of Scripture For holding the Churches interpretation to be fallible they pretend to be sure by this rule that what they belieue to them seemes plainely cleerely euidently reuealed and proposed in the Scripture But this rule of assurance is not infallible but very fallible and deceytfull For euen Protestants thēselues contend that many texts and places of Scripture which seeme plaine and cleere are to be vnderstood figuratiuely against the plaine proper and literall sense For example the words of our Lord about the chiefe Sacrament mystery of fayth THIS is My Body This is My BLOVD in their plaine proper and literall sense deliuer and establish Transubstantiation as Protestants grant Hence Protestants that are resolued not to belieue a mystery so high aboue reason seemingly repugnant to sense will by no meanes allow these wordes to be true in their proper and literal sense they will not yield to the plain euidence of the Diuine text Whereupon it is euidently consequent that they cannot be sure about any mystery of fayth by vertue of the sole seeming euidence of the sacred Text. For instance take the most fundamental text of Scripture about the most fundamētal mystery of Christian Religion to wit the Incarnation of the Sonne of God The Word was made flesh How doth this text euidently conuince that the Eternal Word and Sonne of God was made Man truely substantially personally What Protestants say of the word of Christ This is my Body why may not Nestorians affirme about this text The Word was made ffesh that it is not true in a proper plaine and literal sense but metaphorically figuratiuely that God and Man were made one in Christ by affectual vnion as two great friendes are said to be one How can Protestants be themselues assured or how can they proue by the sole euidence of the text that this Nestorian interpretation is false And if their beliefe of the mystery of the Incarnation be not solide and firme grounded on a rule of interpretation infallibly certaine how can they be saued 8. Learned and iudicious Readers may find in your booke a world of laughter about your answering the arguments of Charity Maintayned you do it so vnscholler-like so okerly and vntowardly Let your answere to this argument serue for a patterne Our Maintayner vrgeth D. Potter that if the Church may erre in points of fayth not fundamentall you can neuer be sure of any such point For as you erre about some deceyued by the seeming euidence of the Scripture so you cannot be sure you do not erre about other You answere Pag. 117. n. 160. A pretty Sophisme depending vpon this principle that whosoeuer possibly may erre he can neuer be certaine that he doth not erre A Iudge may possibly erre in iudgment can he therefore neuer be sure he hath iudged aright A Traualler may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my chamber Or can our London-Carrier haue no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London And a litle after nu 161. whereas our Mayntainer argueth that you cannot be sure it is an errour to make the Church Iudge of Controuersies because you pretend to be sure by the seeming euidence of Scripture but this rule is not infallible so you cānot be sure by the warrant thereof The ground of this Sophisme say you is very like the former viz. that we can be certaine of the falshood of no proposition but those only that are damnable errours But I pray good Sir giue me your opinion of these The snow is balcke the fire is cold M. Knot is Arch-Bishop of Toledo the whole is not greater then a part of the whole that twise two make not foure in your opinion good Sir are these damnable heresies Or because they are not so haue we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir consider seriously with what strāge captions you haue gone about to delude your King and your Country if you be conuinced they are so giue glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which standes vpon such deceytfull foundations This you write which you could neuer haue written had you been with your London Carrier sober and in your wits You haue proued Gusman de
this Contradiction and to put the terme of fundamentall Errours vpon our Church you haue coyned a distinction of two kinds of fundamentall errours Pag. 290. n. 88. Fundamentall Errours say you may signifie eyther such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those that out of ignorance inuincible practise them not vnpardonable and such as are not onely meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and destructiue of Saluation According to this distinction you grant that the Roman Religion hath fundamentall errours of the first kind though as you hope none of the second But this distinction to omit that you ouerthrow the same in both the members thereof as will afterward appeare will not serue your turne nor reconcile your contradiction For when you say we belieue all Fundamentals you professe to take the word in your owne sense But in your sense the word Fundamentall signifies all kind of necessary truth for so you warne vs pag. 220. lin 5. May it please you to take notice now at last that by fundamentall we meane All and onely that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect Saluation in a Church which hath all things fundamentall to Saluation Thus you which is as much as if you had sayd that by Fundamentall you vnderstand not only the things which are remedilessely and indispensably necessary but also those that be necessary onely because commanded For how can men safely expect Saluation without those things which by the commandement of God are necessary to Saluation Though men with fundamentall errours of the first kind may in your doctrine possibly be saued yet you say their state is not safe but dangerous Now such as haue all truth Fundamentall to Saluation they not onely may possibly be saued but also safely expect Saluation as you contend Ergo when you say our Church retaynes all Fundamentals to Saluation and erres not Fundamentally you will haue vs take notice that you meane she is free not onely from such damnable errours as absolutely destroy but also from those which endanger Saluation Consequently when you say absolutely as euery where you do that our errours are Fundamentall or substantiall or damnable or dangerous you contradict your other assertion that we retayned all things simply necessary to saluation and erred not Fundamentally 3. Besides in the frontispice of your booke you haue printed this sentence of our late King Iames Things simply necessary to Saluation be those which eyther the Word of God doth expressely command to be belieued or done or those which the Ancient Church did by necessary consequēce draw out of the Word of God Now you grant in expresse termes that the Roman Church retayned all things simply necessary to Saluation Ergo you must grant that she retayned all those things which eyther the word of God doth expressely command to be belieued or done or which from the Word of God the Ancient Church deduced and so can want nothing necessary by Diuine command nor haue errours fundamentall so much as of the first kind 4. The reason you are about this point so various and continually contentious and fighting with your selfe is the inward combat of your vnruly passions On the one side you are incited with fury to damne vs and make our Religion damnable on the other vexed and galled that neither euidence of truth no nor D. Potter himselfe will giue you full freedome to do it Hence your waue and wander you say and vnsay you runne this way and that way vpon aduerse and contrary assertions so much as euen in the same short sentence you plainely contradict your selfe pag. 16. n. 21. lin 11. Though we say the errours of the Roman Church were not destructiue of Saluation but pardonable euen to them that dyed in them vpon a generall Repentance yet we deny not but in themselues they were damnable Do not you perceaue that this speach destroyeth it selfe that our errours are not destructiue of Saluation and yet are in themselues damnable what is destructiue of Saluation but that which of it selfe and in its nature is apt and sufficient to destroy Saluation and to bring damnation on men And is not damnable the very same How then can our errours be in themselues damnable and yet not destructiue of Saluation You say a poyson may be deadly in it selfe and yet not kill him who togeather with it takes an antidote Very true but can poyson be in it selfe deadly not in itselfe destructiue of life Can it be of it selfe apt to cause death not apt to destroy life How then are our errours not destructiue of Saluation and yet damnable and apt to bring damnation on vs 5. In like manner you professe very often that the Roman Church retayned the substance and essence of a Christian Church that you do not cut her off from the hope of Saluation And yet at other times being enraged with the title of Catholique giuen her by the consent of mankind you protest that she is Catholique to herselfe alone and Hereticall to all the rest of Christian Churches Which is as much as if you had said she wantes the very essence of a Christian Church For pag. 332. n. 11. you write It is not Heresy to oppose any truth propounded by the Church but only such a truth as is an essential part of the Ghospell of Christ. Wherefore the Roman Church if she be hereticall opposes some essentiall part of the Ghospell of Christ and consequently she wantes fayth of some essentiall part of the Ghospell What is consequent hereupon That the Roman Church not only is not an incorrupt Church but not a Christian Church so much as for substance and essence The Consequence is manifest For that cannot be a Christian Church for substance essence which doth not hold the Gospell of Christ the Christian Religion for substance and essence as the Roman Church doth not if she be Heretical as you say she is For as that cannot be a man which wantes an essential part of a man so that cannot be the Gospell of Christ nor the Christian Religion for essence which the Roman Church holdes if she want an essential part thereof as you say she doth Behold how furies of passion distract you into contrary parts Yea this which now you so peremptorily decree that heresy is not to oppose any truth but only an essential part of the Gospell you contradict an hundred times in your booke where you distinguish heresies fundamental against the Essentials of the Gospell and not fundamental against Truths of the Gospell profitable but not necessary How can this subsist if that only be Heresy which opposes the Essentials of the Gospell The security in the Roman Church is so great as it is Madnesse to leaue it §. 2. 6. THis I shall make good and euident by your owne most true vndeniable sayings Our Maintayner obiectes
and in particular which be the articles essentially necessary vnto Saluation and you in many places signify that they are innumerable 10. On the Forehead of your Booke you haue printed this sentence of King Iames The number of thinges absolutely necessary to Saluation is not great Wherefore the shortest and speediest way to conclude a general peace and concord in matters of Religion would be to seuer exactly thinges necessary from thinges not necessary and to vse all industry that in necessaries there may be agreement and in thinges not necessary place be left vnto Christian liberty In your Dedicatory you professe that your Booke in a manner is nothing else but a pursuance of and a superstruction vpon this Blessed Doctrine wherwith you adorn'd arm'd the Frontispice thereof This is the flattering of your forhead and your setting a fayre Hypocriticall face of Friendship on this sentence which you hate blaspheme in your heart and in the heart and bosome of your Booke For some few leaues from the beginning you fall to reiect pursue and persecute this your Blessed sentence and your superstruction theron is nothing else but a load of reproaches You say that to seuer exactly thinges necessary from thinges not necessary which that learned Prince esteemeth to be of great vse of great necessity and the shortest way to conclude the generall peace of Christendome about Religion a thinge not only factible but also which may easily speedily be done this I say which your Frontispicial sentence proclaymeth most vsefull and factible the inside of your Booke declareth to be a thing of extreme great difficulty and of extreme little necessity an intricate peece of businesse apparantly vnnecessary of no vse a vaine labour to no purpose Behold your wordes Pag. 23. lin 5. To seuer exactly and punctually these verities the one from the other c. is a businesse of extreme great difficulty and of extreme litle necessity He that shall goe about it shall find an intricate peece of businesse of it and almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it And then it is apparently vnnecessary to goe about it because he that belieues all certainly belieues all necessaries And againe ibid. lin 15. And when they had done it it had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of belieuing those truths of Scripture which are not fundamental as those that are These be your wordes by the force of which you knocke on the head the sentence of king Iames nayled on the forehead of your Booke and also giue a deadly stabbe on the heart of poore Protestants and driue out of it all hope of Saluation 11. For you neither do nor can tell them which points of fayth are Fundamentall and necessary to be knowne distinctly of all without the least of which you say it implies contradiction they should be saued How then shall they be sure they haue all Fundamental truth You say he that belieues all certainly belieues all that is necessary And pag. 225. lin 1. to a Protestant requesting of you to know which in particular be fundamental truths you answere It is a vaine question belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall This rule of assurance you repeate almost in the same formal wordes I dare say a thousand times which is craftily couched in equiuocal and ambiguous termes and hath a double sense being in the one false and deceitfull in the other impossible to be kept If belieue all import no more then belieue in general and confusedly all contayned in the Holy Bible to be true your rule is false deceitfull damnable that men by belieuing all shall certainly belieue all necessaries as they ought vnto Saluation For you say Pag. 163. n. 3. Fundamental and essential points be such as are not only plainly reuealed of God and so certaine truths but also commanded to be preach't to all men and to be distinctly belieued of all and so necessary truths And Pag. 194. lin 16. you teach that to the constitution of Fundamental pointes is required that they be First actually reuealed of God Secondly commanded vnder paine of damnation to be particularly knowne I meane knowne to be Diuine reuelations and distinctly to be belieued Wherfore your rule Belieue all in generall and you shall be sure to belieue all Fundamentals sufficiently vnto saluation is by your owne definitions proued false and damnable But if your rule haue this sense Belieue all that is in the Bible explicitly distinctly in particular and then you shall be sure to belieue all necessaries if this I say be your meaning you lay on your Protestants a most heauy burthen a most vnsupportable load a most tyrannicall and impossible command For what you say that the burthen is light and that all Protestants comply with this your command pag. 129. n. 5. that all of them agree with explicite fayth in all those thinges which are plainly and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture that is in All that God hath plainly reuealed this I say is ridiculous there being millions of truths plainly vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture which millions of Protestants neuer heard yea there be I dare say a thousand such truths which your selfe are ignorant off 12. In contradiction of this your inconsiderate assertion you grant pag. 137. lin 5. That there be many truths which in themselues are reuealed plainly inough which yet are not plainly reuealed vnto some Protestantes of excellent vnderstanding nor are belieued of them because they are prepossest with contrary opinions and with preiudices by the strange power of education instilled vnto their mindes How then is it true that Protestantes all of them agree with explicite fayth in all thinges which are plainly reuealed of God How can those Protestantes who disbelieue many truths reuealed in Scripture plainly inough be sure they belieue all fundamentall and necessary truth seing they obserue not your command Belieue all and you shal be sure to belieue all that is fundamentall Who doth or can assure them that among these many points of Fayth reuealed in Scripture plainly inough none be fundamental It is therfore manifest that Protestants except you giue them an exact Catalogue of all your fundamentals which they are bound vnder payne of uamnation distinctly and explicitly to belieue can neuer be sure they belieue all fundamentall truth And it is seely for you when Charity Maintayned vrgeth you for a Catalogue of your Fundamentals to thinke that you may stop his mouth with importuning him for a Catalogue of our Churches Proposals for we say of our Churches Proposals that it is sufficient to belieue them implicitly we do not say they must be belieued of all distinctly and in particular What need then is there of a Catalogue wherin such Proposals are set downe distinctly and in particular Now you affirme of your Fundamentals that