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 [Page 16]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 [Page 17]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 [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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. 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 [Page 21]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 [Page 22]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 [Page 23] 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 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 [Page 24]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 [Page 25]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 [Page 26]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, [Page 27]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 meant by the holy Catholique Church, the Churches authority concurrs to the beget­ting of faith in them together with the illumination of Gods spirit, making them to apprehend more deepely and diuinely of the thing, then otherwise naturally they could by sole Church proposition. You hauing made it necessary vnto saluation, that men do not blindely fol­low blind guides, but that by their owne wit and reason euery one choose and frame to himselfe his Religion, being his owne caruer & iudge: hauing (I say, layd this ground, you should in consequence haue maintayned, that such as ignorantly and blindely follow a blind Church fall into the ditch and are damned. But now making it the word of God, that the blind following the blind must needes perish, and yet labouring to saue some blind followers of the blind, your selfe are fallen into blasphemy by following your owne blind discourse, which still through want of light stumbles at euery step, contradicting is selfe.

The fourth Conuiction.

17. YOv contradict your selfe againe about simple and ignorant Christians, whome you terme [Page 28]Fooles In one place you teach, they cā hardely be saued, in another that they cannot erre from the way of Sal­uation, vnlesse they will. The first you affirme pag. 96. lin. 12. For my part, I am certain, God hath ginen vs reason to discerne between truth and falshood, and he that makes not this vse of it, but belieues thinges he knowes not why, I say, it is by chance, and not by choyce, that he belieues the truth; and I cannot but feare, that God will not accept of the sacrifice of Fooles. Thus you. The second in plain and direct con­tradiction of, this you deliuer Se­cond edit pag. 212. lin 5. pag. 221. lin. 17 saying of your safe Way to Saluation; This is a way so plaine as fooles, except they will, cannot erre from it. Now by Fooles in matters of Religion you vnderstand such as want strength of vnderstanding, and wit, to iudge by them­selues, and to discerne truth from falshood, in mattets of Religion and controuersies moued by Heretiques against the Church. How then it is true that Fooles can­not misse of the way of Saluation except they will, if such only be saued to whome God hath giuen such reason and vnderstanding, that of themselues they be able to discerne truth from falshood in matters of fayth con­trouerted betwixt Heretiques and the Church? If God will not accept of the sacrifice of Fooles, that is, their deuout obedience vnto the doctrine which they belieue to be his vpon the word of his Church, without knowing any other why; your word that Fooles cannot erre from Saluation vnlesse they will, is so farre from being true, as the contrary is true they cannot be saued though they would neuer so fayne.

18. Your two sayings are cleerely and mainely oppo­site the one to the other, the first being false, and the se­cond true: For it is against experience and modesty to say as you do, that God hath giuen vs, that is, all Christians [Page 29]reason to discerne truth from falshood in the controuersies of Religion. No man huing can do this, by the reason giuen him of God, without relying for his assurance on the authority of Gods Church. Yea your selfe, though you much presume of the goodnes of your vn­derstanding and excellency of your wit, haue not rea­son inough for this, which I conuince by what you write Cap. 3. n. 19. lin. 19. Where there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture, reason with reason, Authority with Authority; how it can consist with manifest reuealing of the truth I do not well vnderstand. What is, I do not well vnder­stand, but as if you had said, God hath not giuen me vn­derstanding and reason to discerne assuredly Christian truth from Hereticall falshood in the controuersies about Christian Religion, where Scripture, reason, au­thority are seemingly alleaged on both sides? as in the controuersies betwixt the Roman Church and your Biblists and Gospellers (namely Arians and Socinians) they are. And if you haue not sufficient vnderstanding and reason to diseerne truth from falshood about the fun­damentall article of Christianity, the Godhead of Christ, how hath God giuen all Christians reason to frame an assured iudgment of discretion about this, and all other fundamental points debated betwixt any kind of your Protestants and vs?

19. The other part then of your contradiction is true, that Fooles cannot erre from the way of Saluation except they will, because God will without doubt accept of the sa­crifice of their humble deuotion firmely to belieue what they haue receaued from the Church as his Word. For you say c. 5. n. 64. lin. 20. God requires no more of any man to his Saluation, but his true endea­uour to be saued: But Fooles, that is such as want [Page 30]strength of vnderstanding to discerne Truth from Falshood in the Controuersies about Religion, the best they can do to belieue aright and be saued, is to rest on the word & tradition of the Church, with­out asking her Why she teacheth this or that Do­ctrine: For what can they do better? You will say, let them search the Scriptures, and looke into the writings of the primitiue Fathers. First being ignorant men and of meane capacity they cannot do it; and when they haue done it, how can they be the wiser, seing (x) you say, nothing is proued true, because written in a booke, but on­ly by Tradition which is credible for it selfe? And to what purpose to goe from the Church, and her tradition for a short time, and then presently to come to it againe? For euen as the Doue departing from the Arke of Noe, not finding where to settle her foote in such a deluge of waters, returned instantly to the Arke; so mans reasō leauing the Churches Authority to find by Scripture which is the true Religion in the vast deluge of con­trary wauing Doctrines, will meete with nothing wher on he may firme his beleefe, and so will be for­ced, for rest and assurance, to fly backe to the Arke of Gods Church.

20. Adde that the truth of your second assertion, that the way of Saluation in the Law of Grace is so plain, that Esay. c. 35. v. 8. Via san­cta voca­bitur & hac erit directa via, ita v [...] stu [...]ti nō errent per eam. fooles cannot erre from it, was foretold by the prophet Esay, and he giueth the reason thereof, because they should haue a visible Teacher or Esay. c. 30. v. 20 Erunt ocult tui videntes precepto­rem tunm & anres tua andi­ent vocē post ter­gum mo­nentis, Haec est via am­bulate [...] ca. Maister & should heare his voyce behind them, saying, This is the way, walke therein. From this truth I conclude that euery man and woman is not to resolue for his beleefe by his owne reason but by the voyce of the Church. Because in the way of Wit and Discourse, according to the rules of c. n. 8.2. [Page 31]Logick, Fooles may erre against their will as not be­ing able of themselues to discerne assuredly betwixt sauing truth, & damnable falshood guilded with many seeming cleere texts of Scripture. But the true way of Saluation euen fooles cannot erre from it, except they be willfull against the teaching and voyce of the vi­sible Church telling them this is the way, walke therein; Ergo, the way of belieuing simply the voyce of the Church, is the sole way of Saluation; and your way of Wit and proud Disdayne of the Church, is the way to the bottomlesse pit.

The fifth Conuiction.

21. YOVR way of resoluing your fayth by rea­son is refuted, because by this meanes you may be forced vnder paine of damnation, to admit the Diuel himselfe to be your Maister, & bound to receaue his false suggestions as the word of God. What absur­dity more immane, vast, & horrible then this? And yet it doth so necessarely follow vpon your foresayd Do­ctrine as you are forced to grant it, cap. 2. n. 12. lin. 22. If by the Discourse of the Diuell himselfe, I be (I will not say conuinced, but) persuaded though falsely, that it is a Diuine reuelation & shall deny to belieue it, I shall be a formal (though not a materiall) Heretique.

22. You will perhaps say I do you wrong, and mi­stake your meaning: For you do not meane that you are bound to belieue any falshood proposed vnto you by the Diuel in persuasiue, or conuictiue discourse, but onely if you haue belieued vpon the Diuels persuasion any thing to be Diuine Reuelation, you cannot, this sup­posed, disbeleeue it, or thinke it to be false. I answer, the [Page 32]drift of your discourse sheweth this could not be your meaning; and if it were, the same is proued (by your owne confession) sottish. In that place you discourse vpon a difficulty debated betweene D. Potter, and the Maintayner of Charity, what is required to sufficient pro­position obliging men to beleeue? D. Potter D. Pot. pag. 247. (a) Be it by a Prea­cher, or lay man, or rea­ding Scrip­tures, or hearing them read, that a point be cleered to him. thinkes that to be sufficiently proposed as God's Word, which is proposed by seeming euident proofe from Scripture, whosoeuer the Propounder be. The Mantayner iudgeth sufficiency of Proposition to depend, not so much on the seeming clarity of Scripture, as on the Authority of the propounder, that he be worthy of credit, and such an one, as on his word and proposition we may securely rely. You take part with D. Potter, & affirme, that what is proposed by good and sufficient proofe, by conui­ctiue, or persuasiue discourse as the word of God, is suf­ficiently propounded vnto fayth, though the propoun­der be the Diuell himselfe: Be the meanes of proposal what it will, sufficient or in sufficient, worthy of credit or not wor­thy, though it were the discourse of the Diuel himselfe; yet if I be (I will not say conuinced, but) persuaded, though falsely, that it is a Diuine reuelation, and shall deny to belieue it, I shal be a formal (though not a material) Heretique. These be your wordes which shew euidently your mind to be, that men are bound to belieue the Diuel himselfe, if his discourse be sufficient, that is, conuictiue, or euidently probable and persuasiue.

23. For the sense, that if you were persuaded by the Diuel, that it is a diuine Reuelation, & yet should refuse to belieue it to be true, that then you should be a formal He­retique, this sense is idle and sottish, not formall heresy but plain impossibility, as you say Se­cond edi­tion pag. 10. lin. 2. Pag. 10. lin. 12. How is it not apparent contradiction, that a man should disbelieue [Page 33]what himselfe vnderstandes to be a truth, or any Christian what he vnderstandes, or but belieues to be testified by God? D. Potter might well thinke it superfluous to tell you, This is damnable, because indeed it is impossible.

24. Moreouer, this obligation of belieuing the Diuels Discourse and Conference, if it seeme to you to be con­uictiue, or persuasiue, is necessarily consequent vpon these your principles, 1. That proposition sufficient doth not depend on the authority, of the propounder, but only on the apparent goodnesse, or seeming euidence of his dis­course. 2. That he who followes God only and his owne reason cannot possibly erre. 3. That by discourse no man can possibly be led into errour. For all men are bound to belieue that to be the word of God and infallible truth, which they iudge sufficiently propounded as such. But you iudge that sufficiently propounded, which is propounded by conuictiue or persuasiue discourse from Scripture, who­soeuer the propounder be, though he be the Diuel himselfe. Therfore you are by your principles bound to belieue euen the Diuel himselfe when his discourse to you see­meth conuictiue or persuasiue; as Luther did, and by diabolical persuasion was induced to abrogate the Masse. This being so (that your way of resolution bindeth you to belieue the Diuells discourse) I subsume: But in the true Christian way of resolution, none can be bound to belieue the Diuel, when he knows him to be the Diuel: Therfore this your Wit-way of resolution of fayth, is the right way to make the Diuell the ruler & guide of your wit. You say Se­cond E­dit. pag, 340. lin; 22. Pag. 357. lin. 13. That our Diuells at Low­den doing tricks against the Gospell shall not moue you. I am persuaded the Diuell will not giue so much as a false miracle for your soule, seing he may haue it at an easier rate. For he can easier frame an hundred arguments of [Page 34]conuictiue discourse from Scripture in the behalfe of his falshoods, that is, such as you with all your wit shall not be able to solue; then do such tricks as he is said to be for­ced to do at Lowden. And yet you do not aske so much as a conuictiue Argument for your soule, if he can by probable reasons from Scripture hammer into your head, that his doctrine is diuine reuelation, you are sure his owne.

The sixt Conuiction.

25. WHereas the Directour offers you the perpetuall visible Church, descended by neuer interrupted succession from our Sauiour, for your guide instred of your natural wit and reason, you reiect the offer Preface n. 12. saying: He that followeth reason in all his opi­nions, followeth God, whereas he that followeth a company of men, may oftentimes follow a company of beasts. And against the Catholique Romane Church thus you declame Cap.6. n. 72. ‘ If I follow your Church for my guide, I shall do all one, as I should follow a company of blind men in a iudgment of colours, or in the choyce of a way: For euery inconsidering man is blind in that which he doth not consider. Now what is your Church, but a compa­ny of vnconsidering men, who comfort themselus, be­cause they are a great company togeather; but all of them, either out of idelnesse refuse a seuere trial of their Religion, or out of superstition feare the euent of such a triall, that they may be scrupuled and staggered by it, &c. You are a company of men vn willing, and afrayd to vnderstand, least you should do good; that, haue eyes to see, but will not see; that, haue not the loue of the truth, and ther­fore deserue to be giuen ouer to stronge delusions:’ men that loue darknesse more then light: in a word you are, the blind, [Page 35]leading the blind. Thus you; And this is the flat downe right plain songe you promised your reader without any discords in it; for it is rust that tune of concord, and har­monious concent which scoldes vse to singe when they rayle at some modest Matrone. You will I trust find by experience, that we are not all such Cowards, blind men, and beasts as you make vs; you will see that considering we haue considered your Babylon with lights, and haue bene bold to enter into the darkest cor­ners, and dennes of your booke, and find your Lions to be but of the Cuman kind. Will not you say, I haue made a diligent and seuere search into your booke, if I can out of it produce two propositions, which ioyned togeather conclude in good forme against your head, what I am loath to vtter, worse blindnesse then you object to vs, wheras the present Church is not capa­ble of such folly?

26. None can belieue contradictions at once, but such as are Fooles, and haue their braynes crackt. This you sup­pose Cap. 6. n. 33. lin. 14. vnlesse you will say, that they (S. Au­stin and the African Bishop [...]) were all so foolish as to belieue direct contradictions at once. And c. 5. nu. 105. lin. 40. 2. E­dit. pag. 292. n. 105. lin. 40. Who can ioyne togeather in one brayne not crackt these assertions, In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable: In the Roman Church there are no errors at all? And 2. E­dit. pag. 10. lin. [...] Pag. 10 lin. 12. ‘ It is an apparent contradiction, That a man should dis belieue what himselfe belieues to be a truth. And 2. E­dit. pag. 10. lin. [...] Cap. 5. n. 59. That a man who is persuaded, that your Church doth erre in these things should together belieue these things true, is implicatio in termini, as Schoolemen speake, a contradiction so plaine as one word destroyeth the other.’ Thus you: and yet that foolery, ‘ that men may belieue contradictions at once, [Page 36]you affirme, and proue it by your owne experience 2. E­dit. pag. 20 [...]. lin. 6. Pag. 215. lin. 3.’ Though there can be no damnable He­resy, vnlesse it cōtradict some necessary truth, yet there is no contradiction, but the same man may at once be­lieue this Heresy and this Truth: ‘because there is no contradiction, that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions. Thus you: wherein you ma­nifestly contradict your selfe and practise what you say, no man can do whose braynes be not crakt:’ For what contradiction can be more plaine & direct then this betwixt your two sayings, It is no contradistion, that a man belieue contradictions at once, the same doctrine to be heresy and truth. It is apparent contradiction so plaine as one word destroyeth another, that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions, or should belieue that to be Falshood which he belieues to be Truth.

27. No man therfore in his wits can belieue contra­dictions at once, only crackt brayns can thinke they do it, when they do it not; as mad-men imagine they fly when they rest in their bed. In which number you ranke your selfe, Cap. 4. n. 47. Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions I willingly grant; but to say it is impos­sible, is against euery mans experience; and allmost as vnrea­sonable, as to do the thing which is said to be impossible. Thus you: that other men besides your selfe belieue, or think they belieue in their heart contradictions at once you cannot say, but only by the experience you haue of your selfe, that you do in your conceyt hartily belieue contradictions, and therupon imagine that other men doe the like. Now put togeather your two assertions: Whosoeuer thinketh he can belieue contradictions at once is a foolish creature, hath his brayne crackt: I William Chillingworth know by experience, that I can [Page 37]belieue contradictions as the same time. What of this! O that you would conclude what these premises vrge you vnto. Therfore I will neuer more trust my owne wit and discourse in matters of religion; I wil abandon those false principles, Preface n. 12. He that followeth his owne discourse still followeth God: By discourse no man can possibly be lead into errour: I will take the Church for my guide which is constant in the truth and cannot oppose herselfe, as I my selfe confesse.

28. For so you do, 2. E­dit. p. 32. lin. 7 Pag. 33. lin 9. It is impossible the Church should oppose the Church, I meane the present Church oppose it selfe. Now seeing men are naturâmendaces, mu­table, subiect to errour, to change and to be contrary to themselues, this impossibility of opposing it selfe, which you attribute to the Church must of necessity be ac­knowledged to be a Diuine priuiledge, caused by the continuall assistāce of the spirit of Wisdome, in whom and his doctrine there is not est, and non est, 2. Cor. 1.18. as the Apo­stle sayth. Hence I conclude the infallibility of the Church: You say, Pag. 215. lin. 29. that he that belieues the Bible, and togeather belieues some errours against the Bible, contradicteth himselfe, belieuing contradictions at once: But it is impossible, you say, that the present Church should oppose and contradicte it selfe: Therfore it is impossi­ble, that the present Church belieuing the Bible should hold any errour against the Bible.

29. Except perchance you will say, that the Church can do thinges impossible, as you say your selfe can: In proofe wherof I giue one instance insteed of many. Your aduersary vrgeth you often, & hard to set downe a Catalogue of your Fundamentals of fayth: You after many tergiuersations say at last, 2. E­dit. 193. lin. 10. Pag. 201. lin. 25. To set downe a catalogue of Fundamentalls (because to some more 2. E­dit. pag. 206. lin. 27. [Page 38]is fundamentall, to others lesse, to others nothing at all) had bene impossible. And 2. E­dit. pag. 129. l. 15. Pag. 134. lin. 25. This variety of cir­cumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Cata­logue of fundamentalls, and proues your request as vnreasona­ble, as if you should desire vs to make a coate to sit the Moone in all her changes. Can you make this impossible Cata­logue of the Fundamentalls of your Church, that is a coate for the moone in all her changes? Yes surely you say you can 2. E­dit. pag. 154. l. 21. Pag. 160. n. 53. lin. 25. I could giue you an abstract of the essential parts of christianity if it were necessa­ry, but I haue shewed it not so, and at this time I haue no lea­sure to do you courtesies so trouble some to my selfe. Thus you. Nor will we request 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 D. Potter p. [...]11. [Page 39]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 [Page 40]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 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, [Page 41]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 [Page 42]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 Ap [...]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 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 Cōtrouersies: which supposed, I would know how with this truth, that can consist which you write 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 [Page 43]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 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 [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 amōgst thē 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 [Page 46]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 grā ­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.

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 [Page 50]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 representations is so certaine & infallible, that it implies contradiction that men should be deceaued by it, eyther by some extraor­dinary working of God to men vnknowne, or through the infinity of the thing apprehended, which men cānot comprehend. For example, men see the Chymnies of a Towne smoake, thence they conclude with Physicall certitude, that there is fire in those Chymnies; wherein they may be mistaken, seing God may haue raysed that smoake without any fire. We are better assured, by the [Page 51]light of vnderstanding about vniuersall principles, which appeare manifestly true, by the very notion of the single wordes; yet not so vniuersally sure, but we may be deceaued by them about infinite and incomprehen­sible thinges. That Principle I before named, Euery whole thing is greater then any single part thereof, we are not sure thereof in infinite whole thinges; yea many learned men do maintaine, that in an infinite multitude, the whole multitude is not greater then a single part there­of. That knowne rule and principle of all discourse, The thinges with be one and the same with a third thing, are one and the same betweene themselues, Fayth assures vs, that the same fayles in the diuine Nature, which being infinite and incomprehensible, may be and is identified with three diuine Persons really distinct. Nor is this to destroy all certitude of naturall knowledge, but only to make the same finite, and limited within the com­passe of its weake reach and capacity, infinitly infe­riour to diuine wisdome, and altogether subordinate to his most infallible word.

5. Now deception cannot possibly happen in our belieuing of doctrines represented to our vnderstan­ding, cleerly marked with euident miracles and other supernaturall notes, shewing they are reuealed of God. For God working by his power aboue nature to mooue men to belieue such Diuine and miraculous doctrine, cannot also worke aboue nature what may be the cause of our deception therein: for then he should be contrary to himselfe, with is altogether impossible Nor can there be feare, danger, or possibility, that in this beliefe we may be deceaued through weaknesse of iudgment, caused by the finite capacity of humane wit, because in this beliefe the light of natur all reason [Page 52]is not our guide, but the word of God discouering high mysteries and hidden secrets conforme to his infinite and vndeceiuable vnderstanding. Hence a late lear­ned Writer our Countryman sayth excellently to this purpose, P. Thomas Baconus South­ellus in sua Re­gula vi­ua seu A­nalysi fi­dei. Dis­pat. 3. cap. 6. n. 122. Haec motiua conuin­cunt ne­cessarió & meta­physice, quod si vlla vera sit in mundo Religio &c. ea alia esse non pos­sit quám baec no­stra his motiuis insigni­ta. That the motiues of Christian Catholique cre­dibility are most certaine and infallible in themselues, and do most manifestly, and euen with metaphysicall euidence con­uince our Christian Catholique Religion to be the true way of saluation, as certainly, as that there is any true religion in the world, or any diuine prouidence about the saluation of man­kind. Who can desire greater certitude, and euidence then this?

6. The fifth thing is firme adherence to the do­ctrine proposed, so that the belieuer cannot at all, or else very hardly be driuen from his persuasion of the truth thereof. This adherence in Christian Catholi­ques is so firme, that they are ready not only to giue their life in testimony thereof; but also will deny their owne senses, their reason, and all naturall euidence, ra­ther then admit any doubt of doctrine in this manner, represented to them as Gods infallible word.

7. If any obiect, that the assent of Christian fayth, is often shaken with doubts, sometimes ouerthrowne; wheras the assent of naturall knowledge stands con­stant and vnmooued without danger of falling: I ans­were, this is true, but the reason hereof is not because the assent of naturall knowledge is more certain and firme of it selfe; but because Christian fayth, is more exposed to the blasts of temptation. An Oake, on the top of an high mountayne is shaken with wind and storme, and many times beaten to the ground; wheras a tender sprig growing low out of the wind is not sub­iect to this danger; yet no man will say, that the sprig is [Page 53]more firme and deeply rooted in the ground then the Oake. Christian fayth standeth on high hauing for matter and subiect, high inuisible and incomprehensi­ble mysteries, which though they are by the belieuer sufficiently seene to be reuealed of God; yet not seene at all by naturall reason to be true in themselues; yea still in themselues they remaine darke, obscure, difficill, and seemingly impossible in humane reason. Hence though fayth be firmely grounded, and deeply rooted on the authority of God reuealing Christian doctrines, yet stronge apprehensions of the seeming impossibility thereof, like violent blasts cause the same sometimes to shake & wauer with inuoluntary doubts: whereas the assent of naturall knowledge is neuer, or seldome tem­pted to doubt, because there is no seeming impossibility in such truth. By this explication of our Catholique Resolution of fayth, it is manifest, you haue done vs wronge in saying, that we require, That men build a most certaine assent on fallible, vncertaine, and only probable groundes.

The second Conuiction.

8. YOur ground to make the assent of Christian fayth fallible, and only probable, is because it is an assent to a conclusion deduced from two pre­mises, whereof the one is fallible and only probable: Cap. 1. n. 8. lin. 28. ‘ Our fayth is an assent to this conclusion: The doctrine of Christianity is true, which being deduced, from the former Thesis, All which God reuealed for true, is true, which is metaphysically certaine; and the former Hypothesis, All the articles of our fayth, are reuealed of God, whereof we can haue but morall certainty, we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of it, then [Page 54]of the weaker of the Premises; for the conclusion still fol­lowes the worser part, (if there is any worse) and must be negatiue, particular, contingent, or but morally cer­taine, if any of the propositions from whence it is deri­ued be so. Neither can we be certaine of it in the highest degree, vnlesse we be thus certaine of all the principles whereon it is grounded. As a man cannot stand, or goe strongly if either of his legs be weake, or as a building cannot be stable, if any one of the necessary pillers be infirme and instable.’ Thus you; And then to shew, this Hypothesis, All the articles of our fayth, that is, all the do­ctrines of the Christian Creed and Scripture be reuea­led of God, to be only morally certaine; you bring this rea­son, because it is proued only by tradition vniuersall, only by the testimonie of the ancient Churches, an argument only probable. Cap. 6. n. 40. The ioint tradition of all Apostolique Churches, with one mouth, and with one voice teaching the same doctrine, was vrged by the Fathers, not as a demonstra­tion, but only as an argument very probable. Cap. 6. n. 8. 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 neuer­fayling 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 [Page 55]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 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 [Page 56]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.

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 [Page 57]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 [Page 58]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 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, [Page 59]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 [Page 60]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 [Page 61]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 [Page 62]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 probable and but mo­rally certaine, against arguments which seeme demon­stratiue and metaphysically certaine, and it is a condi­tion very dangerous for men to liue vnder such hard or impossible lawes. But God doth not require of vs thinges vnreasonable, his yoke is sweet, his burthen light. Ergo, he hath prouided motiues which propose matters of fayth, as vndoubtedly and absolutely cer­taine.

The fifth Conuiction.

16. YOu set downe the principle wheron you re­ly in teaching the absolute fallibility of Chri­stian fayth Pag. Second edition pag 314. lin. 27. 329. lin. 27. Had you made the matter of fayth, either naturally or supernaturally euident, it might haue been a fittly attempered and duely propor­tioned obiect, for an absolute certainty naturall or su­pernaturall. ‘But requiring, as you do, an infallible cer­tainty of a thing, which though it is in it selfe, yet is not made to appeare to vs to be infallibly certayne, to my vnderstan­ding you speake impossibilities. And truly, for one of your Religion to do so, is but a good Decorum. For the matter of your Religion being so full of contradi­ctions, a contradictious fayth, may very well become a contradictious Religion. Your fayth then, let it be a free, necessitated; certaine, vncertaine; euident, obscure; prudent, and foolish; naturall, and supernaturall; vnna­turall [Page 63]assent.’ Thus you, with a Demosthenian thunder of eloquence, discharge your bolts vpon our Church, without taking any pitty of a poore company of onely blind men, though some drops of Xantippes rayne come mingled therwith.

17. But your misery is a poore memory; wordes be no sooner out of your pen, then out of your mind. Forin other places you approue this very contra­dictious doctrine, which here you so fluently de­clame against. For though you say. Pag. 330. lin. 14. That God cannot infuse a degree of certainty into our vnderstanding beyond the degree of the euidence he giueth vs of the obiect; yet cap. 6. num. 7. lin. 9. 2. Edit. pag. 315. lin. 5. you say to the contrary, Well may we assent to a thing vnknowne, obscure, and vneuident &c. Could any wordes be inuented more directly repugnant to what you said before, that assent and euidence must correspond to ech other in degree; a probable assent must haue an obiect of euident proba­bility; a certaine assent an obiect of euident certainty? Now you say absolutely, we may well, that is, not only possibly, but also easily assent to a thinge vnknowne, obscure, vneuident; How doth this agree with what you say, Cap. 6. n. 7. in fine. It is impossible I shold belieue the truth of any thinge, the truth whereof cannot be made eui­dent to me, with euidence proportionable to the degree of fayth required of me. How contrary is this to what you say Cap. 2. n. 154. lin. 6. Gods spirit, if he please may worke more, a certainty of adherence, beyond the certainty of euidence. But neither God doth, nor may require of vs &c. And cap 1. n. 9. lin. 43. The spirit of God being implored by deuout and hum­ble prayer, and sincere obedience, may and will by degrees ad­uance his seruants higher, and giue them a certainty of adhe­rence beyond the certainty of euidence. Thus you, most di­rectly [Page 64]against what you said before, that infallible cer­tainty of a thinge not euidently certaine, is impossible; that if God infuse certainty into the assent of fayth, he must infuse also euidence into the obiect, and so make the obiect of fayth as visible and euident, as the assent of fayth is certaine. Which is now the contradictious Religion?

18. And where you say that God doth not require of men more then they can do by themselues; 2. Edit. pag. 315. lin. 13. and that the contrary were (you say, pag. 350. lin. 15.) as vnreasonable, as to bind a man to goe ten miles an houre, on an horse that will goe only fiue, is impious, as disanulling all precepts of di­uine and supernaturall actions. For why may not God require of a man, that is able of himselfe to goe only fiue miles an houre, that he goe tenne, moued by his hand: binding him not to resist, but to concurre with that his speciall mouing, aboue the strength of natural forces? And what Christian dares deny this to be re­quired of all Christians, to wit, that they come vnto come vnto me all. Mat. 11.28. Christ, and belieue in him, which yet is the worke of This is the worke of God that you be­lieue. God, & an act which the vnderstanding doth not exer­cise; but by the speciall motion, and Ex­cept my Father draw him. attraction of Di­uine grace.

The sixt Conuiction.

19. YOu affirmed in the prealleadged place of the former Conuiction, that our Catholike sayth is contradictious, free, necessitated; certain, vncertain; euident, obscure; prudent, foolish; naturall, supernatu­rall; vnnaturall assent. A declamation backt with no proofe, childish fluent Rhetoricke, ‘ Claudite iam riuos pueri. —’ I will make the same good vpon your selfe, and [Page 65]proue you do attribute in direct termes these contra­dictious conditions to your witty witlesse fayth. First you make it free, necessitated. That your fayth is free you say c. 6. n. 7. lin. 16. 2. Edit. cap. 6. n. 7. lin. 16. It is necessary to fayth that the obiects of it the points which we belieue be not so euidently certayn, as to necessitate our vnderstanding to assent. That it is necessita­ted & enforced by euident reasons, you suppose cap. 1. n. 9. lin. 15. God requires of all, 2. Edit. cap. 1. n. 9. lin. 2 [...]. that their fayth should be pro­portionable to the motiues enforcing to it. Behold reasons enforce, that is, necessitate you to assent and so make it a free necessitated assent. Secondly euident, obscure: Eui­dent, because you say cap. 6. n. 7. in fine. That I should belieue the truth of any thing, the truth whereof cannot be made eui­dent to me, is impossible: Obscure, because you say, Cap. 6. n. 7. lin. 10. Well may we assent to a thing vnknowne, obscure, vneuident. Thirdly certain, vncertaine: most certaine and infallible, cap. 3. n. 86. lin. 12. Vse the meanes, 2. Edit. cap. 3. n. [...]6. lin. 12. and pray for Gods assistance, and as sure as God is true, you shall be lead into all necessary truth. Heer you professe, that ‘Christian Religion is the true necessary way to saluation; and that you are hereof as sure, as you are sure that God is true. Now I hope you are, and I am sure you professe to be (d) most vndoubtedly sure, that God is true.’ Ergo, 2. Edit. cap. 2. n. [...]. you are most vndoubtedly sure, that Christian Religion is the true necessary way to heauen. For how can you assure others of that whereof you are not sure your selfe? And if this be so, then contrary to the ground of your impious errour, you here professe certainty of ad­herence, beyond certainty of euidence. You say you are as certaine as God is true of Christian sauing truth; and yet I thinke you will not say, that the truth of Christian Religion is as euident to your vnderstanding, as it is euident that God is true. Your fayth then in this place is [Page 66]most infallible; but in other places it standes vpon weake leggs, vpon Tradition which is fallible, vpon 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 Cap. 6. n. 9. in fine. condemned of leuity and rashnesse Cap. 2. n. 49. lin. 35. a foolish and imprudent action. Fiftly, your as­sent is naturall, vnnaturall. Naturall, because Pre­face n 12. resolued by Logicke, finally determined 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 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 [Page 67]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 [Page 68]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, [Page 69]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 impossible to my reason, therfore they are impossible; ought to yield to this reason, God sayth these mysteries are possible, and cer­tainly true; Ergo they are possible, and certainly true. You wil say, that though this consequence be most certaine, this is the word of God, Ergo it is most true, yet you can­not be so certaine that this is the word of God, as you are of that which you see with your eyes. But this is re­futed by what you say that the Scripture is proued by Tradition, which is as certaine and infallible, as Scrip­ture and euidently true and credible of it selfe: Ergo your beliefe of Scripture, that it is the word of God, is also resolued into this one reason, vnto which all others must submit, and yield themselues humbly subiect, God sayth that these bookes are his word, and infallible truth; Er­go it is so, these bookes are his word, & infallible truth; [Page 70]so that Christian resolution of fayth euen by your own confession, resteth finally vpon a reason vnto which all human reason and vnderstanding ought to submit, and captiuate it selfe. You see how by your contradicting your self, your errours are ouer thrown, and true Chri­stianity established.

The ninth Conuiction.

23. Lond. Edition pag. 340. lin. 14. PAg. 357. lin. 3. cap. 6. n. 28. thus you write: I certaeinly know, that I do belieue the Ghospel of Christ, as it is deliuered in the vndoubted bookes of canonicall Scripture, as verily as that it is now day, that I see the light, that I am now writing; and I belieue it vpon this motiue, be­cause I conceaue it sufficiently, abundantly, superabundantly proued to be diuine Reuelation. And yet in this I do not de­pend vpon any succession of men, that haue alwayes belieued it, without any mixture of Errour. Nay, I am fully persuaded, that there hath been no such succession, and yet do not find ANY WEAKENESSE in my fayth, but am so fully assured of the truth of it, that though an Angel from heauen should gayn-say it, or any part of it, I persuade my selfe I should not be moued. Thus you: many wayes establishing the absolute certainty of Christian fayth, and in direct termes contradicting what elswhere you most earne­stly affirme.

24. First, you ouerthrow what you els where Pag. 325. n. 3. say, that the certainty of fayth is not equal to that of sense, for now you say, that you certainly know, and that you are fully assured that you belieue the truth of the Ghospell, as veri­ly as that now it is day, as that you see the light, as that when you writ this you were writing, which is most assured certainty of sense. For you say, you are fully assured, that without depending on succession, you [Page 71]belieue (not that which you thinke to be the truth of the Gospell (for euery Heretique doth so) but the true Gospell: consequently you are as sure, that what you be­lieue is the true Gospell, as you are sure that it is light which you see at noon-day; as you are sure you write when you write. And so you professe that the certain­ty of your fayth is equal to the greatest certainty which can be had by sense. If you say you speake this, not of ordinary Christian fayth, which is rational, & groun­ded on reasons, but of special fayth which you haue from God infused into your vnderstanding in reward of your holy life; I answer this cannot be so, because you speake expressely of your fayth which standes v. pon the proofes of Christianity, and the motiues of cre­dibility, and of that assent which you conceaue, because proued vnto you abundantly by the said reasons, which is or­dinary Christian fayth, and so you say in this place, that any man may belieue the foresayd truths vpon the fore­sayd motiues.

24. Secondly, here you affirme that Christian Reli­gion or the Ghospel is proued to be diuine Reuelation sufficiently, abundantly, superabundantly to beare the weight of a most certayn and fully assured fayth, wherein there is not ANY WEAKENESSE. By which you ouerthrow what you say elswhere, Pag. 36. that Christian fayth stands vpon two legs, vpon two pillars, the one that whatsoeuer God reueales is true, which is most strong, firme, immoueable; the second, that the Ghospel is reuea­led of God; which pillar, you say, is weake, infirme, and in­stable, Pag. 112. [...]. 154. moralty certayne, but not able to beare the weight of an absolute certaine & infallible essent, free from all weake­nesse.

25. Thirdly, you say that fayth built vpon the forsaid [Page 72]motiues, is so firme, and so strong, so assured as you should not (as you thinke) be moued, though an An­gel from heauen should gain-say it, which doth mani­festly contradict and destroy what you so often con­tend, that the assent built vpon the motiues of credibi­lity, cannot be absolutly certaine, no not though it were infused into the vnderstanding from God. What you say of your self, you should not be moued from the fayth of the Ghospel, though an Angel from heauen should gain-say it, how stubborne and pertinacious in errour you may be against the light of your conscience I do not know: but if your fayth of the Ghospell be not certaine and infallible, if it be but a very probable, see­ming, or a moral certainty, in this case that you could stand against an Angel from heauen prudently, and ac­cording to the right dictamen of conscience, this I will belieue, if you can make me belieue, that a Shilling-worth is as much as an Angell-worth: Otherwise what greater folly then for a meere mortall man of so weake memo­ry and miserable discourse, as he cannot write three pages together in good sense without contradicting himself, to preferre his priuate seeming, his human fal­lible certainty, his moral probabilities, that this is Gods word, before the word of an Angell, and all the argu­ments he can bring against it?

26. I conclude with this demonstration for the in­fallibility of our Christian fayth. God commandeth all Christians, and requires of them vnder payne of dam­nation to stand constant in the beliefe of the Ghos­pell, euen against an Angell from heauen that should Euan­gelize to the contrary, as you suppose truly, this being the very doctrine of S. Paul. Gal. 1.8. But except God did infuse into the heart of euery true belieuing Christian a most cer­taine, [Page 73]vndoubted, infallible assent, and adherence to the Ghospel; this command were vniust, vnreasonable, and such a precept as no man prudently might obserue. For it cannot be wisdome to oppose the testimony of men, and seeming probabilities of reason against the word of an Angel, against Angelicall reasons and discourse. Ergo, God doth infuse and bindeth all Christians to ad­mit a most certaine, and infallible assent of the truth of the Ghospel, and of Christian Religion.

The first Conuiction.

1. YOv thrust a mortall stabbe into the heart of Christian Religion through S. Augustine his side, whiles you charge his speach with palpable fal­shood which is the expresse word of Christ. S. Austine say you ca 6. n. 14. in fine) as he was in the right in thinking, that the Church was extended further then Africk, so was he in the wrong, if he thought that of necessity it alwayes must be so: but most Palpably Mistaken in conceauing, that it was then spread ouer the whole earth, and knowne to all nations; which, if passion did not trouble you, and make you forget, how lately almost halfe of the world was discouered, and in what state it was then found, you would very easily see, and confesse. Thus you. Vnto whome I say what the same S. Augustine sayd to Maximinus an Arian, that is almost the same though not altogether so bad as a Sociniam: Aduersu [...] Maximi­num. lib. 2. c. 2. O quam de proximo te corrigeres, si timeres credere quod times dicere! O how soone would you reclayme your selfe, did you feare to belieue in heart, what you feare to say in words. For although you dare not openly professe with the Samosatenians, yet you dare belieue that Christ Iesus is a meere man, that he was ignorant, that there were any such people as Americans in the world, and so out of ig­norance vttered a palpable falshood, when he said, Luc. 24.47. that his Apostles should preach pennance in his name vnto all Nati­ons: that they should be witnesses vnto him, not only in Ierusa­lem, Iewry, & Samaria, but also vnto thee vt most of the world. Hereby he induced the Euangelists to mistake, Mar. vlt. and fal­sely say, that the Apostles going preached Euery Where, our Lord working with them, and confirming the word by signes that followed. And S. Paul; Rom. [...] 18. that the Apostolicall Preaching was spread into all Lands, and their words vnto the endes of [Page 76]the world. If I say, S. Augustins saying, that the Church was spread ouer all Nations in his dayes, be a palpable falshood, because it was not then in America; then the prophesyes of our Lord, that his Apostles should spread his name, and plant Christianity in all Nations, as also the testimony of the Ghospell, that this was performed by the Apostles, were also manifest mistakes; and if the Ghospell be mistaken in one poynt through ignorance in the Author thereof, we can be certayne of nothing.

2. For if one confesse, that our Sauiour was true God and knew all things, and that there were Americans at that tyme, he must say, that eyther our Lord willlingly spake an vntruth, in saying the Apostles should preach to all nations, & so by admitting on lye to be in one say­ing of the Ghospell, he destroyeth the certainty of all; or he must say that the Apostles preached to the Ameri­cans, and made them Christians (and if they were Christians in the dayes of the Apostles, how can you tell they were not also in the dayes of S. Austine?) or fi­nally he must confesse the truth, that this speach of the Ghospell, that the Church was euery where, and in all nations, was a most certayne, and infallible truth, euen when the Americans: were not Christians, nor had he­ard of Christ. But this you deny and call it a palpable falshood so cleere, as euery man not blinded with passiō doth now perceaue the falshood thereof. Ergo you deny the Ghospell, which you grant to be the word of God, and consequently you are a formall Hereticke, c. 2. n. 122. you do a thing not only impious but also impossible, that any Christian should do, as you say cap 4. n. 4. lin. 19. a supposition impossible. cap. 3. n. 35. lin. 21. you do a thing you professe against, saying you would not be mo­ued from the truth of the Ghospell or any part of it, euen by the [Page 77]preaching of an Angell from heauen. So that your last re­fuge must be ro confesse, that to call S. Austins speach, which is the expresse word of Christ, a palpable fal­shood, you were persuaded not by an Angell from Hea­uen, but by the spirit of errour, which makes you hate subiection to the one vniuersall visible Church.

The second Conuiction.

3. YOw do not vndermine, but openly digge vp the Foundations of Christianity by teaching, that the Apostles through ignorance, o­uersight, or partiality erred in matters of Religion which they were bound to know; Erred I say, and the whole Church with them, euen after the cōming of the holy Ghost, for thus you write c. 3. n. 31. That the Apo­stles themselues euen after the sending of the holy Ghost, were, & through inaduertence, or preiudice, continued for a tyme in an errour, it is (as I haue already noted) vnansverably euident from the story of the Actes of the Apostles. Thus you, & you auouch the same cap. 3. n 21. But in direct contradiction of this, you say cap. 3. n. 74. lin. 14. about the perpetuall infallibility of the Apostles, according to that promise of our Lord, that he would send them the holy Ghost, the spirit of truth, which should teach them all truth, and stay with them for euer. It signifyes, say you, not eternally without end of tyme, but PERPETVALLY without interruption during the time of their liues: ‘So that the force and fense of the words is, that they should neuer want the Spirits assi­stance in the performance of their function.’ If the holy Ghost leading them into all truth did after his com­ming perpetually without interruption during the time of their liues stay with them alwayes assisting them, & teaching them all truth; how can it be true, that euen [Page 78]after the sending of the holy Ghost they were lead into errour, and continued therein for as TIME, through inaduertence or preiudice? An errour so playne and ma­nifest against the word of God, and which they could not fall into without they were stupide, seing the very guift of speaking the tongues of all nations, which they receaued togeather with the holy Ghost, still continued with them. Were they so dull and heauy-hearted euen after they had receaued the holy Ghost, as not to under­stand, that by the guift of Tongues they were decla­red, and made preachers of Christ vnto all nations vn­der the cope of heauen?

4. What you say that they erred and continued in errour through inaduertence, and preiudice, you contra­dict els where; saying cap. 2. n. 155. that the Apostles in their persons while they were liuing were the only iudges of Controuersies. And, c. 2. n. 17 you say, In matters of Religion none are fit to be iudges, but such as are infallible. And cap. 4. n. 88. lin. 20. It is necessary for the constitution of infallible iudges, that though they neglect the meanes of auoiding errour, yet certainly they shall not erre. Now can you put these pro­positions togeather in discourse? The Apostles were, whiles they were liuing, the infallible guides & iudges of fayth so made and ordained by the comming downe of the holy Ghost vpon them: Iudges and guides infal­lible certainly shall not erre, though they through in­aduertence or preiudice neglect the meanes of auoyding errour: Ergo the Apostles certainly did not erre, nor deli­uer errour through negligence, inaduertence or preiudice. And yet more to the same effect you write. C. 2. n. 34. The Apostles infallibility was in a more absolute manner, the Churches in a more limited sense. The Apostles were lead by the Spirit into all truth efficaciter: The Church is lead also [Page 79]into all truth sufficienter. So that the Apostles and the Church may be fiftly compared to the Starre, and the Wisemen. The Starre was directed by the fingar of God, and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was. But the Wisemen were lead by the starre to Christ, lead, I say, not efficaciter or irresisti­biliter, but sufficienter; so that, if they would, they might follow it, if they would not, they might choose.

5. But you stay not long in this conceyte of their absolute infallibility, and being irresistably lead into all truth; for within two or three pages you say, that the promise of not erring was made them, but vpon conditi­on if they were not negligent, and if they kept their station. And. cap. 3. n. 77. Our Sauiour sayd to his disciples, Yea are the salt of the earth, not that this quality was inseparable frō their Persons, but because it was their office to be so. For if they must haue beene so of necessity, & could not haue beene other­wise, in vaine had he put them in feare of that which followes; If the salt lose the sauour, wherwith shall it be salted? Behold how you faulter: before they were lead into all truth of necessity, efficaciter, irresistibiliter; now not infallibly, not of necessity, they were in possibility to erre. Neyther yet do you take vp your standing heere; Cap. 6. n. [...]. you runne into the contrary extreme, that the Apostles, could not lose the sauour of sanctity, or charity and truth, because it is certayne they could not haue any worldly or sinister intentiō in their preaching. And then agayne to the contrary, cap. 2. n. 93. This were to crosse the end of our creation, which was to be glorifyed by free obedience. To conclude (for I am weary with the following of your light-headed guide fetching frisks euery way) you iumpe at last vpon a truth, the direct contradiction of that you sayd of the Apostles erring for a tyme about the Churches Vniuer­sality. For you say cap. 6. n. 14. The Apostles who preached [Page 80]the Ghospell in the beginning, did belieue the Church vniuer­sal, though their preaching in the begining was not so. They did belieue the Church vniuersall, euen in your sense, that is, vni­uersall de iure, though not de facto. Thus you. Now this proposition; The Apostles euen in the beginning, be­fore their preaching was vniuersall, when they prea­ched to Iewes only, did beleeue the Church vniuersall de iure, by diuine law; is it not a direct contradiction of this; The Apostles in the beginning before their prea­ching was vniuersall, did not belieue the Church vni­uersall de iure, by diuine law; yea they erred thinking it was against the diuine law to preach vniuersaly, or to any but Iewes? It is well that your wit, the guide of your fayth, doth professe that it can belieue contradictions at once, this Heresy, and this Truth, otherwise it could not be the guide of that Religion you maintayne in your booke.

The third Conuiction.

6. FRom the Apostles you passe to the second age after Christ, accusing the vniuersal Tra­dition of that Primitiue Church as stayned vniuersally with impure and corrupt doctrine. Cap. 5. n. 91. lin. 41. seeking to answere what Charity Maintayn'd obiects, that sundry Protestants acknowledge many of our do­ctrines to be taught by the ancient Fathers, you say, No antiquity, except it be absolute and primitiue, is a certaine signe of true doctrine. For if the Church were obnoxious to cor­ruption (as we pretend it was) who can possibly warrant vs, that part of this corruption might not get in, and preuaile in the 5. or 4 or 3. or 2. age? Especially seing the Apostles assure vs that the mistery of iniquity was working, though se­cretly, euen in their times. If any man aske, how could it be­come [Page 81]vniuersal in so short a time? let him tell me how the er­rour of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of In­fants, became so soone vniuersal, and then he shall acknow­ledge what was done in some, was possible in others. Thus you. Which you repeate, and inculcate, more then fourty times at the least; wherein you are like to the false witnesses, to one of the which Daniel said very well: Thou hast spoken falsely against thy owne head, for the Angell of God shall deuide thee with a sword in the middes, and doe thee away. You are false against the spouse of Christ, the holy primitiue Church, as that witnesse was against Susanna; and the same punishment of diuision, and contradiction against your selfe is by God's iust sentence fallen on your head.

7. You are false in saying, so many times, that the doctrine of the Millenaries (to wit of Christs earthly Kingdome in the earthly Ierusalem, full of all earthly felicity for a thousand yeares) was deliuered, as you say, pag. 347. lin. 24. as an Apostolicall Tradition; that it was vniuersally receaued, taught by all the Doctours, and Saints, and Martyrs, of, or about that time, whose iudgement in this point is any way recorded. This to be false is proued by your falsification of S. Iustine Martyr, whome you make say, that all good and orthodoxe Christians in his time belieued it, and only hereticks denied it: for his words are, I, and the Christians who are rightly persuaded in all things, belieue the Resurrection of the bodies, & a thousands yeares in the new Ierusalem. It is true, all good Christians belieue the Resurrection of the body (which you skippe ouer, because Socinians do not belieue it in the Christian sense) and a thousand yeares of felicity in the new Ie­rusalem, in heauen not vpon earth. Yea S. Iustine in that place doth plainly confesse that, Many Mul­tos qui purae piae (que) sunt Chriisti­anorum sentētiae, hoc non agnoscere tibi signi­fican [...]. who are of [Page 82]the 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 Tom. 3. in 3. p. Disput. 212. c. 2. n. 13. sheweth: S. Cyprian Serm. delapsis. is the first that mentioned this custome to communicate sucking Infants vnder one kind, to wit, giuing them to Par­uulis saltem sub spe­cie vini tradatur. drinke of the Chalice, which custome was good & lawfull, as all Catholiks defend Con­cil. Trid. sess. 21 c. 4. It is cleere that Pope Innocentius with Nisi mandu­cauerint carnem cius non habebūt vitam, significat Baptiza­tos vi­tam ha­bere non pos­se prae­ter Chri­sti cor­pus cui vt incor­porentur Sacra­mento baptis­matis imbu­untur. de poc­eat. me­rit. & r [...] miss. lib. 5. c. 4. vide serm. e­iusden [...] 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 Quā ­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. [Page 83]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 vpō 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 A manifest falshood They were contra­dicted by Dion. Areop. de Ec­cles. Hie­rar. c. 7. By Clem. Alex. 3. Strom. in the secōd 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 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 impudēt, 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 [Page 84]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, 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 De peccat. merit & remiss. lib. 1. c. 20. Nisi pertina­cia pug­naces neruos aduersus constan­tiamper­spicuae veriati [...] 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, 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 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 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, 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 [Page 85]& saluatiō. 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 [Page 86]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 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, 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, Pag. 156. lin. 1: doing therein directly against the command of the holy Ghost; 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 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 [Page 88]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 violence. How different are you from your selfe in diuers places? To bring in your new Religion of the Bible, and only the Bible, you accuse the Ancient Fathers, that they are [Page 89]with full consent, opposit one to another, ages against ages; but in your so wisely chosen Religion, there is such a perpetual fighting that there is more difference bet­wixt two of your pages, then betwixt all Christian ages.

14. I must note in this place (to answere a seely ca­lumniation against our Church, the only argument in your Booke that may trouble an ignorant Reader, be­cause it requires some litle historical erudition to con­fute it) that though you feigne the Church in the dayes of S. Augustine full of great variety of superstitions, yet you say, that the Donatists did falsely calumniate Ca­tholikes, that they did set Images vpon their Altars, and Cap. 6. n. 101. S. Austine doth not iustify the Church, saying, as we would haue done in that case, Those pictures were worshipped not for their owne sake, but for them who were represented by them, but doth abhorre the thing, and deny the imputation. Behold here a tale of a Tub, or of I know not what. For, cap. 6. n. 16. you acknowledge that S. Augustine makes no men­tion of any picture, but by a Rhetoricall figure calles it (I know not what:) but (say you) compare him with Optatus, and you shall plainly perceaue, that this, I know not what, pre­tended to be set vpon the Altar, was indeed a picture. Behold in this your second telling the tale of a Tub, or of (I know not what) you are fallen from pictures to a pi­cture, granting that the Donatists did not accuse Catho­licks for setting vp all kind of pictures in the Church, or vpon the Altar, but for a picture. I will not stand to note and shew the ridiculous vanity of the inference you tacitly make; It was a picture; Ergo the picture of Christ, or of some Saint: but tell the Reader, what that picture was, and of whome, to wit of Constans the Em­perour, Sonne to Constantine the Great. This most [Page 88] [...] [Page 89] [...] [Page 90]pious Christian Emperour (as Optatus relates) sent two chief noble men of his Court Paulus and Macarius emi­nent for Christian piety and wisdome in Ambassadge into Africke, with Cum elee mo­synis, quibus subleua­ta per Ecclesi­as sin­gulas, possit respira­re, vesti­ti, pasci gaudere pauper­tas. great liberalities to bestow on poore Christians, Donatists especially, hoping by this courtesy, to win their hearts vnto vnity with the Church. The Bishops of the Donatists fearing the suc­cesse of this Imperial liberality, did mightily maligne the two Noblemen, especially Macarius, whome they somtimes assaulted in his iourneys, put him in danger of his life, sought to take from him by force that Impe­rial treasure: & because in one assault they made, some two Donatists were slayne, they presently proclaymed them Martyrs, Aug. contr. li­ter as Pitil. l. 2. c. 39. Macarius a Persecutour, a Pagan, and called Catholiques Macarians of him. Amongst other tales and slanders they gaue out, that Fal­sa opi­nio om­nium populo­rum au­res op­pleuerat Dice ba­tur enim ventu­ros Pau­lum & Macari­um, qui interes­sent sa­crificio, vt cum Altaria solem­niter aptaren­tur pre­ferrent illi ima­ginem & sic Sa­crificiū offerre­tur. Optat. lib. 3. cir­ca finem: 2. Edition pag. 331. lin. 9. 2. Edition pag. 322. lin. 15. Paulus and Macarius when they were present at the Christian sa­crifice, vsed to set vp the image of the Emperour, on the Altar, and that before it sacrifice was offered, and the oblations of the people made: wherof the Reader may be more fully informed in Baronius Anno 348. Behold the best argument & erudition of your Booke, what a poore snake it is being brought to light out of the lurking hole of your darke and dimidiate narration of the fact.

The fifth Conuiction.

15. YOu often affirme that the whole Church cā ­not vtterlyperish, nor loose its Essence and Being. cap. 3. n. 78. You know we grant, & must grant that the Church still holdes all necessary truths; for it is of the essence of the Church to doe so. But pag. 347. l. 21. You fay the cōtrary The Roman Church in particular was forewarned, that she [Page 91]also, nay the whole Church of the Gentils might fall if they lookt not to ther standing. Pag. 338. lin. 11. speaking agaynst the priuiledge of infallibility of the Roman Church, Me thinks (you say) S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but haue congratulated this their priuiledge to them, bad he acknowledged, that their sayth was the rule for all the world for euer. But then sure he would haue forborne to put them in feare, that they, nay the whole Church of the Gentiles, if they did not looke to their standing, might fall away to infidelity, as the Iewes had done. Cop. 3. n. 30. in fine. It is in the power of she Church to deuiate from this Rule, being nothing else but an aggregation of men, of which euery one has free will, & is subiect to passion and errour. This your reason conuin­ceth, if your suppositiō be true, to wit, that the Church is NOTHING else but meere men left to their ntture hauing freewill, subiect to passion and errour. But for my part I did euer and shall still belieue, that no true Christian will be so profane, as to thinke that in the Church there is freewill without diuine grace; nothing but nature sub­iect to passion and errour, without the spirit of God gui­ding them into all truth; the Church being the mysti­call Body animated with his spirit, which she shall neuer abandone.

16. Nor doth S. Paul fright the whole Church of Rome, much lesse the whole Church of the Gentils with possibility of falling away into Infidelity, but sayes in the sin­gular number Rom. 11. thou standest by fayth, be not high minded, but feare, to shew that he speaketh of euery single Chri­stian, that he may fall away from the faith; on the other side, he sayth in the plurall nūber Rom. 1.4. Your fayth is declared in the whole world: which words the Fathers Hie­ron. A­polog ad­uers. Ruf. Scito Roma­nam fi­dem hu­iusmodi praesti­gias non recipe­re, & Pauliau­thorita­te muni­tam, non posse mutari. vnder­stand to signify, that the fayth of the Romans shall euer be an infallible rule of Fayth to the rest of the Christian [Page 92]Church. But more cleerly afterward in the end of his epistle; Rom. 16.17. Note such as make dissensions against the doctrin you haue receaued: signifying that the Church of Rome hath the office to note & censure all Hereticks, that shall rayse discord in the Church agaynst the Roman Tra­dition of fayth. And incontinently he sheweth the pri­uiledge of Diuine efficacions assistance not to erre in this office, saying, And the God of peace shal crush Satan vn­der your feet with speed. What is this, but the God of peace hath made the Church of Rome the head and roote of peace and vnity (as 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, Infra c. 7. conu. 9. yea agaynst what your selfe affirme an hundred tymes.

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 [Page 96]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 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 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 [Page 97]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. — [Page 98] ‘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 Cap. 6. n. 57. I am ve­rily per­suaded that I haue wi­sely cho­sen after a long delibe­ration. new wise choyce, the only 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, pedibus (que) 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 [Page 99]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 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 cānot 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 Traditiō of the anciēt Church, to be against Scripture, you shall not proue that Traditiō 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, cānot 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. [...]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 [Page 102]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-Traditiō 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 Translatiō 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 [Page 103]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. 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 & [Page 104]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, [Page 106] 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. 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 [Page 108]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 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 [Page 109]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 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 [Page 110]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 [Page 111]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 [Page 112]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 [Page 113]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 [Page 114] 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 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 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 [Page 115]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 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.

The eighth Conuiction.

24. BY the discouery of this contradiction your cheefe, or rather onely argument for the suf­ficiency of Scripture is answered. 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, 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 [Page 117]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. 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 [...]: 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 cōformable was our Lords practice, recorded by 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 [Page 118]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 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 cōclude 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 foūdation 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 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 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 So­cin [...]a [...]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.

The first Conuiction.

1. IF the Church be an infallible guide in funda­mentals, or which is all one, an infallible teacher of all necessary truth, then is she a certaine So­ciety of Christiās of one denomination, of one obedi­ence, subiect to one visible head, in fallible in all her Pro­posals. But the Church is such an infallible teacher of all necessary truth, or such a guide in fundamentals. In this argument both propositions are yours, and I shall set downe your words fully, whereby you not onely deliuer, but also demonstrate them. The Major you ac­knowledge [Page 120] ca. 2. n. 139. You must know, that there is a wide difference betwixt being infallible in Fundamentals, and being an infallible guide in Fundamentals. ‘The former we grant, for it is no more but this, that there shall be a Church in the world for euer. But we vtterly deny the Church to be the later: for to say so, were to oblige our selues to find some certaine Society of men, of whome we might be certayne, that they neither do, nor can erre in fundamentals nor in declaring what is funda­mentall and what is not; and consequently to make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all thinges she proposes to be be­lieued. This therefore we deny both to your Church, & to all Churches of one denomination, that is indeed we deny it simply to any Church. For no Church can be fit to be a guide, but only a Church of some certain denomination. For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church, but by a praeexamina­tion of the doctrine controuerted; and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine, but by the true doctrine to the Church. Heereafter therefore when you heare Protestants say, the Church is infallible in fundamentalls, you must not conceaue them, as if they meane, as you do, some Society of Christians, which may be knowne by adhering to some one Head,’ for example to the Pope or Bishop of Constantinople &c. Thus you deliuer the sequells of this proposition, the Church is an infallible guide in fundamentalls, which are in a word our whole Catholique doctrine about the Church: that if that proposition be by you granted expressely and cleerely, yea proued inuincibly from Scripture, you must returne againe to the Church of Rome, or else by your owne iudgment be damned to Hell; specially be­cause [Page 121]you repeate the same consequences of the gran­ting of an infallible guide in fundamentalls, and both approue, and proue them Cap. 3. n. 39. lin. 11. speaking to your Aduersary, Good Sir, you must needes do vs this fa­uour, to be so accute, as to di [...]tinguish between being in­fallible in Fundamentalls, and being an infallible guide in Fundamentalls. That shee shall be alwayes a Church infallible in Fundamentalls, we easily grant: for it comes to no more but this, that there shall be alwayes a Church. But that there shall be alwayes such a Church which is an in­fallible guide in Fundamentalls, this we deny. For this cannot be without setling a knowne infallibility in some one knowne Society of Christians, as the Greeke, or the Roman, (or some other Church) by adhering to which guide, men might be gui­ded to belieue aright in all Fundamentalls. A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to o­thers, might yet in himselfe, and to himselfe be infallible, but he could not be a guide to others. A Man, or a Church that were inuisible, so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, and yet he might be vnto himselfe infallible.

2. Thus you haue told vs cleerely and fully what will follow if you grant the Church to be an infallible guide in Fundamentalls: which sequells be so much de­nyed and detested by you, as one would thinke it were impossible you should be so forgetfull as to affirme it. And yet you do cleerely say, that the Church is not on­ly infallible in Fundamentalls, but also an infallible guide in Fundamentalls, being euen by essence not on­ly a belieuer of all necessary truth, but also a teacher or mistresse thereof: Cap. 2. n. 164. initio. The visible Church shall alwayes WITHOVT FAYLE PROPOSE so much of Gods reuelation as is sufficient to bring men to hea­uen; [Page 122]for otherwise it will not be the visible Church: yet it may sometymes adde things hurtfull, nay in themselues damnable. And cap. 2. n. 77. in fiae, & n. 73. initio, you grant, that the Apostle termeth the Church of God, the pillar and ground of truth, not only because by duty it is still the teacher of all truth, though not so euer in fact, but also, because it alwayes shall and will be so; yet, (say you) this is short to prooue your intent, that the Church is infallible in all her proposals, vnles you can shew, that by Truth is certainly meant not only necessary to Saluatiō, but all that is profitable absolutly, & simply ALL. For that the true Church alwayes shall be the MAINTAINER and TEACHER of ALL NECESSARY TRVTH you know We grant and [...]st grant: for it is of the ESSENCE of the Church to be so: and any cōpany of men were no more a Church without it, then any thing can be a man, & not be reasonable. Thus you: Verily were it possible for a creature to be a man, & not reasonable, you deserue to carry away the title of a true vnreasonable man, from all men that hi­therto haue ranked themselues in the number of Wri­ters. You are a true man, for that you deliuer manifest truth; made good by strong reasons; you are an vnrea­sonable man, in that you wilfully and obstinately stand in defence of the contrary falshood. I will briefly note first your contradictions, secondly the sequels therof.

3. In the words cited in the first place, you distin­guish betwixt a Church infallible in Fundamentals, and such a Church as is an infallible guide in Fundamentals, granting the true Church to be the former, but not the later, iesting at your Aduersary, as though his con­founding them did argue in him want of such an acute wyt, as you suppose your selfe to haue. But in the second citations you do vs the fauour to be so acute, so perspica­cious, so sharpe-sighted, as to penetrate into the very [Page 123]essence of the Church, and out of that Closet of Truth pronounce, that to be infallible in Fundamentals, and to be an infallible guide in Fundamentals, be inseparably cō ­ioyned in the Church; and that to grant the former to the Church and deny the later, were to deuide the Church from its very essence. For I hope you will not be so acute, as to distinguish betwixt an infallible guide in Fundamentals, and such a Church as is alwayes in fact without fayle the teacher, the proposer, the maintayner, in a word the mistresse of all necessary truth euen by essence; that she can no more depart from teaching, proposing, and maintayning all fundamentall Christi­an doctrine, then from her owne being. Nor do you onely so affirme the Churches essentiall infallibility in teaching all Fundamentals, but also prooue the same by the word of God, which proposes the Church of Christ as the pillar and ground of truth, as built on the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shal neuer preuaile. For these words at least euince (as you confesse Cap. 3. n. 70. that there shall still continue a true Church, and bring forth children vnto God, & send soules to Heauē: which could not be vnles she did alwayes without fayle teach all necessa­ry truth, & so be an infallible guide in Fundamentals.

4. Now this being a truth infallible, that the Church cannot erre in teaching fundamentals, let vs proceed to note and number the doctrines which you openly grant and proue to be consequent thereupon, which be such as no more could haue byn desired. A Sicilian No­bleman, when Scipio Praetor of that country offered him one wealthy and talkatiue, but of little wit for aduocate of his cause, replyed, I pray you Sir giue this man for Ad­uocate to my Aduersary; and then I will be content to haue no Aduocate at all. So we may say that the cause of Prote­stants [Page 124]about the Totall of their Religion and Saluation con­trouerted with the Church of Rome, being abandoned by learned Protestants, none presuming to appeare against euident truth so cleerely demonstrated by Cha­rity maintayned, it was the Roman Churches good luck you should preferre your selfe, and be admitted for their Aduocate, for you speake so wisely, so pertinently, so coherently for Protestāts, as the Roman Church needs not any other Aduocate in her behalfe. No Catholique Patron, no learned man howsoeuer well seene in Con­trouersies of Religion, nay the Author of Charity main­teyned himselfe could not haue spoken more fully, groū ­dedly, vnanswerably in the defence of the Roman Ca­tholique Church, then you haue done, while you are perswaded, that you plead against her, as appeareth by these Conclusions, the deduction whereof is confessed and expressed by your selfe.

5. First there is, euer was, and shalbe a true Church visible and conspicuous to the world, that all men ac­cording to the will of God may be saued (if they please) by the meanes of her preaching ouer the world. This you grant in saying, that if the Church be an infallible guide in Fundamentals, then this knowne infallibility, must be setled in some knowne Society of Christians, by adhering to which guide men may be guided to belieue aright in all Funda­mentals. 1. Tim. 2.4. No was the Apostle sayth, God will haue all men to be saued, and to come to the knowledge of truth, and conse­quently he will haue the meanes, which proposeth all the truth of Saluation infallibly guiding men to heauē, to be sisible, & so diffused in the world as all men may come to see her, and learne of her, and be saued if they will by the grace of Christ Iesus.

6. Secondly this Church being an infallible guide [Page 125]in Fundamentals, must be likewyse infallible in all her proposals in matter of fayth. This sequell, according to your good custome, you both deny and grant. You deny it pag. 177. saying, that the Church, though she be the ground and rocke of all necessary truth, yet not the rocke and ground, or infallible teacher of all profitable truth, but may erre and mainteyne damnable errour against it. But pag. 105. n. 139. you grant the Consequence, saying, To grant any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals, would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes, and requires to be believed: and Cap. 3. n. 36. you say, The Church except she be infallible in all things we can belieue her in nothing vpō her word and authority; which you proue by this demon­stration vnanswerably, Because, say you, an authority subiect to errour can be no firme and stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing. And if it were in any thing, then this authority being one & the same in all proposals, I should haue the same reason to belieue all, that I haue to belieue one. And therefore must do vnreasonably eyther in belieuing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this authority, or else in not belieuing all things aequally warranted by it. Behold how earnestly you auerre and forcibly demonstrate what be­fore you did so peremptorily deny, that the Church be­ing the pillar and ground of some Truth, to wit of Truth necessary to Saluation, must of necessity be the pillar & ground of all sauing Truth; because a Church subiect to errour in some things cannot be the ground and firme foundation of my beleefe in any thing what­soeuer.

7. Thirdly, the true Church of Christ, the pillar and ground of Truth, to which it is essential to propose teach, and mayntaine all necessary truth, is one Society of Christians notoriously knowne by subordination to [Page 126]one vniuersall visible Head or Pastour. This you grant saying, that an infallible guide in Fundamentals, or, which is all one, such a Church as shall alwayes with­out fayle be the pillar, ground, and teacher of all neces­sary truth must be one knowne Society of Christians, by adhering to which we are sure to be gurded aright to belieue all Fundamentals; one certaine Society of men by whome we are certaine they neither do, nor can erre in Fundamentals; one certayne Society of Christians which may be knowne by adhering to such a Bishop as their Head.

8. Fourthly there being such an infallible Church in all her doctrines, you suppose that we are not to find out which is the true Church by preexamination of the doctrine controuerted, but by euidence of the marke of subordination to one visible Head find the true Church, by whose teaching we are lead to all necessary truth, if we follow her direction and rest in her Iudge­ment. These foure sequels you teach to be inuolued and contayned in your grant, that the Church is alwayes, euen by ss [...]nce, the pillar and ground of fayth, the infallible teacher and maynteyner of all necessary truth; whence we shall in the sixt and seuenth Chapter inferre the totall ouerthrow of your cause, and shew saluation to be im­possible against the Catholique Roman Church.

The second Conuiction.

9. FOr the totall infallibility of the Catholique Church I propose this Syllogisme out of your sayings: In matters of Religion none can be lawfull Iudges, but such as are for that office appointed of God, nor any fit for it, but such as are infallible; but the Ca­tholike Church is lawfull Iudge endued with authority [Page 127]to determine controuersies of Religion; Ergo, she is ap­poynted of God, and made by him fit for that office, that is, infallible. In this Syllogisme, as in the former, both propositions be your owne; the Maior you delyuer pag. 60. n. 21. For the deciding of ciuill controuersies men may appoynt themselues a Iudge: But in matters of Religion 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 [Page 128]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 [Page 129]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 [Page 130]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 [Page 131]it be salted? So the Church may be by duty the pillar & ground of Truth, of all truth not onely necessary, but also profitable to Saluation; and yet she may neglect and violate this duty, and be in fact the teacher of some errour? Thus you giue vs euery where sal infatuatum, infatuated salt, salt vnsa­uoury. You often set good salt on the table, but instātly you corrupt it, and the good season and reason thereof, by senselesse contradictions, That the Church is by of­fice the rocke and pillar of all truth in matter of fayth, is good salt, hath the fauour and sense of diuine infallible truth; but that which followes, that she may fayle in this office, violate this duty, is senselesse, and spoken without any salt. Do not you say, that in Religion none is fit to be Iudge, that is fit for the office of iudge, but he that is infallible? How then can the Iudge in matters of Religion, endued with power to determine Contro­uersies of fayth, violate his duety, except you can con­ceaue that he that is infallible may fayle? In lyke man­ner that the Church is by office, by duety, appointed of God to be the pillar and rocke of all truth both necessary and pro­fitable to saluation, is salt, doctrine of heauenly fauour, and wisedome worthy of God: But what you presently add, that in fact she may be the teacher of errour, is extremely sottish. For if the Church be a sure and firme foundatiō of Fayth, how can she be fallible and subiect to errour? Do not you say pag. 148. n. 36. lin. 11. An authority subiect to errour can be not firme or stable foundation of my beli [...]fe in any thing? What is this, but that a fallible Church in something, and which de facto teacheth errours, cannot haue the office of pillar and ground of any truth, much lesse of all truth? How often doe you teach that God cannot command vs to doe things impossible, or com­mand vs to be, what is not in our power to be? Should [Page 132]God command you to be immortall, were not that command vniust? For you being by nature mortall ac­cording to the body, and not able to shake that cor­ruption of; how can you be immortall except God take away mortality, and bestow the gift of immortality on you? Can God appoint, that glasse be in office as strong and hard as marble, or that sand be as firme and stable as a rocke without taking brittlenes from the one and vnstedfastnes from the other? I conclude with this syllogisme wherin both Propositions being your owne, you cannot deny the Conclusion. God hath appointed the Church to be by office the pillar and ground of all Christian truth, a firme and stable Foundation of fayth in all matters of saluation: But a Church subiect to er­rour cannot be a pillar, ground, or foundation of Chri­stian beleefe in any thing: Ergo, the Church is an infal­lible teacher of all truth, an infallible guide in funda­mentals, and consequently in all her proposals.

The first Conuiction.

5. YOu say Cap. 5. n. 36. initio. For men to forsake the external Communion of them with whome they agree in fayth, is the most formal & proper crime of schisme: very true. Thus you. But Protestants agree with the visible vniuersal Church in all fundamental points of fayth (as you pretend) and yet they haue forsaken her externall Communion. For cap. 5. n. 52. initio. you speake thus to your aduersary: Whereas you say, that Protestants diuided themselues from the externall Communion of the vi­sible Church; adde, which externall communion was corrup­ted, and we shall confesse the accusation, and glory in it. And cap. 5. n. 55. As for the externall Communion of the visible Church, we haue without scruple formerly granted, that Pro­testants did forsake it. Ergo, it is very true, that Protestants in separating from the Church of Rome did commit the proper and for mall crime of Schisme.

6. This Syllogisme doth consist of propositions which are formally & verbally yours, yet because you falter and halt in the assertion of them contradicting your selfe, to make this demonstration conuincing, I will proue both the Premises cleerely by such truths as you are forced to acknowledge. The maior Proposition, that it is formall Schisme to forsake the visible Church, or her externall Communion, which you grant in the words I cired, you deny cap. 5. n. 25. lin. 3. in these words to your aduersary: Whereas you take for granted as an vndoubied truth, that whosoeuer leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church, are Schismaticall, I tell you, Sir, you presume [Page 137]to much vpon vs, and would haue vs grant, that which is the maine point in question. Behold now that is false, which before you sayd was very true; Which also to be abso­lutely true, I proue by what you write cap. 5. n. 45 lin. 16. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe, and others, and continue still a member of that Church: Prouided, that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church doth consist. And c. 3. n. 66. lin. 9. You may not cease to be of the Church, nor depart from those things which make it so to be. This you. Now I subsume: but externall Communion, that is, externall Society, fellowship, and vnity of the members of the Church, in their subordination to the common Head, and supreme external Authority ther­of, is one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist, one of the thinges which make it to be a Church. This is cleere, because as it is of the essence of an human organicall Body, not only to haue a multitude of mem­bers locally layd together in one heape; but also that they be knit and compacted together in the vnity of one Body by ioint subordination to the head: so it is of the essence of euery morall or mysticall body, not only to haue a multitude of members or persons, but also that the persons, members and subiects be knit toge­ther, and vnited in the Society of one Communion, that is, of one common vnion of subordination to the Head.

7. And this Communion or common subiection must in the members of the Church be external and vi­sible: because it is of the essence of the Church to be an externall and visible Society or Body; which is pro­ued, because you say Cap. 3. n. 78. That it is of the essence of the Church to be the rocke and pillar, that is, still in fact a pro­poser, [Page 138]mantayner, and teacher of all necessary truth. But it is of the essentiall necessity of a teaching Church, to be visi­ble and externall, as you suppose Cap. 3. n. 39. lin. 23. A Church that were inuisible, so that none could repayre to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, that is a teacher of truth, yet it might be in it selfe infallible. Wherfore ex­ternal Communion, or common Vnion of the mem­bers of the Church in their subiection to one common Head, or visible supreme gouerning Authority, is of the essence of the Church; it is one of the thinges which make the Church a Church. But Protesters forsooke the externall Communion, the common Vnion & knot with their fellow-members in the vnity of subiection to one visible gouerning Church-Authority, and made to themselues new Conuenticles, and Churches vnder new Gouernours, and formes of gouerment, as is no­torious. It is therefore manifest, that they forsaking the externall Communion of the visible Church (because in their iudgment corrupted) forsooke the Church of God in one of the thinges wherein the essence of the Church doth consist; in one of the thinges which make the Church a Church; and consequently are Schismatiques.

The second Conuiction.

8. IT is, you say, of the essence of the Church of Christ to be by office the pillar and ground, that is, the teacher of truth, & of all truth, & alwayes in fact the tea­cher and guide of men in all truth necessary to Salua­tion. Consequently it is of the essence of the Church to be able to performe this office, Cap. 3. n. 7 [...]. and to be still in act a Di­restour of men to heauen But you say Pag. 163. lin. 6. That Church alone can performe the office of Guide or Di­rectour, which is of one denomination, that is, a setled certain [Page 139]Society of Christians, distinguishable from all others by adhe­ring to such a Bishop for their guide in Fundamentalls. Ergo, it is of the essence of the visible Catholique Church of Christ to be of one denomination, adhering to one com­mon Bishop, as to their guide in Fundamentalls. This sup­posed: that Protestants be seuered from the way of Sal­uation, Schismatiques & aliens from the only Church that can be the guide to heauen, I shall not need to proue; you grant it Cap. 5. n. 27. versus finem. Pag. 264. lin. 4. Put case I should grant of meere fauour, that there must be alwaies some Church of one denomination, free from all errors in Doctrine, and that Protestants had not alwayes such a Church; it would indeed follow, that I must not be a Protestant; but that I must be a Papist, certainly it would follow by no better consequence then this: If you will leaue England, your must of necessity goe to Rome. Thus you. From which saying I argue. If there must be alwayes some Church of one denomination, free from all errors in doctrine, subiect to one visible head and guide: then you must 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 [Page 140]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 [Page 142]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 Pag. 156. lin. 50. was vniuersall superstition in the Church; that 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 Pag. 156. lin. 36. vrged vpon others with great violence, & the streame of them was growne 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 [Page 143] 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 that of two Euills we are to choose the lesse, when we cannot auoid both, because a lesser Euill, considered as necessary to auoyd a greater, is endued with the quality of goodnesse, and is not so much euill as good. But to professe against ones conscience an errour small & vnfundamentall Cap. 3 n. 10. What else do we vn­derstand by an vnfun­damen­tal er­rour, but such a one with which a man may be saued. Which doth not ouerthrow Saluation, wherewith one may be saued, is a lesse euill then separation from the vnity of Gods Church, & from subordination to the authority there of, for this is most formall and proper Schisme. Hence it is false (what you with D. Potter pag. 77. D. Potter so much auerre, and lay as the fundamentall stone of your building) that it is damnable sinne to professe any the least veni­all errour against ones conscience, and that it were better to depart from the Church and erect new Conuen­ticles, as Protesters did, then hypocritically to professe, [Page 144] Cap. 5. n. 59. versus finem. that there be no Antipodes, should the Church en­force you eyther to professe there be none, of else for­sake her Communion. This is a false and pernicous principle, and (as I sayd) agaynst the light of reason and common notion written in the hearts of all men, that of two Euils we are to choose the lesse, if of necessity we must do the one, or the other. The light of the truth seene of euery man was not hidden from you, when you were not blinded with actual reflexion, that by the light thereof your separation from the Church is shewed e­uidently to be Schismaticall. For Cap. 4. n. 18. in fine, you say, I willingly confesse, the iudgement of a Councell though not infallible, is yet so farre directiue and obliging, that with­out apparent reason to the contrary it may be sinne to reiect it, at least not to afford it OVTWARD submission for publique peace sake. Now what is outward submission to definiti­ons which you do not receaue in your heart, but out­ward Profession to belieue what in your conscience you thinke to be false? If it be lawfull, and men may be bound vnder sinne, to professe outward submission vnto what they iudge erroneous, for publique peace-sake, that is, for the auoyding of Schisme; who doth not see, that the doctrine whereon the iustification of your re­uolt from the Catholique Church resteth to be false, to wit, that it is always impious and damnable to professe outward submission to any the least errour, which in conscience you thinke to be errour.

The fifth Conuiction.

15. TO forsake the visible Church without any cause, vpon a meere fancy, is damnable sinne: This you affirme a thousand tymes in your fifth Chapter. But Protestants abandoned the Church of [Page 145] Rome without any iust cause: this you allow and iustify seeking to answere the obiection, How may a Protestant, who is at least as fallible as the Church, be sure that the Church erreth, and that he hath hitt on the truth, that he may with a good conscience forsake her Communion? you say cap. 5. n. 63. in fine. Hemay be sure, because he may see the doctrine forsaken by him to be repugnant to Scripture, and the doctrine imbraced by him consonant to it; AT LEAST this he may knowe, that the doctrine which he hath CHOSEN, to him SEEMES TRVE, and the contrary which he hath forsaken SEEMES FALSE. And therefore without REMORSE of Conscience he may professe that, but this he cannot. O houw true is the Prouerbe, What aboundeth in the heart will out at the mouth, yea out of the quill, which is ruled by an vnconsidering Writer. You harbour in your heart that Socinian impiety, that men may be saued in any Religion; but you would fayne hide it, and therefore make great shew Pag. 392. fine 2. Edit. pag. 373. lin. 26. to abhorre it, as most impious and execrable do­ctrine by foule calumny imputed vnto you. And yet in this passage you do cleerely professe it, and so fully, that ir­religion it selfe could not do more, saying absolutely without any limitation: That if a man know, that a do­ctrine to him seemeth false, he may without remorse forsake it and the Church which teacheth it, and go to another Society which teacheth the contrary: so that if a man know, that to him Christianity seemeth false, and Iudaisme or Turcisme true, though he haue no certaine ground so to thinke, he may without scruple, without remorse of conscience, leaue Christianity, and become a Iew or Turke. Puritans, Brownists, Anabaptists Ari­ans, Socinians, Tritheists know, that to them the Reli­gion of the Church of England seemeth false, and the contrary which destroyes Christianity true; may they [Page 146]with a good conscience without scruple or remorse leaue the Church of England, and ioyne themselues to their most impure Familian Cōuenticles & Churches?

16. When the Maintayner of Charity layes some testi­monies of Fathers in your way, you fall a singing, In nonafert animus — Cap. 5. n. 43. telling him, that the Fathers be not the rule of your Faith, & that their testimonies be no more pertinēt thē that semi-verse. Verily you could not haue found a ditty more proper and fitting the tune of your soule so fertile and full of nouelties. Nor is there any man lyuing I know, that can better then your selfe out of his owne experience — mutatas dicere formas. What you haue done your selfe you allow vnto others, that by your principles they may change Religions as they do their linnen, and forge new formes of fayth as often as they make new suites of apparell. Being questioned about the ground of their change, they may answer In noua fert animus—I know that this nouel choyce to me seemeth good, and that the doctrine of the Church of England to me seemeth false, & M. Chil­lingworths booke, which goes for current in England, assureth me, that this alone without further assurance sufficeth, that without remorse of consciēce I may forsake her, and goe to some other Congregation in the world which pleaseth me better, and whose Religion I know to me seemeth true.

The sixt Conuiction.

17. COntradicting the leuity of your former as­sertion, that a man though he do not eui­dētly know his cause to be iust may forsake the Church; if at least he know that her doctrine to him seemeth false, you write very grauely & soberly to the contrary, [Page 147]saying Cap. 5. n. 53. initto. It concernes EVERY MAN who separates from any Churches communion, euen as much as his saluation is worth, to looke most carefully to it, that the cause of his separation be iust and necessary: for vnlesse it be necessa­ry it can hardly be sufficient. Vnder the wings of this most true propositiō I shroud this assumptiō to be made good by your principles. But Protesters had no iust or suffici­cient cause to rent themselues from the Roman and vi­sible Catholique Church. This I proue for their pretēce is, Cap. 5. n. 107. lin 3. they were forced and necessitated to do so by the eui­dence of Scripture, which in formall and expresse tearmes contaynes many of their opinions, and is against the Roman Catholique Religion as cleere as the light at noone. Cap. 3. n: 86. But this to be false, and that you and they herein speake against your consciences may be made as cleere as the Sunne euen by your owne principles.

18. For pag. 156. n. 9. you say, In all controuersies where there is is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture, Reasō with Reason, Authority with Authority; how this can consist with the manifest reuealing of the truth of eyther side I cannot well vnderstand. Now it is as manifest as the Sunne, that in all controuersies betwixt Protesters and the Church of Rome, there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture, of Reason with Reason, of Authority with Authority: yea in many controuersies the Scripture is cleere on our side taken according to the playne and e­uident sense of the text; that Protesters are forced lyke Proteus to turne themselues into all manner of figures, & hide themselues with a figuratiue sense, that they be not takē in manifest & confessed vnbeliefe of Gods word.

19. This may be confirmed by the examples you bring in this your booke, to shew that in some points the Scripture is cleere against the Church of Rome, to [Page 148]wit against the worship of Angels, Communion in one kind, Latin seruice, an infallible Iudge; for in this maine decre­tory battaile for the whole, it may be well supposed you would produce your best souldiers, and vse your stron­gest weapons: yea to take away all doubt of the matter, you professe, that they are the cleerest you haue, nay that there cannot possibly be any plainer. These instances by you often repeated, which are the substance & pith of your Booke, I wil prooue to be weake, vaine, impro­bable, incredible, euen by your owne principles.

20. First then, Preface n. 11. lin. 18. How (say you) is it possible any thing should be playner forbidden then the wor­ship of Angels in the Epistle to the Colossians? Thus you, without proofe. Against whome I reply, that the place is darke, obscure, doubtfull, ambiguous, as none can possibly be more; which I prooue. First it is ambiguous and questionable in respect of the translation, or rather without question it is falsifyed by you Cap. 2. nu. 1. versus finem. Pag. 52. lin. 26. where speaking to vs you say: Do not impose vpon men that humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemnes. The true text is: Nemo vos seducat volens in humilitate & religione Angelorum: let no man beguile you of your reward in voluntary humility and religion of Angels. Hence appea­reth, that your chāging, corrupting, peruerting of holy Scripture in this place is as great as any could possibly be vsed vpon a text of so few words. You turne the particle and, into of, [...] which signifies Religion or diuine and Religious worship due to God only, not so much the act as the forme, you translate simply wor­shipping. Angelorum being the Genitiue case, of the An­gels, you make it the Accusatiue, the humility of worship­ping Angels, as if the Latin text had byn in humilitate co­lendi Angelos. And this alone were sufficient to prooue [Page 149]the place impertinent, because the Apostle doth not reproue any kind of worship of Angels but only [...], Thre [...] ­kia à Traci­bus est religio [...]è sacrifi­cijs & orgijs colere. Gregor. Nazian. the worshipping them Religiously as Gods, offering sacrifice to them.

21. Secondly the text lyes open vnto ambiguity of senses in regard of the particle of, which may referre Religious worship to Angels as to the obiects thereof, the Religion of Angels, that is, the Religion wherewith Angels are worshipped; or else, to Angels, as the Au­thors thereof, the Religion of Angels, that is, the Reli­gion which was deliuered vnto men and reuealed by Angels. Heereupon ariseth a question indecidable, in which sense S. Paul intended to speake. Many, as euen Caluin Cal­uin Com­ment in hunc lo­cum. granteth, vnderstand not Religious wor­ship offered vnto Angels, sed cultum ab Angelis tradi­tum, the forme of diuine worship deliuered by the An­gels: such was the Religion of the Iewes by Angels Alij Religio­nem An­gelorum intelli­gunt Religio­nem Iu­da [...]cam, quae data est Moy­si per Ange­los. Cor­nel. deliuered vnto Moyses, which exposition Caluin doth not dislike.

22. Thirdly the word Angels is much more ambi­guous, there being two kinds of Angels some good some bad, and in ech kind there is a great variety of of­fices and degrees, and consequently great diuersitie of opinions amongst Fathers and Expositours, which kind of Angels are meant, as you may see in Iustinianus and Cornelius. Amongst the which opinions the most probable is, that by Religion of Angels in this place, the Magicall Ad magi­cam il­lam su­persti­tionem à Simone. institu­tam, Paulum respe­xisse haud ambigā. Iustinia­nus. adoration of diuels, or bad Angels is vnderstood, taught by Simon Magus. Now this being proued we will intreate you to call to mynd what you write Cap. 2. n. 104. lin. 8. When a place by reason of ambi­guous termes lyes indifferent betweene diuers senses, whereof the one is true and the other false, to say, that God vnder paine [Page 150]of damnation obligeth men not to mistake, is to make God a Tyrant. Now where is your text as cleere as the sunne? Is it not now as darke as night, to shew the worship of Angels vsed by the Catholique Church vnlawful? May not I with good reason giue you warning in the words of our Lord, Si lumen quod in te est tenebrae sunt, tenebrae tuae quantae erunt? If your text, then which none can possibly be cleerer, is so darke; how darke are your o­ther texts, which euen in your owne sight seeme not so cleere?

23. On the other side, the text wherein the Saints of God Gen. 18 by A­braham. Gen. 19. by Lot. Num. 22. by Baalā Ios. 5. by Iosue. adored holy Angels prostrate on the ground, yea in­uocated Angels, as Gen. 48.16. Angelus qui eruit me. Iacob, The Angell that deliuered me from all euill blesse these two children. These texts I say are cleere as none can be cleerer: And Protestants not to be scorched with the heauenly heate of reuerend & feruent Deuotion towards the blessed Angels, which might be kindled in their hearts by the lightsome in­fluence of Gods word, pretend ouer the litterall euidence a mysticall or rather misty veyle or cloath of their text­obscuring interpretations, painted with vnseemely fi­gures of improper sense. Cap. 3. n. 71.

24. Now for Communion in both kinds, Who (say you) can deny, but they are taught it by our Sauiour Ioan. 6. in these words according to most of their owne expositions. Vn­lesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud you haue not life in you. Thus you, in which speach your wordes interfere, gall ech others ankles, destroy them­selues: for to say, Who can deny according to the exposition of most Catholiques, that this text is vnderstood of Sacramen­tall eating and drinking, doth imply that many Catholi­ques, and with them most of Protestants deny it. And consequently, Who can deny it according to most, is as [Page 151]wise a speach, as if you should say, It is a most vndenia­ble, by many iustly denied, truth. For do not you write, Preface n. 30. in fine. There is no more certaine signe, that a Point is not euident, then that honest, and vnderstanding, and in different men, and such as giue themselues liberty of Iudg­ment after a mature deliberation, differ about it?

25. Thirdly you vrge Scripture as plaine against La­tin seruice saying Cap. 3. n. 21. & n. 71. It is a plaine reue­lation of God, that the publique Prayers and Hymnes of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification: yet these reuelatiōs the Church of Rome not seeing &c. I omit that you corrupt the Scripture, by adding to the text the word most. And pag. 173. lin. 3. you cite these as the very words of S. Paul, to vse a language which the Assistāts generally vnderstand not is not for edificatiō, which is Scrip­ture verbatim coyned and forged in your owne head. I pretermit also so many cleere and fully satisfying an­sweres giuen by Catholiques which you do not mentiō much lesse confute: I will shew that you behead this your Argumēt with your owne sword. Do not you say Cap. 3. n. 32. that the Apostles in their writings deliuer some things as the dictates of human reason and prudence, and not as diuine reuelations, and that you see no reason why we should take them to be diuine reuelations? This supposed, I assume: But S. Paul deliuers this order, that an vnknowne ton­gue is not best for edification and decency, as a dictate of humane reason and prudence, as is manifest by the whole tenour of his discourse: Ergo, there is no reason why we should take it as a diuine reuelation vpon your word? We belieue it indeed as the word of God, that the Apostle did iudge that obseruance most for edifica­tion and decency in those tymes, when Latin & Greeke were vulgar languages almost euery where commonly [Page 152]knowne of all. Since his tyme the Latin being not knowne and vulgar in euery Country of the Latin Church as it was before, whether in this respect the Latin ought to cease, to be the Vniuersall language for the Liturgy of the Latin Church, is a question not de­cided by diuine reuelation, but to be decided by human reason and prudence; for it is different in state and qua­lity from that decided by the Apostle: such kind of di­ctats of human reason being variable according to the diuersity of tymes, places, persons, customes. Adde that Latin which most men of better education and quality vnderstand, and all Church-men vnderstand, cannot be tearmed a language vnknowne in the Church, yea rather vulgar tongues are vnknowne and barbarous in the Christian Church.

26. Fourthly against infallible Iudges Cap: 4. nu. 16. lin. 23. Ca. 4 n. 53 Cap. 6. n. 61. & in many other places. in the Church since the A postles, you come forth euery foote with this Scripture, Be not called Maisters vpon earth, for one is your Maistere Christ. The vanity of which obiection I demonstrate by this Syllogis me wherein both propo­sitions be your owne, and most infallible truths: The Apostles Cap. 2. n. 155. were the infallible Iudges of Controuersies a­bout faith so long as they lyued, the Maisters, Doctours, Guides of the Church. But the A postles heerin did not transgresse the command giuen them by our Lord, be not called Maisters on earth. Ergo, to be, and to be called Iudges, and Maisters of the Church in the place of Christ, and subor­dinate vnto him, is not against that precept of our Lord.

27. I conclude this Argument, requesting you in the sight of the Inspectour of hearts (as you belieue there is any such) to ruminate and ponder your owne saying: It imports euery man who separates from any Churches Communion, euen as much as his Saluation is worth, to looke [Page 153]most carefully that the case of his separation be iust and ne­cessary. The cause pretended of your separation from the Communion of the whole Catholique Church, is the euidence of Scripture against her custome. The stron­gest testimonies you do, or can pretend are these by me now answered, then which, you say, there cannot pos­sibly be any playner. Now can you thinke in cōscience, that the former testimonies are cleere, euident, necessa­ry, such as necessitate, conuince, and compell the vnder­standing to assent? Can you presume you shall be so elo­quent at the day of Iudgement, as to make our Lord be­lieue you were so simple and of so little Iudgement, as you did really, and in conscience vndoubtedly belieue, that these texts were euident, necessary, formall, ex­presse, as cleere as the Sunne? Thinke of it I pray you, for by your owne confession, it cōcernes you and euery Protestant, as much as his eternall saluation is worth.

The seauenth Conuiction.

27. YOu forsake the Roman and the Catholique externall Communion, not onely without iust cause, but without as much as a seeming cause, e­uen against your conscience out of hatred of knowne truth: What is damnable Schisme if this be not? that you goe against your conscience and impugne knowne truth, though you be very loath this mystery of your heart should be disclosed, yet such is your inconsidera­tion as you professe it openly inough in words, but pra­ctise the same much more openly in deeds. cap. 2. n. 47 in fine. The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true, as you are to haue it, and so let it passe as a discourse, wherein we are wholy vnconcerned. You might haue met with an Aduersary, that would not haue suffered you to haue said so [Page 154]much truth together, but to me it is sufficient, that it is nothing to the purpose. These be your words; in which you lay the inside of your heart outwards, and plainly discouer your wifull auersion from knowne truth. You suffered Charily mainteyned to speake so much truth togeather: Why did you so? Not because it was truth, but because it was not to the purpose, that is, it made not against you, & so you were willing it should be true. And doth not this imply that had that part of the Paragraph made against you, had you beene vnwilling it should haue beene true, you would not haue endured it, you would haue impugned it with all might and mayne, though it had beene truth neuer so much? Had you sayd, You might haue met with an Aduersary that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much vntruth together, but to mee it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose; this had been some courtesy of forbearāce: but to say, that you would not suffer so much truth to be sayd together, but that it made not against you, this is Charity with all my heart. You will suffer vs to speake truth if you are willing it should be truth; a great fauour. But if you hate that truth we speake, because it presseth your pride, which will not let you stoope to submit your wit to the word of God proposed by his Church: you will rage & storme against it, deny it, impugne it, seeke to darken the light thereof, to make the same hatcfull by vttering any vn­truth against it.

28. For example, you are not willing the Roman Church should be the true Church; therefore to hide the light of this truth you heape lyes togeather, and fill whole pages and leaues with rage and fury, without any the least lucidum interuallum. To giue the reader a little tast of your bitternes, and one draught of your [Page 155]salt sea; you, pag. 90. thus declaime against vs. See. edit. cap. 2. n. 101. pag: 26. lin. 26. You who haue wronged so exceedingly Christ his miracles, and his do­ctrine, by forging so euidently so many false miracles for the confirmation of your new doctrine; who with forging so many false Stories, and false Authours haue taken a fayre way to make the fayth of all Stories questionable; who haue brought in doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confesse to be the word of Christ, which for the most part make for the honour and proffit of the teachers of them; who make profession of corrupting al sorts of Authours, whose questioned doctrines none of them came from the fountayne of Apostoli­que tradition, but haue insinuated themselues into the strea­mes by little and little, some in one age, some in another &c. and men are told they were as good belieue nothing at all, as not to belieue these things to haue come from the Apostles, which they know to haue been brought in but yesterday; whe­ther this be not a ready way, and likely way to make men to conclude with themselues, I will belieue nothing at all; and whether this conclusion be not to often made in Italy, and Spaiue, and France, and England too, I leaue it to the Iudg­ment of those who haue wisedome and experience. Thus you. And is not this a good proofe of your profession, that you will suffer no truth, if you be vnwilling it should be truth, but will load it with all manner of vnprooued and vnprobable falshood?

29. As for the last point of your inuectiue, whether there be not too many in Italy, Spaine, France, and England, who because they are vrged to belieue more then they list, thereupon conclude to belieue iust no­thing, at all, with firme Christian fayth; you leaue it to be determined by men of wisedome and experience: I thinke euery man may resolue it by the experience which you will not let them want, to wit, that in En­gland [Page 156]certainly there is one such, and that is too many by one; for you hate and abhorre to belieue the reuealed Pag. 330 lin. 24. manner of Christian mysteries, which is incom­prehensible to your human and carnall reason; and in this respect also hate and abhorre the Church of Rome, which will not allow Saluation without beliefe there­of vnto any Christian, to whome it is proposed by her preaching. Yea you do both by word and deed further professe, that you will not suffer any truth which crosseth this your impious fancy; though it be truth neuer so much, you will deny it, impugne it, disgrace it by all kind of fictions and lyes. And whereas you say, that some other answerer of your Crew would not haue been so good to the Mainteyner of Charity: for they would not (you say) haue suffered him to haue said so much truth together; whereas to you it is sufficient that the truth makes not to the purpose: Pardon me, Sir. I tell you plainely, I do not belieue you. For why should they de­ny knowne truth and rage against it, if they be willing it should be truth, as not being against them? It may well be, that they may hate some knowne truth which you do not hate; and againe, you may hate some truth (as the mysterie of the B. Trinity) which they do not hate; but for malignity and wilfull opposition against knowne truth, for not enduring it, for being rebells a­gainst the light, for being in the number of them in whome S. Pauls Prophecy is verified, That, in the la­ter dayes there should arise many, who would not SVFFER or enaure wholesome doctrine, but turne away their hearing from truth, to the belieuing and venting of fables, tales, lyes, villanous slaunders: In this respect (Isay) they cannot be worse then you are, as appeareth by your profession & practise set downe in this argument; from which we [Page 157]will passe to the next, wherein you assure Protesters of their Saluation, notwithstanding their liuing and dy­ing in these kind of direfull passions and preiudices, in­stilled by education against the truth.

The eight Conuiction.

30. THey who against the saluation of that Church from which they separate, protest through extreme want of charity, partiality, and manifest imu­stice, through hatred of that Church, not out of Iudg­ment, are damnable Schismatiques. That Protestants of your stampe be such is manifest by your wordes and deedes. Cap. 3. n. 63. circa finem. We Protest and proclaime the contrary, and that we haue very little hope of their salua­tion, who either out of negligence in seeking the truth, or vn­willingnesse to fynd it, lyue and dye in the errours and impie­ties of that Church. And c. 5. n. 34. in fine, you tell vs, That God is infinitely iust, and therefore it is to be feared, will not pardon Roman Catholiques, who might easily haue knowne the tauth, and either through pride, or obstinacy, or negligence would not. And Cap. 7. n. 6. in fine. Pag. 389. lin. 10. To lyue and dye in the Roman Church, is as daungerous as to shoote a gulfe, which though some good ignorant soules may do and escape, yet it may be well feared scarce one in a hundred, but miscarries.

31. This you make the case of poore Catholiques euen of good ignorant soules, if happely they erre, and might haue byn rid of their errours, by speaking with so learned and Religious a Teacher as you M. William Chillingworth are. There is little hope of their saluation, because they were vnwilling to conferre with you, as supposing for certaine, you could be of no credit to oppose, and accuse (as you do) the whole Christian [Page 158]Church of all ages as subiect to vniuersall damnable er­rours. On the other side, if your Protestants erre, not through negligence onely, but through Cap. 3. n. 52. lin. 7. Betrayed into and kept in errour by their fault, vice or passion, by pride, ob­stinacy, (as most men are) pag. 21. lin. 40. If any protestāt or Papist be be­trayed into, or kept in a­ny errour by any sinne of his will, as it is to be fea­red many millions are. passion, pride, obstinacy, through sinne of the will, as millions of them you feare do, I pray you is there any hope they shall be sa­ued? What hope say you? Spes est re [...] incertae nomen.— There is no doubt but these Protestants shall be sa­ued. This you teach: for hauing pag. 136. endeauored to excuse their contentions by laying the fault on Scrip­tures seeming conflicts with it selfe, Cap. 3. n. 9. a­liter 19. in fine. Pag. 137. lin. 1. you add. Besides though we grant that Scripture, Reason and Authority were all on one side, & the apparences of the other side all answerable: yet if we consider the strange power, that education & preiudices instilled by it, haue ouer euen excellent vnderstandings, we may well imagine, that many truths which in themselues are reuealed plainly inough, are yet to such or such a man prepossest with contrary opinions, not reuealed playnly NEITHER DOVBTI, but God who knowes whereof we are made, and what passions we are subiect vnto, will compassionate our infirmities, and not enter into iudge­ment with vs for those things, which all things considered were vnauoydable. Thus you. Who are lyke as lyke may be to that naughty Seruant in the Ghospell, who hauing ob­tayned of his Lord remission of a debt of ten thousand talents, presently tooke his fellow seruant by the throat and would haue choked him for a debt of an hundred pence.

32. Let vs set before vs two men, the one a Protester, who through the preiudices of pride and presumption on his owne wyt, through proud contempt of the whole Catholique Church, of generall Councels, of consent of Fathers, instilled into him by education er­reth against plaine Scripture: On the other a Roman [Page 159]Catholique, who through reuerence to the authority of the present Church, to the Church of all ages, to ge­nerall Councels, to the consent of Fathers, instilled in­to him by education, neglects to heare your wisedome, and thereby is kept in some errour against Scripture, which by hearing a man of so great learning and Reli­gion, he might (as you thinke) haue auoyded; let any man of discretion and conscience be iudge, whether the former Errant do not sin ten hundred thousand tymes, that is, incomparably, more then the later. And yet you leaue little hope of saluation to the later Catholique ignorant good-soule, who (if he sinne at all in neglecting your wisedome, persuading him to trust his owne wyt) sinneth onely out of a too low conceipt of him­selfe, and of his owne wyt, and through to much respect to generall Councels and Christian consent of holy Fa­thers: Whereas that other Protesting proud foole, who both obstinately and erroneously resists all Christian Churches, generall Councels, and consent of Fathers, through confidence on his owne wyt, through con­tempt of all others instilled into him by education shall (you say) without doubt be saued.

33. God (say you) is infinitely iust, and therefore there is litle hope of saluation for Papists if they erre, though but of onely negligence and vnwillingnes to seeke the truth. But he is infinitely good, and therefore though we Protesters hold errours against plain Scripture out of passion and pride (auersions, contempt of the Church, and the Pastours thereof) instilled by education, there is no danger. God knoweth that to these passions of pride, presumption, contempt, we by education are subiect, and so without doubt will compassionate our infirmi­ties, and not enter into Iudgement with vs for such [Page 160]things, which all things considered were vnauoydable. Poore men blinded with selfe conceyt, who thinke your will and pleasure shall at the last day be the rule and measure of diuine Iustice; who vainly flatter your selues, and thinke you may deale with God as you do with vs. No, no: You will suffer vs to speake much truth togeather, if it be to no purpose against you, or you be willing it should be truth. But the truth of Gods most iust sentence you shall endure and suffer, will you, nil you, though it be most hatefull to you, and terrible against you. Then you will find, that as no one sentence was oftner repeated by the Iudge li­uing in this world; so none will be found more true at the last day then this, He that humbleth himselfe shall be exalted, and he that exalteth himselfe shalbe humbled. It is then manifest that with extreme malice, partiality, in­iustice, you separate from hope of Saluation the Catho. lique Church, from which you are separated, and soe are guilty of Schisme, and of most malicious and dam­nable Schisme.

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 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 [Page 165]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 [Page 166]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 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 [Page 167]such a Rocke, for you protest against the Catho­lique present Church of euery age since the Apostles, Cap. 5. n. [...]. 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, 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: 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 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 [Page 168]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, 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, [Page 169]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. 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, [Page 170]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 Communion in one kind, for Laymen, was not practised by our Lord and Sa­uiour, giuen vnto the two Luc. 24.30.31. lay Disciples in Emmaus? Was not the Latin seruice euery where in vse, during the Primitiue tymes, I meane 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 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 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 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 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,

Can you say that your Church is one & the same euery where, and not deuided into turbulent factions and [Page 172]iects? Do not you say Pag. 90. lin. 12. there is among them infinite variance, and King Iames A­gainst D. Ʋorstius 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 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 [Page 173]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 holdes his discourse to be infallible, and 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 [Page 174]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 [Page 175]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 [Page 176]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: [Page 177]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 Church; but whether by diuine right, and by Christs appoint­ment he were head of the Catholique Church. Now hauing perused Brerely, I cannot find any Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point. Thus you. From these words we haue this great Truth, (which by the consent of ancient Records, & vniuer­sal Tradition is most certaine and vndeniable) that S. Peter and his successour for the time, was euer acknow­ledged to be the Head of the Catholique Church, with authority ouer it in all Ecclesiasticall causes. You adde, that the point here issuable and controuerted betwixt Protestants and vs, is not, whether he had his authority (for hereof you seeme to suppose, that Protestants make no controuersy) but only whether by diuine right and our Lords appointment he were Head of the Catho­lique Church. Now I assume; If he were Head of the Church, he was so by diuine right, & Christs appoint­ment, and could not be so by human institution. How proue I this? Euen by your owne words Pag. 60 nu. 22. For the deciding of ciuill controuersies men may appoint them­selfes a Iudge: but in matters of Religion this office may be gi­uen to none, but whome God hath designed for it. Thus you; hence I inforce the Conclusion, by ioyning together in forme of discourse your two Propositions: S. Peter and the Roman Bishop his Successour was euer held by the consent of Fathers the Head, the Pastour, the Iudge of the Catholike Militant Church: But he could not [Page 178]be so by the appointment of men; Ergo, he was so by diuine right, and by the institution of Christ our Lord.

22. And I wonder, what did bleare your eyes in perusing Brerely, that you could not see in him so much as one Prote­stant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with vs in this point. For doth he not cite the Centurists (that is, a messe of Protestants at once) who reprehend Tertullian for agreeing herein with vs, saying, Cen­tur. 3. c. 4. col. 84. lin. 60. edit Ba­sileae. Tertullian did erroneously thinke the Keyes to haue bene committed to Peter alone, and the Church to be builded on him: Who char­ge S. Cyprian for his affirming Cen­tur. 3. c 4. the Church to haue beene built vpon Peter, and one Col. 84. lin. 60. Chaire founded by our Lords voyce vpon the rocke; and that Col. 84 lin. [...]4. there ought to be one Bi­shop in the Catholique Church; and for calling Peters Chayre Col. 84 li. 19. the principall Church, from whence Priestly vnity ariseth; and lastly for his teaching (say they) without any foundation of Scripture, that Col 84. lin. 51. the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other, the Mother and roote of the Catholique Church. They likewise reprehend as a corrupt saying, concerning the Primacy of the Roman Church, that of Irenaeus, All Churches ought to agree with the Roman Church, in regard of a more powerable Principality.

23. You more then once fall vpon Cap. 6. n. 30. This is falsly transla­ted (say you) for conueni­re ad Ro­manam Ecclesiam euery body knowes signifies no more then to resort &c. Cardinal Peron, & his noble Translatresse about this place, Ad quam propier potentiorem principatitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ec­clepam, which they turne thus in English, To which Church it is necessaerie, that euery Church should agree in re­gard of more powerfull principality: you say they make bold with the Latin tongue, as though conuenire did sig­nifie to agree, wheras it doth signifie to resort. Hence of this sentence, ad quam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam, you make this con­struction: To this Church, by reason of the powerfull princi­pality [Page 179]it hath ouer all the adiacent Churches, there is, and a­wayes hath bene a necessity of perpetuall recourse of all the faythfull round about. Thus you, shewing your selfe to be no better a Grammarien then you are a Christian? Who euer did deny that conuenire, according to the proper­ty of the Latin tongue doth signifie to agree rather then to resort? I thinke the Lady translatresse, and euery La­dy that vnderstands English, know, that to resort, is to repayre frequently to a place, which conuenire doth no more signifie, then to leape ouer a ditch.

24. But this is your audacity to make bold with La­tin, and then rayle against others who translate accor­ding to the property of the Latin, whereof I can giue another exemple. S. Austin against some abuses in his time sayth, Quae in diuinis libris saluberrimè praecepta sunt, minùs curantur. This (say you) I suppose I may Cap. 2 n. 47. pag. 156. Edit. 1. pag. 150. lin. 6. Edit. 2. Cap. 3. n. 16. li. 10. very well render in our Sauiours words, The commandements of God are layd aside. Thus you, and vpon this false translation, you slander and rayle at the Church in S. Austins time, as v­niuersally superstitious, for two pages togeather.

25. Item Pag. 176. n. 76. in this place of S. Paul to Timo thy, Quomodo oporteat te in demo Dei conuersari, quae est Ec­clesia Dei viui, & columna, & firmamentum Veritatis; you will haue columna & firmamentum veritatis, not to be re­ferred to the Church, with which it agreeeth in case, but to Timothy which is the accusatiue case by subaudi­tion of the particle As, te vt columna & firmamentum veri­tatis, & in Greeke [...], iust as if one should say to you, vt scias quomodo oporteat te subdi Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, qui est successor Sancti Augustini, primas An­gliae, amicus veritatis: you should contend that amicus ve­ritatis, were referred from his Grace to your selfe, by this construction, quomodo oporteat te amicus veritatis [Page 180]subdi &c.

26. But to returne to the place of S. Irenaus, I say, that conuenire doth signity to agree, not only when it is re­ferred to a thinge, by the preposition Cum, as, Conue­nire cum alique, but also many times when it is referred by the preposition Ad. When Cicero sayth, Pro Sylla. Con­uenit ad eum haec contumelia, will you translate, this re­proach resorteth to him, and not, agrees to him? When he sayth Lib. 3. de fini­bus. De re rustica c: 6. Varro. lib. 1. cap. 19. Conuenit optimè ad pedem cothurnus, will you translate, the buskin resorteth to the foote, and not, a­grees with the foote? when Cato and Varro say, as they do often, conueniunt hae vites ad quemuis agrum, will you translate, these vine-trees resort to any soyle, and not, agree with any soyle? When Plautus sayth conueniebat ad vaginam tuam machaera militis, will you translate the blade of the soldier resorted to thy scabbard, and not, agreed with thy scabbard? Surely, if you do, you may giue the Lady Translatresse iust cause to smile at your simplicity, as now she hath cause to admire your igno­rance in Latin, yea want of iudgment in playing Mo­nus at her Translation. For euery man of wit and com­mon sense must of necessity perceaue, that S. Irenaeus could not meane corporall resorting to Rome, without be­ing ridiculous. For though we should grant that conue­nire may signifie to resort, yet it is cleere, that it doth not signify barely to resort, but to resort, or come to a place toge­ther, to meet there in one assembly. Now it is ridiculous to thinke, that S. Irenaeus would haue all Churchs, and all the faythfull on euery side to be bound not only to come to Rome; but also to come thither all at the same time, & at once. It is therefore manifest, that S. Irenaeus doth at­tribute powerfull principality to the Roman Church & Bishop ouer all Christian Churches, by reason wherof all [Page 181]other are bound and obliged in duty, to come together with the Church of Rome, not by corporal repayre to the Citty; but by consent of mind to the Roman Fayth. But this more powerfull Principality, this Iudicial Authori­ty, and Headship, the Roman Bishop could not haue by gift of men, as you confesse: Ergo, he had it by diuine appointment as the successour of S. Peter, in whom by the voyce and word of our Lord it was instituted. So that Protesters by opposing the Church of Rome and S. Peters successour, oppose the ground and pillar of all Christian truth, and so are Heretiques.

The sixt Conuiction.

27. THE visible Church is the Iudge of Con­trouersies, and therefore infallible in all her Proposals; so that to oppose her is as much as to oppose God himselfe: and consequently whosoeuer opposeth against the Doctrine of the visible Church is an Here­ticke. This argument is proposed by the maintayner of Charity c. 6. n. 15. to which you answere cap. 6. n. 13. First you deny the Church to be Iudge of Controuersies: How (say you) can she be the Iudge of them, if she cannot decide them? and how can she decide them, if it be a question whe­ther she be Iudge of them? That which is questioned it selfe cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide Contro­uersies. Secondly you say: If she were iudge, it wold not fol­low that she were infallible, for we haue many Iudge in our Courts of Iudicature, yet none infallible. Thus you. How could you possibly be so obliuious, as not once to ima­gine, that both these answeres are direct Contradicti­ons of what you before affirmed. Cap. 2. n. 162. you say, The Church hath authority of determining Controuersies of fayth, according to plaine and euident Scripture, and vniuer­sall [Page 182]Tradition, and to excommunicate the man that should persist in errour against her determinations. Now if she be not Iudge, if her authority be questioned, how can she do this? Secondly she being Iudge of Controuersies that she must be infallible, though Iudges in the Courts of Ciuill Iudicature be not such, you affirme cap. 2. n. 17. We are to obey the sentence of the (ciuill) Iudge, and not re­sist it, but not alwayes to belieue it iust: but in matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whome we should be bound to belieue to haue iudged right: so that in ciuill Con­trouersies euery honest and vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge, but in Religion none but he that is infallible. Thus you: whose words cōtaine an vnanswerable demonstration against your selfe, that the Church being Iudge to de­termine Controuersies of fayth, must of necessity be in­fallible.

28. Thirdly, you say, That though she were a Iudge in­fallible, yet to oppose her declaration, would not be to oppose God, except the opposer know that she doth infallibly propose the word of God. I answere, that to oppose the Propenent of fayth Cap. 2 n. 26. That which is either euident of it selfe and seen by its owne light or reduced vnto, & setled vpon the prin­ciple, that is so. which is euidently credible of it selfe, or eui­dently reduced to such an euident credible Principle, is Heresy, & a vertuall opposing of God and his Reuela­tion. For the Proponēt being a witnesse worthy of all credit, the disbelieuer of this proposition must of ne­cessity assent, except he be mislead by Passiō against the truth reueal'd, or by pride against the proposer therof as I shewed in the preface to the argumēts of this chapter.

The seauenth Conuiction.

29. THE Church gathered togeather in Gene­rall Councels, or a Generall Councell of Christian Bishops haue Power to propose & define [Page 183]with infallibility the Cōttouersies of Religion & bind all Christians vnder paine of heresy to belieue their de­finitions. But Protesters oppose Generall Councels & such definitions of fayth which they know and con­fesse to haue beene enacted by them; contending that such Christian Assemblies, representing the whole Christian Church, are fallible, and haue beene many times false, as is notorious: Ergo, they contradict the infallible Proponent of Christian Fayth preferring their owne priuate fancyes, and so are guilty of Here­ticall obstinacy and pride. The maior Proposition of this argument is euident and vndeniable by the perpetuall Tradition and practise of all former Christian ages, e­uen of the Primitiue times. For though then they could not meet together all in one place; yet they did assem­ble generally in different places & determine the Con­trouersies of Religion against Heresies that did arise. In proofe hereof the testimony of Tertullian is cleere and direct, mentioning generall Councels gathered by com­mand no doubt of the Roman Bishop: De iciu­nijs cap. 13. Aguntur praecepta per Graecias illas certis in locis Concilia, ex vniuersis Ecclesiis, perquae, & altiord quae (que) in commune tractantur, & ipsa re­presentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione ce­lebratur. Behold the notorious Antiquity of the Catho­lique Tradition about the venerable Authority of Ge­neral Councells to determine the highest matters of Reli­gion, as being the representatiue Church or representations of the whole Christian Name. Wherfore Protesters who con­temne this Tradition euidently certaine or credible of it selfe, and oppose Generall Councels, cannot be excu­sed from damnable Hereticall pride.

30. But Tradition though neuer so perpetuall and primitiue, full and vniuersall, will not grow in your [Page 184]garden, except the same be watered from your Well, with whome nothing is well, but what is your owne, Thus you write c. 2. n. 85. lin 6. This we know, that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a Iudiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controuersies of Religion, but onely such a Man or such a Society of men as is authorized thereto by God. And besides we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not beene the pleasure of God to giue to any Man, or Society of men any such authority. The truth of the first part of this saying will establish the authority of Generall Councels from God, when the falshood of the second shall be confuted by D. Potter, yea by your owne contradiction thereof. D. Potter writeth pag. 165. We say that such Generall Councels as are lawfully called, and proceed orderly, are great and aw­full representations of the Church; that, they are the highest Tribunals the Church hath on earth; that, their Authority is immediatly deriued, and delegated from Christ; that, no Chri­stian is exempted from their censures and iurisdiction; that, their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience, and may not be questioned but vpon euident reason. Behold D. Potter cryes, We (Protestants) say that Generall Councels are authorized of God to pronounce a Iudiciall definitiue sentence obliging all persons: and you cry the contrary, We say, and are able to demonstrate, that God hath not giuen any such au­thority to any Society. Councell, or Congregation of men. How do you not feare least by thus contradicting your Pot­ter, Isa. c. 45. you incurre the curse of the Prophet, Vaequi contra­dicis fictori tuo testa de Samijs terrae: Woe vnto thee that darest contradict thy Potter, though thou art but Sa­mosate­nian. a Samian Pot-sheard.

31. But I can easely make you friends with the Doctour, shewing that else where you contradict your selfe, and agree with him, that Councels are authorized [Page 185]of God to pronounce a definitiue obliging sentence, c. 4. n. 18. in fine: I willingly confesse, that the iudgement of a Councell, though not infallible, is yet so farre directiue and obliging, that without apparent reason to the Contrary, it may be sinne to reiect it, at least not to affoard it outward submission for publique peace-sake. Hence I thus argue: Christian Councels haue power to pronounce a Iudiciall defini­tiue obliging sentence as you confesse, and from that obligation you except no Christian, and consequently they can bind all persons of the Church, at the least to outward submission and externall obedience for peace-sake. But none are fit to pronounce such a sentence, but such a Congregation or Society of men as are by God, authorized thereto, as you also affirme. Ergo, a Christian Councell or Conuocation of Bishops is authorized of God to pronounce a Iudiciall definitiue sentence obli­ging the whole Christian world.

32. And whereas you say with D. Potter, that such Councels be not infallible, and so may be questioned or reiected vpon euident reasons; and that they do bind vs to externall obedience for peace sake, but not to an inward assent that their Decrees are true; you contra­dict what you write pag. 59. n. 17. In Ciuill Controuersies we are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge, or not be resist it, but not alwayes to belieue it iust: But in matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue iudged right. So that in ciuill Cōtrouersies euery honest vnderstanding man is fit to be a Iudge, but in Religion none but he that is infallible. Now seing you say cap. 2. n. 22. That in matters of Religion the office of Iudge may be giuen to none but whome God hath designed for it, a Generall Councell which hath the office of iudge to pronounce a Iudiciall obliging sentence in matters of Religion, must of ne­cessity [Page 186]be infallible, and bind Christians not onely to outward submission; but also to belieue, that it hath iudged right and according to the word of God: Except you will say, that God doth assigne and authorize such Iudges as are not sit for the office, nor such as the state of Religion doth require. Besides, to say that Generall Councels haue authority immediatly from Christ to bind all persons to externall obedience, and yet that such Councels be fallible, and false many times; what is it but to say, that Christ hath appoynted such Autho­rity & gouernement in his Church, by the force wherof men are bound to dissemble and play the Hypocrites in matters of Religion? For example, Generall Coun­cels haue defined, That Communion in one kind is lawfull & command all Christians to approue and practize it. You are persuaded in conscience, that this is vnlawfull, a sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament, and yet by your doctrine, That Councels bind at the least to outward submission and externall obedience, you are bound out­wardly to practise it, and to make a shew as if you did iudge the same lawfull. It is therefore euident truth (& the contrary impious) that Generall Councels appoyn­ted of Christ, as the highest externall Tribunals the Church hath on earth, and which bind all persons to externall obedi­ence, are infallible. And if they be infallible, then they who moued with conceyte of their priuate skill in Scripture, which they pretend to haue gotten by the ex­cellency of their wit & discourse; or by singular illumi­nation from God, reiect their iudgment, and openly Po­test that they may erre and haue erred, are proued dam­nable Heretiques.

The eight Conuiction.

33. PRotesters are Heretiques, because they con­demne and contemne that Church, vpon whose authority they haue belieued Christ, and Chri­stian Religion. For they haue receaued Christ and the grounds of Christianity by the preaching, Cap. 2. n. 101. and vpon the Authority of some Church, as you say cap. 3. n. 33. lin. 10. Now the Authority of this Church ought to be to them to firme, and infallible as their Christianity, so as they should rather not belieue in Christ, then be­lieue any thing against them by whome they belieued Christ. This you teach pag. 90 lin. 2. Why should I not most diligently inquire, what Christ commanded, of them (the Church of England) before all others, by whose Authority I was moued to belieue, that Christ commanded any good thing? Can you F. or K. or whosoeuer you are, better declare to me what he sayd, whom I would not haue thought to haue beene, or to bee, if the beliefe thereof had beene recommended to me by you &c? Surely, if they were not at all, and could not teach me any thing; I would more easely persuade my selfe, that I were not to belieue in Christ, then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other, then them by whome I belieued him. This is your discourse, full of impieties: be­cause what S. Augustine sayth of the whole Christian Catholique Church, you apply to the Protestant Church of England. It is false, that any true Christian belieues in Christ by resting on the Authority of the Church of England; nor doth this Church, if it make Christians, propose her selfe, but the Holy Catholique Church, for the irrefragable witnesse of Christ. It is impious, that you would neuer haue belieued Christ nor Christianity, if the beliefe thereof had beene recommended to [Page 188]you by vs, that is, by preachers of the Roman Church, and Holy monkes sent you for that office from Rome. It is Antichristian to professe, that you would more easely not belieue in Christ, then learne any thing concerning him from any other, then them (the Church of England) by whom you belieued him: so that if the Church of England should fall away from Christ into Infidelity, you pro­fesse aforehand, that you will fall away, and become an Infidell with her.

34. Hence it is cleere, that the saying of S. Augustine, I would not belieue the Gospell vnlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me: I would more easely persuade my selfe, that I were not to belieue Christ, then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I belieued him; this Profession I say though most euident truth, cānot without impiety be applyed to any church which is not indefectible, and infallible in all her Pro­posals. It is euident truth, because the proofe must be to vs more manifest, and we surer of the truth there of then the thing proued thereby, otherwise it is no proofe as you say Cap. 6 n. 59. in fine. But the only proofe, the only motiue and reason we haue to belieue Christ, that he liued on earth, and that his doctrine and Religion is contayned in the Christian Scripture, is the Catholique Church and her word and Tradition, as you often grant. Therefore as S. Cap. 5. n. 64. lin. 8. Augustine sayth, how can we haue euidence of Christ, if we haue not euidence of the Church, that she cannot erre in her Proposals? And if true Christians be surer of the Tradition of the Church then of Christ, then accor­ding to reason they may sooner disbelieue Christ then the vniuersall Church. But you Protest against the vi­sible Catholique Church, that she is not free from dam­nable errours in fayth and damnable corruptions in practise, [Page 189]that Church by whom you haue belieued Christ if you do truely and Christianly belieue in him: How then can you be Christians, or haue any grounded assurance of fayth concerning him? You will say, that you haue belieued in Christ not by this present Catholique Church, but by the Church of all ages. This is vaine, because you can haue no assurance of the Church of all former ages, and of what they belieued and taught, but by the word and testimony of the present Nor do you hold the Church of all ages infallible, Cap. 5. n. 91. post medium. yea you expresse­ly teach that the same was presently vpon the Apostles death couered with darkenesse and vniuersall Errours: how then be you not heretiques and false Christians, who belieue Christ and Christianity vpon no other, or bet­ter ground then your owne fancy?

The ninth Conuiction.

35. PRotesters destroy by their doctrine the being & essence of the Catho. Christian Church: But the doctrine destructiue of the Church or the de­niall of the holy Catholique Church is a damnable blasphemous heresy: Ergo, Protesters be Heretiques of the worser and more damnable sort; You deny both Pro­positions of this Argument, yet you teach principles by which they are demonstratiuely cleered against you. The maior is proued, because you often teach (and it is the mayne point of your Religion) that the whole Ca­tholique Pag. 291. lin. 9. or c. 5. n. 88 in [...]edio. Church is subiect to errours, to damnable errours, yea Cap. 5. n. 7. Cap. 3. n. 36. li. 12. to fundamentall errours in some kind: But this doctrine doth totally and essentially ouerthrow the being of the Church. For you grant that the Church is alwayes by essence the Rocke and ground, (c) that is, alwayes the actual Teacher of all necessary truth, so [Page 190]that they who take this from her, take her essence from her, Cap. 5. per to [...]ū. and essentially destroy her being. But he who sayth that the Church is subiect to errours in matter of fayth maketh the Church not to be the pillar and ground of truth; for you say, An authority subiect to errour cannot be a firme and stable foundation, (a pillar and ground) of be­liefe in any thing. Ergo, they that make the Church falli­ble and subiect to some errours, in some proposalls of fayth, destroy her essence. Hence your distinction of a true Church, and of a pure Church free from errours, and that there was, euer shall be a true Christian Catho­lique Church in the world, but not a pure, vnspotted Church from all errours; this distinction, I say, by you repeated many hundred of times is vayne: for I haue demonstrated, that impurity in matter of fayth, yea possibility to be impure and erroneous in any Propo­sals of Fayth, is against the very essence of the Church, The minor also you deny. See. Edit. 6 n. 9. circamed. Cap. 2. n. 13. lin. 12. If Zelots had held, that there was not only no pure visible Church, but none at all, surely they had said more then they could iustify: but yet you do not shew, nor can I discouer any such vast absurdity or sacrilegious Blasphemy in this assertion. Thus you. And this fancy then did so occupy the short capacity of your brayne, that the contrary declaratiōs which you make in your Booke were driuen quite out of your mind. Pag. 336. lin. 25. Into such an heresie (which destroyeth es­sentially Christianity) if the Church should fall, it might be said more truly to perish then if it fell only into some errours of its owne nature damnable; for in that state all the members of it without exception, all without mercy must perish for euer. Thus you, teaching that if the Church perish essentially and remayne Christian, not in Truth, but only in name, that all the members thereof without exception, all with­out mercy perish with it. Can any absurdity be more vast, [Page 191]and full of horrour then this? You teach this immanity to be consequent vpon the totall destruction of the Church; and yet say, that you cannot discouer any such vast absurdity in that destructiue doctrine. So small a mat­ter it seemes to you to grant, that all Christians since the dayes of the Apostles perished euerlastingly.

36. Is it not sacrilegious blasphemy to make Christ a false Prophet, who sayd, that the gates of Hell should neuer pre­uayle against is? Which promise doth import, as you ac­knowledge cap. 3. n. 70, that she shall alwayes continue a true Church, and bring forth children vnto God, and send soules to Heauen. Now, they who contend, that there was for many ages no Church, make this promise of our Lord to be false. Therefore they are guilty of most sa­crilegious Blasphemy, as the Maintayner of Charity said, and none will deny that hath in him any sparke of Cha­rity towardes Christ.