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
Alfarache his saying that the Fooles Hospital is of large extent to be most true He can range and reuell within the compasse thereof in a world of sottish extrauagances from hoat to cold from snow to fire from Oxford to London from London to Toledo from Toledo backe againe to King and Country and then fetch a new carriere ouer the whole Vniuerse and euery part thereof to be sure that no part is greater then the whole What is impertinentcy what is deserting the matter and argument in hand if this be not Good Syr be pleased to vnderstand that the Controuersy betwixt D. Potter and our Maintayner is not about all Kind of propositions nor whether snow be blacke or fire cold nor about your not being Arch-Bishop of Canterbury nor about the way from your Hall to your Chamber but about propositions pertayning to Christian faith not euident to sense but only to be knowne by reuelation from heauen Our Maintayner auoucheth that these Diuine truths cannot be knowne assuredly but by the teaching of Gods Church infallible in all her proposals This he proueth not as you feigne by this principle He that may possibly erre can neuer be sure he doth not erre but by this He that may erre and hath some times erred by following some certaine Rule can neuer be sure he doth not erre by following the same rule If a Iudge condemne a man to death wrongfully vpon euidence giuen against him by two witnesses how can he be sure that he doth not condemne another man vniustly if he haue no greater assurance then the deposition of two witnesses not knowne to be of better credit conscience A traueller hath been misguided out of his way by inquiring of the first man he met trusting his direction how can he be sure he is not out of his way by crediting the word of another directour equally vnknowne vnto him This then is the Argument of Charity Maintayned which you durst not encounter but ran about the world in the wild-goose chase to auoyd the force thereof No man can be sure he doth not erre by following a rule which is fallible and deceitfull But to iudge of the sense of the Scripture by the sole seeming euidence of the text is a rule fallible which often fayleth and deceaueth them who rely thereon because many places are not taken in their plain proper literall sense and many texts considered by themselues seeme cleere and plaine which conferred with other texts that seeme to say the contrary become darke and obscure Therefore to discerne the true sense and meaning of Scripture by the sole seeming euidence of some text thereof is a rule fallible Protestāts by the sole direction therof can neuer be sure or infallibly certain about any mystery of faith 10. And I pray you good Sir leaue your wild vagaries come home to the litle closet of your wits hold them close to the matter and then tell vs A Protestant who denyes the wordes of Christ This is my Body to be true in their plain proper and literall sense how can he be sure himselfe or how can he assure others that this text The word was made flesh is to be taken and true in the plain proper and literal sense Do not tell vs that you know the way from your Hall to your chamber that snow is white fyre hoat M. Knot is not Arch-Bishop of Toledo but giue vs an assured rule whereby to know that this text The word was made flesh is literally to be vnderstood in the plain substantial sense the text This is my body ought to be figuratiuely interpreted so that the Body of Christ be taken for but a peece of Bread The meane while I conclude that Protestants seing they haue not any infallible rule to assure them of the sense of Scripture cannot firmely belieue the Mysteries reuealed therein and so they haue not such a persuasion of the truth of Gods word as is worthy of God and pleasing to him nor will they euer obtayne sauing fayth till they ioyne with Roman Catholiques to acknowledge the infallible authority of the visible Catholike Church The seauenth Conuiction BEcause you cannot damne Roman Catholiques for any want of necessary and fundamentall truth you endeauour to procure their damnation and plead earnestly for it in regard they do not endeauour to know all profitable truth In which discourse you prodigiously contradict other assertions of your Booke By the discouery of which damnation will be seene to fall a way from vs vpon your owne head togeather with the cause meritorious thereof the not caring to auoyd vnfundamentall heresies 1. First you contradict your selfe in the same sentence wherby you make your Way plaine and yet impossible to be gone Pag. 221 lin 19. This is a way so plaine as fooles cannot except they will erre from it Because not knowing absolutely all truth nay not all profitable truth not being free from errour but endeuoring to know the truth and obey it and to be free from errour is by this Way made the onely condition of Saluation It is strange you should say that fooles cannot erre from your Way vnlesse they will whereas your selfe being so wise a man haue erred so mightily from your Way no doubt against your will as you are gone a contrary way In the first part of your saying you pronounce your Way to be so plaine as fooles except they will cannot misse of being saued therein but in the second you require so much and so hard conditions of Saluation as you make the same wholy impossible for fooles and ignorant persons and morally impossible euen to the learned'st leaders of your flocke For you require to Saluation that men know not onely all necessary truth but also that they endeauour to know all profitable truth yea absolutely all truth For by vertue of your speach they are bound to endeauour for the knowledge of that truth which in this sentence you say they are not bound to know But the truth you say in this sentence they are not bound to know is not all necessary truth but all profitable truth yea absolutely all truth Ergo your followers are bound as they will be saued though not to know yet to labour endeauour study to know all profitable truth yea absolutely all truth about Diuine matters Which is as much as to say that none can be saued in your way but such as haue studied Diuinity and haue not omitted so much as one question thereof not only about profitable points of that Science but also about vnnecessary and vnprofitable quirks absolutely all What can be imagined more vaine fond and absurd then to bind all men as they will be saued to study and endeauour for the knowledg of all Diuinity and Diuine truth And yet such is your desire to damne vs as you will do it vpon any condition though your selfe and all other Protetestants be damned in our company 2. Secondly you grossely
images of Christ crucifyed vsed in the Church with Apostolicall allowance we haue the plaine words of S. Paul Gal. 3.1 O senselesse Galathians who hath be witched you not to obey the Gospel before whose eyes Christ Iesus is painted Crucifyed among you The Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liuely set forth in the picture of his Crucifixion so that S. Paul proueth the Galatians were senselesse people that honoring Christ Iesus pictured before their eyes as crucifyed yet did not hope for Saluation by his Crosse and Crucifixion but by Circumcision and the obseruances of the Law This sense being according to the plaine proper and literall sense of the wordes Protestants are bound by the rule of their Religion to admit thereof and cannot without impiety refuse it and expound the place of metaphoricall Painting except they can euidently demonstrate this sense to be false or incongruous against the Apostles intent which they will neuer be able to do 8. If you say that this text at the most proueth the vsing of Images for the representation not honoring of them I answere with the learned M. Montague your Bishop of Chichester that in the vsing of Images for memory sake the honouring of them is necessarily included which he proueth euidently and together affirmes that it is strange that any Christian should be displeased with the Doctrine That respect and honour is to be giuen to Images 9. The Persons of the Trinity we picture not but only the person of Goa the Sonne in the forme and shape of man as personally he was Onely we represent the type wherein God the Father appeared to wit the forme of the Ancient of dayes described Dan. 7. and the type wherein the Holy Ghost appeared the forme of a Doue recorded Math. 3. 10. For Inuocation of Angels we haue the practise and example of holy Iacob Gen. 84.15 The Angell which deliuered me from all euill blesse these Children which text you cannot answere without iugling and changing the Angell into the figure of another substance 11. For the sufficiency of the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread we haue the expresse warrant of our Lord Ioan. 6.59 He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer And for the practise of Communion in one kind for lay men we haue his example Luc. 24.30.31 12. For the adoration of the Sacrament we haue the Scripture in the plaine and proper sense For sayth D. Morton your B. of Durham If the words of Christ be true in a proper and literall sense we must yield vnto Papists the whole cause of Transubstantiation c. the proper adoration of the Sacrament 13. That we prohibite certaine orders of men women to mary is a slander They freely without constraint prohibite themselues whiles by vow they bind their fayth and fidelity vnto Christ to liue single and chast peculiarly consecrated to his seruice Which fayth and fidelity if they violate and make voyd by consequent Mariage as your first reformer the Frier did who married a Nunne we hold their state sacrilegious and damnable which is the expresse doctrine of S. Paul 1. Tim. 5.12 14. The Controuersy which language is fittest and of most edification in Church seruice whether the vulgar which is best knowne in this or that particular country or some learned language Greeke or Latin which be best knowne in the whole Christian Church cannot be determined by Scripture as hath beene already proued So that measuring the way of Saluation euen by the rule of the Bible only the Roman Religion is the plainer and safer Way better warranted euen by expresse texts of Scripture The Ninth Conuiction THe chiefe Fundamental ground of the security Roman Catholiques enioy that they are in the right Way of Saluation according to which if they walke they cannot be damned is the direction of an infallible guide the holy Catholique Church which is no other but the Roman This is conuinced by what your self are forced to grāt as hath been shewed but because this businesse is the maine and the totall I will here repeate some of the passages though very briefly 1. First conuicted by the wordes of S. Paul you grant that the visible Catholique Church is the pillar and ground of truth that is the teacher of all necessary and profittable truth by duty and office yea that she is always in fact the teacher of all truth necessary to Saluation For say you that the true Church alwayes shall be the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth we grant and must grant For it is of the essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable Thus you grant that there is and alwayes shall be a Catholique Church which shall not only belieue inwardly and in heart but also teach and a propose without fayle all diuine reuelation necessary to Saluation For it is her very essence to be so Wherefore not only in belieuing but also in teaching and proposing all necessary truth she can no more faile then from her owne being which is indefectible Hence she is and you must grant she is an infallible guide in Fundamentalls Because to shew men the way to heauen by teaching them all reuealed truth that is necessary to bring them thither what is it but to be a guide of men vnto Saluation shewing them the Fundamental doctrines of Christian Religion without which no man is saued 2. Secondly the visible Catholique Church being as you grant she is an infallible teacher or guide in Fundamentalls must of necessity be also infallible in all her proposalls The necessity of this consequence you deny a thousand tymes and almost in euery period of your third Chapter yet you affirme it in expresse termes Pag. 105 n. 139. lin 23. To say that the Church is an infallible guide in Fundamentals were to oblige our selues to find some certain Society of men of whome we might be certain that they neither do nor can erre in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is Fundamental and what is not and consequently to make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make her infallible in all thinges she proposes and requires to be belieued Which truth you proue vnanswerably Pag. 148. n. 36. 3. Thirdly the visible Catholique Church being a guide in Fundamentals that is alwayes a Teacher of all necessary truth is a Church c of one denomination that is some settled certaine Society of Christians knowne and distinguished from other Societies by adhering to such a Bishop This is proued by this Syllogisme wherein both the premises be your owne formall assertions The Church is appointed of God to be the teacher and guide of men in the way of Saluation and so she is able and fit for that office For God would not by his word haue appointed her an office for which she is vnfit and vnable
auouch that he is lodged in Hell For we are not alwayes acquainted with what sufficiency of meanes he was furnished for instruction we do not penetrate his capacity to vnderstand his Catechist we haue no reuelation what light might haue cleered his errours or Contrition retracted his sinnes in the last moment before death Here our Maintayner requires sufficient meanes of instruction that a man be bound to belieue but he sayth not as you make him say that this instruction must conuince his conscience that his owne Religion is false and the Roman true If a Protestant be thus farre instructed as to perceaue that the Roman Religion is by the full consent of former Christian ages and by the definition of Generall Councels deliuered as the doctrine of Christ Iesus and his Apostles if I say any Protestant be thus farre instructed he is so sufficiently instructed that if he refuse to belieue he is certainly damned Do not you professe that to forsake any Church without necessary causes is as much as a mans saluation is worth Doth not D. Potter auouch that it is not lawfull to goe against the definition of Generall Councels without euident reasons Wherefore Protestants that haue abandoned the Roman Church are by your principles conuinced to be in a damnable state if they know the Roman Religion to be the Christian tradition of their Ancestours the definition of Catholique Councels Nor is it necessary that they be conuinced in conscience that the Roman Religion is true it sufficeth they haue no conuictiue demonstrations against it Wherefore it is extreme want of conscience in you to say that our Maintayner and the most rigide Aduersaries of Protestancy affirme that no Protestant shall be damned for any errour whatsoeuer he holdes against the Roman Church except he be conuicted in conscience that his owne Religion is false and the Roman true 11. And yet not content to haue brought this falshood as a Corollary from his wordes you make it his formal saying and set it downe in a distinct Character as his verball and formall assertion Pag. 31. n. 4. lin 6. Charity mistaken affirmed vniuersally and without any limitation that Protestants that dye in the beliefe of their Religion without particular repentance cannot be saued But this presumption of his you qualify by SAYING that this sentence cannot be pronounced truly and therefore not charitably neyther of those Protestants that want meanes sufficient to conuince them of the truth of your Religion and falshood of their owne nor of those who though they haue neglected the meanes they might haue had dyed with Contrition that is with a sorrow for all their sinnes proceeding from the loue of God Thus you shewing the Adamantinall hardnes of your Socinian for head and Samosatenian conscience For this long sentence which you set downe charactered as the saying of Charity Maintayned with a direct affirmation that it is his saying is forged and feigned by your selfe from the first to the last syllable thereof not only against his meaning in that place but also the whole drift of his Treatise For what is the drift thereof but only to shew that the Roman is the true Church and that her proposing of a doctrine to be belieued is sufficient to bind men to belieue it without any other Conuiction besides the authority of her infallible word 12. Also the second assertion you impute to him That nothing hinders but that a Protestant dying a Protestant may dye with contrition for all his sinnes is an impudent vntruth no such acknowledgment in all his book You seeke to gather it from these wordes We haue no reuelation what light may haue cleered his errours or Contrition haue retracted his sinnes This reason say you or contrition haue retracted his sinnes being distinct from the former and deuided from it by the disiunctiue particle or insinuates that though no light did cleere the errours of a dying Protestant yet Contrition might for ought you know retract his sinnes This is a fond voluntary inference for the clause or contrition retracted his sinnes was not added to signify that a Protestant may haue contrition of all his sinnes though his vnderstanding be not cleered from his errours but to declare that though his vnderstanding be cleered from errours yet this will not suffice that he be saued except after the abiuration of his errours he do further conceaue hearty sorow Contrition for the deadly and damnable sinnes of affection and action he may haue committed 13. For that a Protestant cannot be truly penitēt of all his sinnes vntill his vnderstanding be cleered or at least his zeale allayed that he become remisse in his Religion and doubtfull this reason doth inuincibly conclude It is impossible that a man should repent of a thinge at that time when he is in actual or habitual heat of affection vnto it But Protestants so long as they are Protestants and their Vnderstandings not cleered from their errours or their zeale allayed with cold doubtfulnes are alwayes either actually or habitually in the heat of condemning the Roman Church for Impieties and Idolatries in the heat of presumptuous Pride whereby they preferre their seely conceits about the sense of Scripture before the iudgement of the Church and her Generall Councels Ergo it is impossible that a Protestant persisting stiffely in his Religion should be penitent of all his sinnes knowne and vnknowne The third Conuiction IN this Conuiction I am to proue three things first that Roman Catholiques hold all fundamētall truth and so are secure from damnation Secondly that it is madnesse to persuade any man to leaue the Roman Church Thirdly that it is impossible that Protestants should be sure they belieue all Fundamentall truths That Roman Catholiques are free from all Fundamentall Errours and your Contradictions herein §. 1. 1. HE that belieues all Fundamentals cannot be damned for any errour in fayth though he belieue more or lesse to be Fundamentall then is so This is your formall assertion in so many wordes pag. 207. n. 34. which supposed I assume But Roman Catholiques belieue all Fundamentals that is all necessary truth Ergo they cannot be damned for any errour in fayth The assumption of this argument might be proued by many testimonies from your Booke I will insist vpon two the one in this Section the other in the next Pag. 16. lin 8. We grant the Roman Church was a part of the whole Church And if she were a true part of the Church she retayned those truths which were simply necessary to saluation For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sense therefore of the word Fundamentall we hope she erred not fundamentally Thus you who pag. 280. n. 95. say the playne contrary that our errours are fundamentall And pag. 289. nu 86. that our Church not onely might but also did fall into substantiall errours 2. I know that to salue
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
consequently of the Doctrines contained therein only as an opinion very probable as is hereafter shewed Ergo you question the holy Scripture the Religion and Gospell of Christ you make an if of the truth and certainty thereof You examine it doubtingly with liberty of iudgment prepared in mind to leaue it if perchance you find the grounds thereof apparently false What is this but to be a Nullifidian a man setled in no Religion but doubtfull of all Such an one as they were whome the Apostle checketh terming them men still learning but neuer attayning to the assured knowledge of any thinge Againe Pag. 307. n. 107. you write thus speaking vnto our Maintayner Your eleauenth falshood is that our first reformers ought to haue doubted whether their opinions were certaine which is to say they ought to haue doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formall and expresse termes contaynes many of these opinions From this testimony I conclude that you doubt of the cetainty of the Scripture You professe to examine and question all your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters to make a doubt of the certainty of them But you contend that some of your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters be such as to make a doubt or question of the certainty of them is to doubt of the certainty of formall and expresse Scripture Ergo your Way and practise of doubting of all your opinions about Diuine matters is doubting euen of the truth of the Christian Scripture and Ghospell of Christ A thinge most impious and execrable as you now suppose yet so fond and forgetfull you are as to say you should haue litle hope of Saluation did you not do it or endeauour to do it 6. In fine your safe Way is a Labyrinth of implicatory and inextricable errours Protestants that are concluded therein are lost in a maze of vncertainties and in an intricate mixture of contrary doctrines being sure to find nothing therein but damnation which way so euer they turne themselues Do they doubt of the truth of their Religion which they belieue to be the Ghospell They are both according to truth and in your doctrine damnable wretches as being formall Heretiques Be they so firme in their Religion as they ranke doubting thereof among deadly sinnes Then they are you say obstinately blind sure to fall into the pit of perdition as much as we are at the least you affoard them litle hope of obtayning Saluation The sixt Conuiction 1. THis Conuiction sheweth that only Roman Catholiques haue sauing fayth which is demonstrated by three Arguments The first Sauing fayth is that without which it is impossible to please God Now fayth which pleaseth Gods must be on the one side certaine and infallible otherwise it is not worthy of God to whose word we owe so firme beliefe that if an Angel from heauen should Euangelize against that we haue receaued as his word he were not to be heard but to be accursed On the other side it must be a free and voluntary assent not enforced by the euidence of the thinge For if the reason of belieuing be euident and such as doth necessitate the Vnderstanding to assent the assent is not pleasing to God because it is not voluntary obedience and submission to his word Roman Catholiques by belieuing the Church to be infallible in all her proposals obtaine a persuasion about Diuine mysteries firme and infallible and yet of voluntary obedience and submission But the Opposers of the Roman Church not only want certainty in truth but also know not which way to challenge infallible certainty without euidence 2. This may be proued by what you write Pag. 329. lin 31. The infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it selfe yet is not made appeare to vs infallibly certaine to my vnderstanding is an impossibility What is this but to say that fayth of a thing cannot be infallibly certaine except the thinge belieued be made so cleere and apparent that the vnderstanding cannot choose but assent vnto it For what appeares to vs to be infallibly certaine is seen of vs to be infallibly certaine What we see to be infallible certaine we cannot choose but assent that it is so So that a firme grounded beliefe of the truth of thinges not appearing without which it is impossible to please God is by your doctrine to Protestants impossible 3. Moreouer that Protestants cannot haue fayth pleasing to God that is fayth infallibly certayne not grounded on euidence I demonstrate in this sort No man can be assured infallibly of the truth of things not seene nor to him euidently certaine but by the word of an Authour infallibly veracious in all his words deliuered vnto him by a witnesse of infallible truth For if the witnesse or messenger of the word be fallible let the Authour of the word be neuer so infallible our assent to the truth of the thing proposed cannot be infallible Now Protestants haue not the word of God by meanes of a witnesse and messinger infallible For the witnesse proposer and messenger of the word of God is the visible Catholique Church which Protestants hold to be fallible full of false Traditions not free so you say from errour in it selfe damnable and in this sense Fundamentall Wherfore it is demonstratiuely certaine that onely Roman Catholiques who belieue the Church to be infallible can haue Fayth worthy of God Fayth of voluntary submission to Gods word that is fayth of things to them not euidently yet infallibly certayne and consequently they only please God by their belieuing and are saued 4. The second Argument You say pag. 148. lin 16. There is no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but onely because it is Gods word so that you cannot belieue the doctrines and myestries reuealed in Scripture to be true more firmely and infallibly then you belieue the Scripture to be Gods word for we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued thereby otherwise it is no proofe as you say pag. 37â— n. 59. But your assurance that the Scripture is the word of God is onely human probable and so absolutely fallible For you belieue the bookes which were neuer doubted of in the Church to be Gods word and a perfect rule of fayth onely by the tradition or testimonies of the ancient Churches pag. 63. lin 35. But the ioynt tradition of all the Apostolicall Churches with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same doctrine is onely a very probable argument as you affirme pag. 361. n. 40. Ergo your fayth that Scripture is Gods word consequently of all the mysteries therin reuealed is but human and probable and therefore vnworthy of God being not firmer then the credit we yield to euery morall honest man For to vs his word is probable and credible and to you the word of God is no more 5. Protestants commonely pretend that their fayth