THE CHURCH CONQVERANT OVERDO HUMAN WIT.  
OR The Church's Authority demonstrated by M. William Chillingworth (the Proctor for Wit against her) his perpetual Contradictions, in his book entitled, The Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation.  
In ventre Ecclesiae Veritas manet: Quisquis ab hoc ventre separatus fuerit, necesse est ut falsa loquatur.  Aug. in Ps. 57 v. 4. 
Permissu Superiorum. 1638.   

THE PREFACE.  
WHOSOEVER hath attentively perused the Book, the Confutation whereof I have undertaken, cannot but with horror perceive therein a direct, and often iterated exprobration made to the whole Army of the living God. For he chargeth as subject to universal damnable Errors not only the present Catholic Church, and that of some later times before; but also the most prime and Primitive 
(a) Pag. 292. nu. 91.  Ages of the 5.4.3.2. by Name, yea the Church Apostolical, the 
(b) Pag. 144. n. 31.  Blessed Apostles themselves, even after they had received the Holy Ghost.  
2. Against this Defier, and Challenger of the Church of God, as I did heartily wish, so did I hopefully expect, that of the famous University, in the sight and hearing whereof this hateful exprobration was made, an University stored with so many well experienced warriors and redoubted Champions, some one would have appeared in field with the complete Armour of Christian invincible learning. My desire was grounded on fear, lest otherways in the judgement of Posterity the most unpartial Arbiter of former demerits, this Nursery of sciences in ancient times so renowned for Christian piety and learning, might be thought to have wanted, in this occasion, either Knowledge of Theology to discern, or Maturity of judgement to consider, or Zeal of Christianity to detest, or Grace of Elocution to confute such  Principles.  
3. What may have been the cause of this their forbearance, I will not pass my judgement. Whatsoever it were, I am confident of their Christianity, that they will approve, favour, and applaud Christianity maintained, and say with S. Paul, 
(c) Philip. 1.18.  so that Christ be preached any manner of way, I joy therein, and will joy. Which Treatise if they have read over & perused, I dare say, they have found therein a little David, short and solid, pious and pithy, learned and religious, armed with smooth stones of clear Truth, gathered from the current of Christian Tradition, delivered by the Pastoral slinge of the Church's Authority. On the other side, a mighty Giant destitute of all the signs and marks of a Christian soldier, armed neither with the authority of the present Christian Church, nor perpetual Traditions, nor Counsels, nor Consent of Fathers, nor with their single sentences, which he rejects as Bul-rushes of no strength.  
4. He layeth claim to the Armour of light, the Holy Bible: but this is only to daunt his Adversary with words, not to use the same in deeds: For never Writer appeared in matter of Controversy more bare than he is of this kind of proof. He hath cited twice or thrice some texts of Scripture, so few, and so short, that I dare say, all the words of Scripture urged in his Book against us may be comprised in ten lines. He confideth only in the lance of his Dialectical Discourse, 
(d) Discourse grounded on Scripture by the never failing rules of Logic Preface n. 12.  which he presumeth he can deliver so assuredly by the strong Arm of his Human Reason, and dexterity of natural Wit, as ever infallibly 
(e) By discourse no man can possibly be lead into Error. ibid.  to hit the mark of revealed Truth.  
5. That short Treatise as I said, of Christianity maintained, hath foiled this daring challenger by a stroke on the forehead, by laying open his Principles, how they destroy Christianity; whereby he cannot but fall to the ground in the judgement of all Christian Churches. The spoils of his victory, he leaveth to his Armiger to gather, that he may also have part of the honour, and in the glorious victory, which is, as 
(f) Epist. 84.  S. Hierome saith, cum Davide extorquere gladium de adversarij manibus, & superbissimi Goliae caput proprio mucrone truncare, to confute and make away with the heads of his erroneous doctrine, by the force of his own sword, his words, sayings, and principles.  
6. To take this course for the Confutation of his Book I was urged by Necessity, and Charity. Necessity, against an Adversary who denyeth all the Principles of Christian faith. He often repeats with much pride, but still without proof: 
(g) Pag. 376. lin. 6. pag. 131. lin. 27.  I see plainly and with my own eyes, that there are Popes against Popes, Counsels against Counsels, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against themselves, a consent of Fathers in one age against a consent of Fathers in another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another Age. Scripture remains, which he doth (though not so openly and professedly, yet) clearly and manifestly discard, as a contradictious witness. For he teacheth, that in respect of making a thing incredible, or of no credit, it is all one 
(h) Pag. 215. lin. 16.  whether the Contradictions be real, or only seeming: So that a writing full of seeming contradictions can be of no more credit with us, then if the contradictions were real. Now he professeth, that 
(i) Pag. 136. n. 9 lin. 15.  in all Controversies betwixt Protestants one with another, which are innumerable, there is still a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture; that the Scripture may with so great probabilities be alleged on both sides, that we 
(k) Pag. 41. l. 7.  may expect an Elias to reconcile the repugnances. If then the Scripture be to our seeming, full of conflicts and irreconciliable repugnances, as well as Popes, Counsels, Fathers; how can it be of more authority & credit?  
7. Who doth not see, that there is no way to deal with this man, but to hamper him in the knots of his own speech, from the Authority whereof he will not disclaim. He is not 
(l) Pag. 152. l. 15.  an Idolator of S. Austen, but of himself: D Field 
(m) Pag. 84. n. 86.  is not infallible, but he is: Optatus 
(n) Pag. 298. n. 97.  his sayings be not fit to determine controversies of Faith, but his are. S. Cyprians 
(o) Pag. 268. n. 44.  sentences be not a rule of faith, but his be. The Scripture is full of seeming conflicts, Contradictions, and irreconciliable Repugnances; but he will never confess so much of his own Book. There be Christian Ages against Christian Ages; but he will think we do him wrong, if we say, that in his writings Pages are repugnant to Pages, yea many times sentences of the same Page are at deadly food the one with the other. This then is the way to confute, and confound him; to show that being lead by passion one way, and by the evidence of truth another, he hath spoken seelily & vainly against the Authority of the Church, solidly and judiciously for it.  
8. This is the style still held by the Almighty to vanquish and overthrew the Enemies of his Church by sending the 
(p) Isa. 19 14.  spirit of giddiness upon them. A victory which may seem not unlike that which Gedeon 
(q) judic, 7.  got against the Madianites, who lay like a multitude of locusts wasting and destroying the land of Israel. Three hundred soldiers by God's appointment, having empty pitchers in their hands, and in each of the pitchers a light hidden, breaking the pitchers one against the other, the Madianites were confounded with the sudden noise and light; so as they fell to 
(r) Jmmisit Dominus gladium in omnibus castri & mu va se caed: true labant.  quarrel with each other, and mutually destroy themselves. The Conceits of this man may be termed a multitude of locusts which waist and consume the whole land of Israel, all the grounds and principles of Christian faith In his Book there be Pages (those aparted which contain the Text of Charity maintained) about three hundred, which empty of proof for his own Religion, have hidden in them the light of Catholic Truth. These Pages being in this Reply, by violent encounter of his direct Contradictions, beaten and broken the one against the other, sound out by the noise of the crack, the emptiness of his vain Religion, and together show forth the clee●e light of Catholic doctrine. Hence his wasting and destructive Principles come to fight together, and destroy each other, and so leave the holy Church, and the Gedeon thereof, conquerant over humane Wit.  
9 Charity also hath set me on this Course of answering, by the discovery of his Contradictions, as judging the same more efficacious than any other, for the reclaiming of him, and the like Wanderers who are lead into contempt of the Church's Authority, by the overvaluing of their own wits. When he shall find himself, and others see him lost in a labyrinth of inexplicable perplexities, enclosed on every side with the contrarieties of his own sayings, they will happily reflect, how weak, blind, miserable humane Reason is, and unfit to be the guide of Christians in their walking by faith towards eternal life. For this cause, have I styled this Treatise, The Church conquerant over humane Wit, to signify that he needs not be more ashamed of being conquered by the Church, then of being of the number of men. My drift is not to insult over him fallen so low into folly, but to condescend to help him up again, by confessing myself subject to the like imbecility of wit. My mind is not to blast or blemish the good opinion, that some may have conceived of his sharp understanding; nor do I charge him with any want of common judgement, besides that which is caused through want of special Grace. It was want of Grace that he undertook the ungracious Attempt of opposing the whole Church of God, no want of Wit not to have performed what no wit can effect. No man will have better success that shall go about so bad an enterprise.  
10. Giving thankes unto God, I may confess, that Catholic Education hath instilled into my soul such reverence towards the whole Church of Christ, as I know not what way I should go about to oppose her judgement: that were there no other way to salvation, then that which this man teacheth, and runneth, of relying on my own wit and discourse, against the whole Church, General Counsels, Consent of Fathers; I should verily think salvation for me impossible. Nevertheless should I be tempted, and such a frenzy of Pride take hold of my soul, I believe I should fall into the like Contradictions against myself, as now I admire how this man being of so good a wit, could possibly fall into. What he telleth us out of Gusman de Alfarache, 
(t) Pag. 12 n. 50.  that the Hospital of fools is of a large extent, I do verily admit to be most true. And therefore being as all men are, sick & subject to ignorance about divine matters, should refuse to be under the CURE of the Catholic Church, I am persuaded, I should be no sooner out of the Hospital of Sancto Spirito at Rome, then in Goosmans' Hospital, in the number of those who, as S. Paul 
(u) Dicentes se sapientes stulti facti sunt. Rom. 1.21.  saith, Presuming themselves to be wise, prove to be fools, by contradictions against themselves.  
11. King Alexander by self flattery, and the flattery of others, thought himself to be the Son of jupiter, but wounded in battle, he became docible and apt to learn the lesson, which blood running about his ears, told and taught him, that he was mortal. But M. Chillingworth being entered into the lists of single Combat with the Maintainer of Charity, though he be beaten, wounded, disgraced at every bout, forced to contradict himself, to say and unsay, to recall his words, to deny his grants; yet high conceit of his own worth, makes him so insensible of these his wounds, as he doth boast and brag, that in answering the Maintainers Arguments he hath not been any way perplexed. I therefore in this Confutation open again the wounds which selfe-Ignorance had closed up from his sight, that by these overtures that wholesome lesson of Christian Humility may find entrance into his head and heart, That no wit of man, is a fit match to encounter with the whole Catholic Church.  
12. Wherein if I put him to some pain, he will I hope remember, that it is 
(x) Meliora sunt vulnera diligentis quam frandulenta osculae odientis. Prou. 27.6.  better to be recalled to life out of a sound, by the blows of a friend, then to be betrayed, and stifled unto death by the kisses of a foe He hath drunk over much of the sweet milk of self pleasing Conceit, which by flattery of some other may be increased in him, that he seems lulled into a dead sleep as 
(y) jud. 4.  Sisara was, I can do him no greater charity, then to pinch him with his own Contradictions so hard, and hold him so fast, that he may in the depth of his soul feel the smart of his folly, and awake to repent before 
(z) Soporem morti consocians defecit & mortuns est.  jahel, or rather Hell strike the nail of obdurate obstinacy into his head, and so join his sleep with death, his death with everlasting damnation.  
13. Together with the discovery of Contradictions, I still lay open & demonstrate in them, and by them, the Infallible Authority of the Church assisted not to err by God's infinite wisdom; that if pinched by his Contradictions he awake and open his eyes, he may presently behold the beauty and glory of this unspotted spouse of the lamb, the Virgin-Mother of Christians, and so be moved to lay down his 
(a) Gregor. in cap 39 job. In sinum virginis omni feritate deposita caput depovit. 2. Cor. 10.5. In captinitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi.  head, and the Unicorn's horn of his singular Wit, in the lap of her Communion; choosing to be rather taken captive by voluntary subjection to her Truth, than shown a thrall of error, in the chains of insoluble Contradictions against himself.  
14. In citing his testimonies I have been exact & punctual even to a line; and to set down formally, fully and largely his words, and whole discourses; more perhaps then some may think necessary or fitting: but I had rather be found faulty for excess in sincerity, then for defect. Yea the words that were upon some occasion cited before, I have, when in other occasions I make use of the same, repeated them again at large, for the Readers greater ease, not to bind him to seek for them in the place of the former citation. I have quoted not the Pages, but the Chapter, Number, & line of the number, that so the quotations may be common both to the first, & second Edition which agree in Chapters, Numbers and lines, but not in Pages. Yet sometimes when the numbers are long, I have quoted the page and the line of the first Edition in the text; of the second in the margin. The Chapters of the book be these following.  

1. That Christian faith is not resolved finally into natural wit and Reason, but into the Authority of the Church.  
2. That Christian faith is absolutely certain and infallible.  
3. That the current of Christian Tradition is incorrupt, both in the fountain, and in the stream.  
4. That the Scripture is not the only Rule.  
5. That the Church is infallible in all her Proposals of faith.  
6. That all Protesters against the Church of Rome, are Schismatics.  
7. That they are also Heretics.    

An Advertisement to the Reader.  
THis Treatise, Good Reader, was to the last word and syllable thereof, finished, reviewed, and ready for the Print long since, even in April of this year 1638. so that it might have been printed, and published, and have come to thy sight in the last Trinity Term, but for the tempests and storms of war, which infested ultra-marine Countries near unto England, and were no where more boisterous then over that place, where this Treatise should have been pressed into the light. For this thundering noise of Mars frighted workmen, and driven them away into other calmer coasts, and afterward brought sharp and long sickness, both on the Printer and Author, which hath been the cause it cometh so late unto public view. I hope this remissness, and tardity will be recompensed, and satisfied by ensuing speed and diligence, in delivering unto the world other Treatises, which have been also long since ready for the Print, against this cunning and close underminer of Christian Religion, whiles he pretends to be an opposer but of the Catholic Roman.   

The Church conquerant over Humane Wit.  

That true Christian faith is not finally resolved by natural Wit, and Reason, but by the Church's Authority. CHAP. I.  
CHRISTIAN resolution about believing the mysteries of our faith, 
Cap. 1 n 8.  (as you also note) stands upon two Principles: The one, Whatsoever God reveals for true, is true; or, which is the same, The word of God is certain truth. The other, The articles of our faith are revealed of God. About the truth of the first Principle we are fully and abundantly resolved by the Authority of God Revealing, who can neither be deceived himself, nor deceive us. The question is, by what means may Christians be sure, that the articles of their Religion are the word of God. Catholics make their last resolution into the word of God unwritten, delivered by universal Tradition evidently credible for itself; or (which is all one) into the authority of the Church, delivering what by the full consent of Christian Catholic Ancestors she hath received from the Apostles. Protestants resolve to rest finally on Scripture, which (as they pretend) by the clear beams of its own light, showeth itself, and the sense they make thereof to be Divine supernatural Truth, and consequently the word of God. You, agreeing neither with the one nor the other, both reject resolution by the inward evident certainty of Scripture as a fond conceit; and also banish the infallible authority of the present Church, as an intolerable usurpation: & so finally you come to rest upon the judgement and choice of natural Reason, pretending that every man and woman in the choice of their Religion, must at last follow their own best wit, understanding, and discourse. In which conceit you are not constant, you contradict it often; yea you are so uncertain and unsettled in all your discourses as you say nothing in one place, which you do not in some other place utterly deny. The discovery of this your perpetuail jarring and fight with yourself, is the mark this Treatise aimeth at: whereby it will appear whether you had reason to write as you do in the conclusion of your work, Though the music I have made be dull and flat, and even down right plainesong; yet your curious and Critical cares shall discover no discord in it. 
Mare. c. 7.  I hope together with this discourse the fingar of our Saviour will enter into the deaf cares of your soul, & open them to discern the perpetual jarring of your voice with itself, and also make you see, that it will be always so, except you give over singing the canticle of our Lord in the high strain of quavering, and wavering division from the Church, according to the crotchets of your own conceit; and fall to the plain Gregorian Ecclesiastical tune, humbling your Treble-wit to sing the base, in the lowest note of subjection to the Holy Catholic Church,  

The first Conviction.  
2. THis Conviction is grounded on this contradicting yourself, that cap. 2. n. 3. in fine, you say, The Scripture is the sole judge of controversies, that is, the sole rule to judge them by; those only excepted, wherein the Scripture is the subject of the question, which cannot be determined but by natural reason, the only principle besides Scripture which is common to Christians. To the contrary, cap. 2. n. 153. you writ: Universal tradition is the Rule to judge all controversies by: & Preface n. 13. to the Directours assertion, That if the true Church may err in defining Canonical Scripture, than we must receive Scripture, either by the private spirit, or by natural wit and judgement, or by preexamination of the doctrine contained therein; you answer: Though the present Church may possibly err in her judgement touching this matter, yet have we other directions besides either of these three, and that is the testimony of the Primitive Christians. Thus you consider what sweet harmony and consent there is betwixt these two sayings; Controversies wherein Scripture itself is the subject of the question, cannot be determined but by natural reason, the only principle besides Scripture common to Christians: The controversy which Scripture is canonical (wherein Scripture itself is the subject of the question) may be decided for Christians affirmatively, by another principle or direction besides natural wit and judgement, to wit by the testimony of the primitive Church, or by tradition which is a rule to judge all Controversies by.  
3. If you reply, that the question, which Scriptures be canonical, is indeed determined by the testimony of the primitive Church, but not only by it without the concurence of natural reason; this evasion is stopped by what you writ cap. 2. n. 2●. lin. 26. The question whether such or such a book be Canonical Scripture, though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture, by showing apparent and inreconcileable contradictions between it and some other book confessedly canonical; yet affirmatively it cannot be decided but only by the testimony of the ancient Churches. Behold the controversy wherein Scripture is the subject, cannot be decided affirmatively by any rule or principle, but by tradition only, that is, by the testimony of the ancient Church, a rule distinct from that of natural wit and judgement.  
4. You will say, yea you do say, that Tradition though a principle distinct from reason, yet is not able to stand by itself, without the support of natural reason, cap. 2. n. 31. Though Scripture be a principle most known in Christianity, yet this is not to deny, that Tradition is a principle more known than 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 have men follow authority; on God's name let them; we also would have them follow authority, for it is upon the authority of universal Tradition, that we would have them believe 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 go a little about, to leave reason for a short time, & then to come to it again, and to do that which you condemn in others? It being indeed a plain impossibility to submit reason but to reason: for he that does it to authority, must of necessity think himself to have greater reason to believe that Authority. Thus you. And though you often iterate this falsehood, that tradition is not rested upon for itself, but proved by reason; yet you do as often inculcate the contrary truth, that it is a principle evident of itself, independently of any reason besides that credit it hath of itself. Cap. 2. n. 155. The Scripture is not an absolutely perfect rule, but as perfect as a written rule can be, which must always need something else, which is evidently true, or evidently credible to give attestation to it, and that in this case is universal Tradition; so that universal Tradition is the rule to judge all controversies by Cap. 2. n. 25. lin. 3. We believe not this (the books of Scripture to be canonicll) upon the authority of your Church, but upon the credibility of universal tradition, which is a thing credible of itself, and therefore fit to be rested on. Cap. 4. n. 53. lin. 26. you say, That Charity maintained, 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 proof.  
5. By these later texts of clear Truth I convince the falsehood of the former, that Tradition universal is not a principle in Christianity but in reason; nor proper to Christians but common to all men. How can tradition universal (that is derived from the Apostles by the full consent of all former Christian ages to this present) be a rule to determine all controversies 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 missed of disaffection against this truth could be so thick between your understanding and it, as to hide it from your sight. Is not tradition universal from the Apostles, a rule of belief proper to Christians, that is, for Christians only? Do any men in the world but Christians believe Doctrines to be true Institutions and Laws, holy and pious, because they are delivered as such by full consent from the Apostles? who but Christians admit Scriptures to be the word of God, because received from the Apostles, by tradition as such? How then is not Apostolical tradition a principle proper to Christient, but common to all men? You will say, Infidels also believe the tradition of their Ancestors, and so tradition is a principle which Christians have common with them. I answer in like manner, Infidels believe the Scriptures and writings of their ancestors; will you then say, that Apostolical Scripture is not a principle proper to Christians, but common to all men? If not, I hope than you will easily understand, that though profane tradition be a principle with Infidels, yet Apostolical tradition may be, & is a principle proper to Christians.  
6. The Principle whereby you prove, that the authority of Tradition is resolved 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 think himself to have greater reason to believe that authority. This principle I say, is not only false but impious: For according to it it is impossible, that any man should believe the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, except he have greater reason to believe it, than the authority of God revealing it. For if he have not, than he submits his natural reason not unto reason, but unto the authority of God, revealing things fare above the reach of reason.  
7. I conclude the principal intent of this Chapter with a demonstration from your contradictions, that with Christians the authority of Apostolical tradition is not a principle in reason, but of Christian faith above Reason, able to command Reason to believe, even what may seem repugnant to reason. You affirm, that in Scripture there are many irreconcilable contradictions to the seeming of reason. ca 3. n. 19 In all the controversies of Protestants, there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture. And cap. 1. n. 13 lin. 26. The contrary belief may be concerning points, wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alleged on both sides, that true lovers of God and truth, may without any fault some go one way, and some another, and some (and those as good as either of the former) suspend their judgement and expect some Elias to reconcile the repugnancies; Now reason cannot but feel much difficulty and repugnance, to believe a book full of seeming contradictions to be the word of God, and to contain nothing but infallible truth. And yet all true Christians (and you profess with them) do upon the authority of Tradition believe Scripture to be God's word, & every word & syllable 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 profess to hold) Tradition as a Principle above reason, and so high in authority above it, as it is able to command reason to believe, what to the seeming of reason cannot possibly be true. Thus by your own contradictions the resolution of faith, that Scriptures be the word of God, is convinced to rest finally not on Reason, but on Tradition, a Principle superior to all human Reason.   

The second Conviction.  
AS the text of holy Scripture, so likewise the sense thereof is proved to be Divine, and true; not because congruous and conform to the rule of natural Reason; but because delivered by Tradition unwritten. This truth I am to make good by your sayings, wherein you contradict yourself, leaving the victory to that part of your contradiction which stands for the Catholic 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 seems to men's reason and understanding to be so; but that which the Church of Rome declares to be so (by tradition unwritten) seem it never so unreasonable, and incongruous. Your saying contradictory of this, and whereby this may be refuted, you deliver some three pages after, to wit, Cap. 2. n. 8. 
(k) Lon. Edit. p. 55. in. 8.  Though a Writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of faith, by its own saying so (for nothing is proved true by being said, or written in a book, but only by tradition, which is a thing credible of itself): yet it may be so in itself etc. By this saying the former is proved to be false, that the Scripture is to be understood according to the seeming of man's reason, and not according to Tradition, or doctrine unwriten. If nothing be proved true by being written in a book, but only by Tradition unwritten, than no doctrine, or sentence is proved true because written in a book of Scripture, according to the judgement of man's understanding; but only because delivered by Tradition as divine doctrine & the true sense of Scripture: Consequently not Scripture understood according to human sense and reason, but Scripture understood in the sense of perpetual tradition from the Apostles is the rule of Christian truth and faith.  
9 This you also suppose, preface n. 12. Where you say, That, Discourse guiding itself only by the principles of Nature, is by no means the guide of Christian faythin the understanding of Scripture, and drawing consequences from it, but the rule is right Reason grounded on divine Revelation. Now right Reason not guided by the principles of Nature, but by the light of divine Reuclation, is not natural wit, nor human understanding, but done & fupernaturall sense, and Reason. Nor can our Reason precedently unto Scripture, be grounded on, and guided by the light of Divine Revelation written, as is clear. Frgo the rule to prove any doctrine to be Divine truth, is not Scripture understood according to man's understanding, according to the light of natural Reason, but Scripture understood according to the wisdom of God, known by the light of Divine Revelation unwritten, to wit by Tradition, which is (you say) credible of itself.  
10. This resolution of Faith finally and last not into natural Reason, but into divine Revelation unwritten, is gathered from the saying of S. Peter: 
2. Pet 1.20.  No prophecy of the Scripture is made by private interpretation; for not by the 〈◊〉 of man Prophecy came in at any time, but holy men of God spoke inspired by the Holy Ghost. This discourse of S. Peter is demonstrative, and may be redueed to this syllogistical form. The Scripture cannot be interpreted by any spirit, wit, or mind inferior to that from which it did originally proceed. For an inferior spirit, as is the natural wit and spirit of man, 
1 Cor. 2.14.  is not able so much as to conceive the things of God; Yea that which is wisdom with God is folly with men: But all holy Scripture proceeds originally from the spirit, wit, and mind of God: Ergo, it is not to be interpreted, that is the sense thereof is not to be judged true or false, by the seeming of natural reason, or wit, but by the spirit and wisdom of God, which spoke in Christ jesus and his Apostles, the sound of whose voice hath been by perpetual tradition continued, and conveyed unto the present Catholic Church.  
11. Nor do you pag. 95. lin. 1. sufficiently excuse your course of Resolution from being private interpretation condemned by S. Peter, where you say. Is there not a manifest difference between saying, the spirit of God tells 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 have to show, that this is the meaning of such a Scripture? Reasonn being a public and certain thing and exposed to all men's trial & examination. But if by private spirit you understand the particular reason of every man, your inconveniences (against resolving by the private spirit) will be reduced to none at all. Thus you, understanding by private, a thing that is hidden, secret, insearchable, not exposed to the sight and examination of all. But this notion of private is against the meaning of S. Peter in this place; because in this sense, even the Holy Ghost is private, the true sense of Scripture is private, because hidden and secret, not to be discerned, nor judged by the natural man. S Peter then by private interpretation, understands interpretation made by private men, who have no public authority, nor power to command in the Church of God. Now your particular reason (I William Chillingworth have this reason, that this is the meaning of such a Scripture) is private, not endued with public authority, nor with any right to command private men to submit their private reason and judgement unto yours. Ergo, your rule of interpretation (I william Chillingworth have these reasons for this sense) is private, and consequently of no authority in God's Church. I add, that interpretation by the private spirit, that is by the spirit of God speaking in private men, is not so abhorrent, and exorbitant from truth, as yours, by the natural wit of every man. For extraordinarily it may fall out that, that may be the true fence of Scripture, which is taught by the Holy Ghost unto some private and particular person; but it is impossible that, that should be the true sense of Scripture, about the mysteries of faith, which seems reasonable and congruous to human understanding; because the wisdom of God revealed in Scripture seems folly unto the natural man. So that of necessity in many texts of Scripture, that must be the true sense, which seems unreasonable, & incongruous to man's natural understanding.  
12. I must here finally note, that in saying, that Scripture is not proved to be a perfect rule by its own saying so; for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a book, but only by Tradition: you sing out of tune, so high in the praise of Tradition, and so decry Holy Scripture, as even our Catholic ears will not endure it; except the harsh sound thereof be allayed and tempered by some reasonable restriction, to wit, that nothing is proved by being written in a Book, as by the last principle, or proof whereon our persuasion doth rest. I fear Protestants will be offended at this your speech, and judge your Book in respect of this Blasphemy worthy of the fire. For verily your words (as they sound) make Scripture no rule, or principle of faith at all, but clearly disannul, and make void that so frequent Protestant argument Scriptumest, it is written, it is Scripture. For how can this argument be of any force, if nothing be proved true, because written in a book, but only by tradition? The best favour I can do you, is to show Protestant's a place of your Book, where you contradict yourself about this assertion. For this may perchance pacify them, to wit cap 4. n. 53. lin. 33. A man believing the Scripture to be the word of God, must of necessity believe it true: and if he believe it true, he must believe it contains all necessary directions unto eternal happiness, because it affirms itself to do so. Behold Scripture proved a perfect rule by its own saying so, and not only by tradition.   

The third Conviction.  
13 YOur conceit of resolving by reason & discourse, implieth a double blasphemy; first by your own contrary sayings it is proved to imply, that God requires of men impossibilities, Preface nu. 12. If by discourse you mean right reason grounded on divine Revelation, and common notions, written by God in the Hearts of all men, and deducing, according to the never-failing rules of Logic, deductions from them: if this be it you mean by discourse, it is meet, and reasonable, and NECESSARY, that men, as in all their actions, so especially in that of greatest importance, the choice of their way to Happiness be left unto it. And in saying this, I say no more then S. john to all Christians: Dear beloved, Believe not every 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 things, and to hold fast that which is good: then S. Peter, in commanding all Christians to be ready to give a reason of the hope, that is in them: then our Saviour himself in forewarning all his followers, that if they blindly followed blind guides, both leaders and followers should fall into the Ditch: and again in saying even to the People, Yea, and why of yourselves, judge ye not what is right?  
14. But are all men able to do this, able to give a reason of their faith by the rules of logic? Experience showeth, and you confess they cannot cap. 6. n. 10. l. 10. I could wish with all my part, as Moses did, that all the Lords people could prophecy, that all that believe the true Religion were able (according to S. Peter's injunction) to give a reason of the hope in them etc. But should I affirm, that all true believers CANDOSO, I suppose it would be much against experience, and modesty etc. Thus you grant that all Christians, are not able to givea reason of their faith; and yet you say, that this is commanded unto all Christians under pain of falling into the ditch, that is, of being damned. What is consequent hereupon? That your doctrine, that true faith is finally resolved into human reason, that all men and women that will be saved must be able to be their own judges, able of themselves to judge of so many Religious and different pretended ways to Heaven, 
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 use your own words against yourself) iniurioust God & man, robbing God of his goodness, and man of his comfort, making God a Tyrant exacting of men what he knows they cannot do, and causing man to be desperate, seeing he cannot be saved, but by doing things which to him are impossible.  
15. Secondly your way of resolving by reason, by your contrary sayings, is proved blasphemous against jesus Christ, making him (O vild impiety!) a blind and false Prophet. You say, he foretold and forewarned all his followers, that if they blindly followed blind guides, both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch, of damnation. And yet else where you say that millions of his followers, who blindly and imprudently believe upon the word of their father, or Master, or Minister, have true faith & are saved cap. 2. n. 49. lin. 18. There ara millions amongst you and us, who believe upon no other reason, than their education, and the authority of their Parents and Teachers etc. And will you proscribe from Heaven all those believers of your own Creed, who do indeed lay the foundation of their Faith no deeper, then upon the authority of their Father, or Master, or Parish Priest & c? What if their motive to believe be not in reason sufficient? Do they therefore not believe what they do believe? They choose their Faith imprudently perhaps, but yet they do choose it; unless you will have us believe, that is not done which is done; because it is not done upon good reason etc. Wherefore you must for shame recant this fancy when you writ again, & suffer true faith to be many times where your Church's infallibility has no hand in the begetting of it. Behold how earnest you are to prove many millions of Christ's followers, who believe upon no good reason, but blindly follow their blind & fallible leaders, a father, a master, a Minister, have true faith, and are saved, 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 have horror to think) a blind prophet, out of your own damnable blindness. For our Lords saying is most true and infallibly certain, that if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch; but your doctrine is blind and impious, that the Catholic 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 have true Christian faith of the Creed, who believe upon no better authority than the word of a Father, or Master etc. For how can they believe the Creed (whereof one article is the holy Catholic Church,) without apprehending better authority to believe, than the bare word of a Father? If they want discretion to conceive the notion of the holy Catholic Church, they want understanding to believe actually, and so are saved by Habitual faith: but if they apprehend what is meant by the holy Catholic Church, the Church's authority concurs to the begetting of faith in them together with the illumination of God's spirit, making them to apprehend more deeply and divinely of the thing, then otherwise naturally they could by sole Church proposition. You having made it necessary unto salvation, that men do not blindly follow blind guides, but that by their own wit and reason every one choose and frame to himself his Religion, being his own carver & judge: having (I say, laid this ground, you should in consequence have maintained, that such as ignorantly and blindly 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 needs perish, and yet labouring to save some blind followers of the blind, yourself are fallen into blasphemy by following your own blind discourse, which still through want of light stumbles at every step, contradicting is self.   

The fourth Conviction.  
17. You contradict yourself again about simple and ignorant Christians, whom you term Fools In one place you teach, they can hardly be saved, in another that they cannot err from the way of Salvation, unless they will. The first you affirm pag. 96. lin. 12. For my part, I am certain, God hath ginen us reason to discern between truth and falsehood, and he that makes not this use of it, but believes things he knows not why, I say, it is by chance, and not by choice, that he believes the truth; and I cannot but fear, that God will not accept of the sacrifice of Fools. Thus you. The second in plain and direct contradiction of, this you deliver 
(p) Second edit pag. 212. lin 5.  pag. 221. lin. 17 saying of your safe Way to Salvation; This is a way so plain as fools, except they will, cannot err from it. Now by Fools in matters of Religion you understand such as want strength of understanding, and wit, to judge by themselves, and to discern truth from falsehood, in mattets of Religion and controversies moved by Heretics against the Church. How then it is true that Fools cannot miss of the way of Salvation except they will, if such only be saved to whom God hath given such reason and understanding, that of themselves they be able to discern truth from falsehood in matters of faith controverted betwixt Heretics and the Church? If God will not accept of the sacrifice of Fools, that is, their devout obedience unto the doctrine which they believe to be his upon the word of his Church, without knowing any other why; your word that Fools cannot err from Salvation unless they will, is so fare from being true, as the contrary is true they cannot be saved though they would never so fain.  
18. Your two sayings are clearly and mainly 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 given us, that is, all Christians reason to discern truth from falsehood in the controversies of Religion. No man huing can do this, by the reason given him of God, without relying for his assurance on the authority of God's Church. Yea yourself, though you much presume of the goodness of your understanding and excellency of your wit, have not reason enough for this, which I convince by what you writ 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 revealing of the truth I do not well understand. What is, I do not well understand, but as if you had said, God hath not given me understanding and reason to discern assuredly Christian truth from Heretical falsehood in the controversies about Christian Religion, where Scripture, reason, authority are seemingly alleged on both sides? as in the controversies betwixt the Roman Church and your Biblists and Gospelers (namely Arians and Socinians) they are. And if you have not sufficient understanding and reason to diseerne truth from falsehood about the fundamental article of Christianity, the Godhead of Christ, how hath God given all Christians reason to frame an assured judgement of discretion about this, and all other fundamental points debated betwixt any kind of your Protestants and us?  
19 The other part then of your contradiction is true, that Fools cannot err from the way of Salvation except they will, because God will without doubt accept of the sacrifice of their humble devotion firmly to believe what they have received from the Church as his Word. For you say c. 5. n. 64. lin. 20. God requires no more of any man to his Salvation, but his true endeavour to be saved: But Fools, that is such as want strength of understanding to discern Truth from Falsehood in the Controversies about Religion, the best they can do to believe aright and be saved, is to rest on the word & tradition of the Church, without ask her Why she teacheth this or that Doctrine: For what can they do better? You will say, let them search the Scriptures, and look into the writings of the primitive Fathers. First being ignorant men and of mean capacity they cannot do it; and when they have done it, how can they be the wiser, seeing (x) you say, nothing is proved true, because written in a book, but only by Tradition which is credible for itself? And to what purpose to go from the Church, and her tradition for a short time, and then presently to come to it again? For even as the Dove departing from the Ark of No, not finding where to settle her foot in such a deluge of waters, returned instantly to the Ark; so man's reason leaving the Church's Authority to find by Scripture which is the true Religion in the vast deluge of contrary waving Doctrines, will meet with nothing where on he may firm his belief, and so will be forced, for rest and assurance, to fly back to the Ark of God's Church.  
20. Add that the truth of your second assertion, that the way of Salvation in the Law of Grace is so plain, that 
(a) Esay. c. 35. v. 8. Via sancta vocabitur & hac erit directa via, ita v● stu●ti non errent per eam.  fools cannot err from it, was foretold by the prophet Esay, and he giveth the reason thereof, because they should have a visible Teacher or 
(b) Esay. c. 30. v. 20 Erunt ocult tui videntes preceptorem tunm & anres tua andient vocem post tergum monentis, Haec est via ambulate 〈◊〉 ca  Master & should hear his voice behind them, saying, This is the way, walk therein. From this truth I conclude that every man and woman is not to resolve for his belief by his own reason but by the voice of the Church. Because in the way of Wit and Discourse, according to the rules of 
(p) c. n. 8.2.  Logic, Fools may err against their will as not being able of themselves to discern assuredly betwixt saving truth, & damnable falsehood guilded with many seeming clear texts of Scripture. But the true way of Salvation even fools cannot err from it, except they be wilful against the teaching and voice of the visible Church telling them this is the way, walk therein; Ergo, the way of believing simply the voice of the Church, is the sole way of Salvation; and your way of Wit and proud Disdain of the Church, is the way to the bottomless pit.   

The fifth Conviction.  
21. YOUR way of resolving your faith by reason is refuted, because by this means you may be forced under pain of damnation, to admit the Devil himself to be your Master, & bound to receive his false suggestions as the word of God. What absurdity more immane, vast, & horrible than this? And yet it doth so necessarily follow upon your foresaid Doctrine as you are forced to grant it, cap. 2. n. 12. lin. 22. If by the Discourse of the Devil himself, I be (I will not say convinced, but) persuaded though falsely, that it is a Divine revelation & shall deny to believe it, I shall be a formal (though not a material) Heretic.  
22. You will perhaps say I do you wrong, and mistake your meaning: For you do not mean that you are bound to believe any falsehood proposed unto you by the Devil in persuasive, or convictive discourse, but only if you have believed upon the Devil's persuasion any thing to be Divine Revelation, you cannot, this supposed, disbeleeve it, or think it to be false. I answer, the drift of your discourse showeth this could not be your meaning; and if it were, the same is proved (by your own confession) sottish. In that place you discourse upon a difficulty debated between D. Potter, and the Maintainer of Charity, what is required to sufficient proposition obliging men to believe? D. Potter 
(a) D. Pot. pag. 247. (a) Be it by a Preacher, or lay man, or reading Scriptures, or hearing them read, that a point be cleared to him.  thinks that to be sufficiently proposed as God's Word, which is proposed by seeming evident proof from Scripture, whosoever the Propounder be. The Mantayner judgeth 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, & affirm, that what is proposed by good and sufficient proof, by convictive, or persuasive discourse as the word of God, is sufficiently propounded unto faith, though the propounder be the Devil himself: Be the means of proposal what it will, sufficient or in sufficient, worthy of credit or not worthy, though it were the discourse of the Devil himself; yet if I be (I will not say convinced, but) persuaded, though falsely, that it is a Divine revelation, and shall deny to believe it, I shall be a formal (though not a material) Heretic. These be your words which show evidently your mind to be, that men are bound to believe the Devil himself, if his discourse be sufficient, that is, convictive, or evidently probable and persuasive.  
23. For the sense, that if you were persuaded by the Devil, that it is a divine Revelation, & yet should refuse to believe it to be true, that then you should be a formal Heretic, this sense is idle and sottish, not formal heresy but plain impossibility, as you say 
(u) Second edition pag. 10. lin. 2.  Pag. 10. lin. 12. How is it not apparent contradiction, that a man should disbelieve what himself understands to be a truth, or any Christian what he understands, or but believes to be testified by God? D. Potter might well think it superfluous to tell you, This is damnable, because indeed it is impossible.  
24. Moreover, this obligation of believing the Devil's Discourse and Conference, if it seem to you to be convictive, or persuasive, is necessarily consequent upon these your principles, 1. That proposition sufficient doth not depend on the authority, of the propounder, but only on the apparent goodness, or seeming evidence of his discourse. 2. That he who follows God only and his own reason cannot possibly err. 3. That by discourse no man can possibly be led into error. For all men are bound to believe that to be the word of God and infallible truth, which they judge sufficiently propounded as such. But you judge that sufficiently propounded, which is propounded by convictive or persuasive discourse from Scripture, whosoever the propounder be, though he be the Devil himself. Therefore you are by your principles bound to believe even the Devil himself when his discourse to you seemeth convictive or persuasive; as Luther did, and by diabolical persuasion was induced to abrogate the Mass. This being so (that your way of resolution bindeth you to believe the Devil's discourse) I subsume: But in the true Christian way of resolution, none can be bound to believe the Devil, when he knows him to be the Devil: Therefore this your Wit-way of resolution of faith, is the right way to make the Devil the ruler & guide of your wit. You say 
(y) Second Edit. pag, 340. lin; 22.  Pag. 357. lin. 13. That our Devils at Lowden doing tricks against the Gospel shall not move you. I am persuaded the Devil will not give so much as a false miracle for your soul, seeing he may have it at an easier rate. For he can easier frame an hundred arguments of convictive discourse from Scripture in the behalf of his falsehoods, that is, such as you with all your wit shall not be able to solve; then do such tricks as he is said to be forced to do at Lowden. And yet you do not ask so much as a convictive Argument for your soul, if he can by probable reasons from Scripture hammer into your head, that his doctrine is divine revelation, you are sure his own.   

The sixth Conviction.  
25. WHereas the Director offers you the perpetual visible Church, descended by never interrupted succession from our Saviour, for your guide instred of your natural wit and reason, you reject 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 Catholic Roman Church thus you declaim 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 judgement of colours, or in the choice of a way: For every inconsidering man is blind in that which he doth not consider. Now what is your Church, but a company of unconsidering men, who comfort themselves, because they are a great company together; but all of them, either out of idleness refuse a severe trial of their Religion, or out of superstition fear the event of such a trial, that they may be scrupuled and staggered by it, etc. You are a company of men un willing, and afraid to understand, lest you should do good; that, have eyes to see, but will not see; that, have not the love of the truth, and therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions: men that love darkness more than light: in a word you are, the blind, leading the blind. Thus you; And this is the flat down right plain song you promised your reader without any discords in it; for it is rust that tune of concord, and harmonious consent which scolds use to sing when they rail at some modest Matron. You will I trust find by experience, that we are not all such Cowards, blind men, and beasts as you make us; you will see that considering we have considered your Babylon with lights, and have been bold to enter into the darkest corners, and dens of your book, and find your Lions to be but of the Cuman kind. Will not you say, I have made a diligent and severe search into your book, if I can out of it produce two propositions, which joined together conclude in good form against your head, what I am loath to utter, worse blindness than you object to us, whereas the present Church is not capable of such folly?  
26. None can believe contradictions at once, but such as are Fools, and have their brains cracked. This you suppose Cap. 6. n. 33. lin. 14. unless you will say, that they (S. Austin and the African Bishop●) were all so foolish as to believe direct contradictions at once. And c. 5. nu. 105. lin. 40. 
(a) 2. Edit. pag. 292. n. 105. lin. 40.  Who can join together in one brain not cracked these assertions, In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable: In the Roman Church there are no errors at all? And 
(b) 2. Edit. pag. 10. lin. ●  Pag. 10 lin. 12. It is an apparent contradiction, That a man should does believe what himself believes to be a truth. And 
2. Edit. pag. 10. lin. ●  Cap. 5. n. 59 That a man who is persuaded, that your Church doth err in these things should together believe these things true, is implicatio in termini, as Schoolmen speak, a contradiction so plain as one word destroyeth the other. Thus you: and yet that foolery, that men may believe contradictions at once, you affirm, and prove it by your own experience 
(d) 2. Edit. pag. 20●. lin. 6.  Pag. 215. lin. 3. Though there can be no damnable Heresy, unless it contradict some necessary truth, yet there is no contradiction, but the same man may at once believe this Heresy and this Truth: because there is no contradiction, that the same man at the same time should believe contradictions. Thus you: wherein you manifestly contradict yourself and practise what you say, no man can do whose brains be not cracked: For what contradiction can be more plain & direct then this betwixt your two sayings, It is no contradistion, that a man believe contradictions at once, the same doctrine to be heresy and truth. It is apparent contradiction so plain as one word destroyeth another, that the same man at the same time should believe contradictions, or should believe that to be Falsehood which he believes to be Truth.  
27. No man therefore in his wits can believe contradictions at once, only cracked brains can think they do it, when they do it not; as madmen imagine they fly when they rest in their bed. In which number you rank yourself, Cap. 4. n. 47. Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions I willingly grant; but to say it is impossible, is against every man's experience; and almost as unreasonable, as to do the thing which is said to be impossible. Thus you: that other men besides yourself believe, or think they believe in their heart contradictions at once you cannot say, but only by the experience you have of yourself, that you do in your conceit heartily believe contradictions, and thereupon imagine that other men do the like. Now put together your two assertions: Whosoever thinketh he can believe contradictions at once is a foolish creature, hath his brain cracked: I William Chillingworth know by experience, that I can believe contradictions as the same time. What of this! O that you would conclude what these premises urge you unto. Therefore I will never more trust my own wit and discourse in matters of religion; I will abandon those false principles, 
Preface n. 12.  He that followeth his own discourse still followeth God: By discourse no man can possibly be lead into error: I will take the Church for my guide which is constant in the truth and cannot oppose herself, as I myself confess.  
28. For so you do, 
(f) 2. Edit. p. 32. lin. 7  Pag. 33. lin 9 It is impossible the Church should oppose the Church, I mean the present Church oppose itself. Now seeing men are naturâmendaces, mutable, subject to error, to change and to be contrary to themselves, this impossibility of opposing itself, which you attribute to the Church must of necessity be acknowledged to be a Divine privilege, caused by the continual assistance of the spirit of Wisdom, in whom and his doctrine there is not est, and non est, 
2. Cor. 1.18.  as the Apostle saith. Hence I conclude the infallibility of the Church: You say, Pag. 215. lin. 29. that he that believes the Bible, and together believes some errors against the Bible, contradicteth himself, believing contradictions at once: But it is impossible, you say, that the present Church should oppose and contradicte itself: Therefore it is impossible, that the present Church believing the Bible should hold any error against the Bible.  
29. Except perchance you will say, that the Church can do things impossible, as you say yourself can: In proof whereof I give one instance instead of many. Your adversary urgeth you often, & hard to set down a Catalogue of your Fundamentals of faith: You after many tergiversations say at last, 
(h) 2. Edit. 193. lin. 10.  Pag. 201. lin. 25. To set down a catalogue of Fundamentals (because to some more 
(g) 2. Edit. pag. 206. lin. 27.  is fundamental, to others less, to others nothing at all) had been impossible. And 
(i) 2. Edit. pag. 129. l. 15.  Pag. 134. lin. 25. This variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals, and proves your request as unreasonable, as if you should desire us to make a coat to sit the Moon in all her changes. Can you make this impossible Catalogue of the Fundamentals of your Church, that is a coat for the moon in all her changes? Yes surely you say you can 
(k) 2. Edit. pag. 154. l. 21.  Pag. 160. n. 53. lin. 25. I could give you an abstract of the essential parts of christianity if it were necessary, but I have showed it not so, and at this time I have no leisure to do you courtesies so trouble some to myself. Thus you. Nor will we request you to do us courtesies impossible, which are (I confess) troublesome things to be done, and the doing of them requires time longer than Eternity: only we will beseech you as you tender the good of your soul, to do a courtesy to yourself very possible to be done; That you will reflect, that you, being a man witty, and brought up in learning, it were not possible you should fall into such contradictions as these are, were not the hand of divine permission therein for the eure of your capital evil, which is, Confidence in your own wit, and contempt of the Whole Catholic Church as of a company of only blindmen and beasts. It is not weakness of wit, but dizziness of pride which makes you thus reel in your writing, as even here you do again. You aver, that to some more is fundamental, to others less, to others nothing at all. Which is not only against D. Potter but yourself have in your book contradicted it (I am sure) more than twenty times; as Cap. 3. n. 20. lin. 9 Points fundamental be those only which are revealed by God, and commanded to be prached to all, and to be believed of all. If fundamental points be those only which are to be 
(b) D. Potter p. ●11.  preached unto all, and to be believed of all, how is it possible, that there should be some points fundamental for some only, and not for all?   

The seaventh Conviction.  
30. With this Conviction I mean to conclude this first Chapter, and answer your chief argument against our grounding Faith on the authority of the Church for (say you) the infallibility of the Church, the Principle we build on, is not evident of itself, and therefore needeth proof. It cannot be proved by tradition, because none can be showed for it; nor by Scripture, because the Scripture is received upon the authority of the Church, and so the Church must be believed infallible before we believe Scripture; wherefore it cannot be proved by Scripture, except we will run round in a circle, saying, We believe the Scripture to be Canonical, because the Church which is infallible saith so, and, We believe the Church to be infallible, because the Scripture Canonical saith so. To get out of this circle, we must say, that we believe the Scripture to be the word of God, because the Church infallible in all her proposals doth so affirm, and the Church to be infallible we believe, because our natural reason guided by the motives of credibility, and prudential motives, doth persuade us that it is so. This argument (by the repetition whereof your book is grown into a great bulk) I could answer by retorsion, and show that you are forced to dance the round in a circle, though many times you run in and out, by contradicting yourself. But I will not go so far about, I answer directly, that the Church may be considered, either as delivering Traditions received from the Apostles, or, as defining Controversies of faith which for the present arise. The infallibility of the Church as delivering Traditions is not proved by Scripture, nor by tradition, but is evident of itself: for the authority of the Church delivering Traditions by lively voice is nothing else, 
See convict 1. n. 7.  but the authority of universal tradition; which Authority you grant to be evidently credible of itself, and fit to be rested on. And on what principle can Christian Faith rest, but on that which is infallible, by relying whereon we cannot be deceived?  
31. You are a man so courteous and kind to the Church of Rome, as for her sake you will deny yourself; you will destroy your own writing, you will grant this infallibility of the Church in plain terms to do her a pleasure. Cap. 2. n. 44. lin. 6. There is no repugnance, but we may be certain enough of the universal Tradition of the ancient Church etc. and not certain enough of the definitions of the present Church, unless you can show (which I am sure you never can do) that the infallibility of the present Church was always a Tradition of the ancient Church. Now your main business is to prove the present Church infallible, not so much in consigning ancient traditions as in defining emergent controversies. Thus you. In which words I note how you shuffle and imply, in saying: We cannot show tradition for the infallibility of the present Church, for tradition is a lively voice to be heard, and believed of such as have ears to hear, not a thing of sight to be showed in books. Do not you say, nothing is proved true by being written in a book but only by tradition (of lively voice) which is credible for itself? Why then do you require proof of that, which you say needeth 
(a) Cap. 4. n. 53. l. 24. Tradition is such a principle as may be rested on, and which requires no other proof.  no proof? And how can you deny the tradition for the infallibility of present Church against emergent Heresies, seeing 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 us of this truth an absolute deed of gift; you are afraid, it goes something against your heart, but you will be presently more kindhearted For in the next Cap. 3. n. 45. you speak thus to your adversary. You were to prove the Church infallible, not in her Traditions (which we willingly grant if they be as universal as the tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture etc. not therefore in her universal traditions were you to prove the Church infallible) but in all her decrees and definitions of Controversies. Behold now you grant willingly, and with all your heart, that the present Church is infallible in her universal Traditions, but not in all her definitions. With this your grant we remain content for the present, and for the grant of the second, we shall expect your leisure, for you will grant it in the end, as shall be showed in the 7. Chapter.  
32. This grant of the Church's infallibility in delivering Traditions, you confirm unto us, by the authority of S. Austin cap. 3. n. 43. For to his testimony brought by Charity maintained, That which the whole Church holds, and is not ordained by Counsels, but hath always been kept, is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical authority; you answer: Very right, and what then? therefore the Church cannot err in defining of Controversies? Thus you; and than you fall to skoffe at your learned Adversary, saying, You are at your wits end to find some glue, or solder, or cement, or chain, or thread, or any thing to tie together the Autecedent and the Consequent of his Enthimemes: and so wish him, when he writes again to write nothing but syllogisms. I believe what you say, that in writing thus scornfully and crakingly, you were at your wit's end, that is, at that end of your wit you prefixed unto it, when you undertook to answer Charity maintained. For it appeareth by your untaught, & base manner of answering, that your end was only by petulant abusing the modesty of the Author, to obscure as much as you might, the clear truth of that excellent Worke. So you do here forging an Enthimeme he never thought on, making a conclusion which he did not intent to prove in this place; and yet, would you turn your wit the right way, and use it to that end for which God bestowed the same on you, you would easily find a proposition, which doth tie the Antecedent and Consequent, even of this by you so scorned Enthymene, with an unsoluble knot.  
33. But to my purpose you grant with S. Austin, that whatsoever the whole Church holds and delivers not as a thing ordained by Counsels, but as always kept, is most righty beliened to be an Apostolical Tradition, so that the testimony of the present Church in delivering traditions is credible, and most worthy to be belicued for itself without other proof: and 
(p) Edit. pag 113. n. 163. li. 26.  pag. 119. n. 12. you say S. Austen says, that Christ hath recommended the Church to us for a credible Witness of ancient Tradition, not for an infallible Definer of all emergent Controversies: which supposed, I would know how with this truth, that can consist which you writ 
(q) 2. Edit. p. 61. lin. 1.  Pag. 63. lin. 30. The truth is, that neither the Scripture, nor the present Church hath any thing to do in this matter, for the question which be Canonical books 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 books, if her testimony be infallible in this matter? if herein she do the part of a credible witness? Have you any glue, or sodder, or cement, or chain, or thread to tie these your two sayings together? Or rather have you any chain to keep them asunder, that they come not to fight, and mutually to murder each other? Also what you say 
(r) 2. Edit. pag. 147. lin. 1.  Paeg. 152. lin. 44. Who can warrant us, that the universal Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical etc. who can secure us, that human inventions might not in a short time gain reputation of Apostolic? how doth this agree with what you say in the next lines after. Cap. 3. n. 45. That the Church in her universal Traditions, is as infallible as Scripture? Do not you also affirm, That Tradition universal is the rule to judge all Controversies by credible for itself, & fit to be rested on? how can this be true if we can have no warrant, no security, but that the universal Traditions of the Church may be false and forged, not delivered by the Apostles, but à quocunque traditore, inventions of men? and if there be no warrant, but that universal Traditions may be false, what warrant is there, that you have the true uncorupt text of Scripture, not depraved by the secret creeping in of damnable errors? Do not you say Pag. 55. n. 8. that these books cannot be proved Canonical, but only by Tradition? and cap. 2. n. 114. It is upon the authority of universal Tradition that we would have men to believe Scripture. If then universal Tradition be fallible, if there be no warrant, no security of the certainty thereof; how are you secure, that you have the true text of the true Canonical books of Scripture? But of this more in the next Chapter.  
34. By what hath been said your so often repeated, yea perpetual and only argument of the circle, is showed to be frivolous, and you running about therein have made your head so dizzy, as you forget yourself. For in arguing you always presume without any proof, that the infallibility of the present Church delivering Traditions, or which is all one, that the credibility of the universal Tradition of the Church, is not evident of itself. A supposition which you never would have presumed, had not that been out of your mind which you often affirm and confirm, that the authority of universal Tradition, is evidently credible of itself, and fit to be rested on. No less unproved, yea more worthy to be reproved is your other (b) presumption, that we do not so much as pretend, that there are certain evident notes to know the true Church, and discern it from all others, nor that it is evident of itself, 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 known by visible marks even evident to sense, as succession, Universality, and Unity; and that these marks do shine manifestly and conspicuosly only in the Roman Christianity. Which truth is a necessary sequel of your doctrine, That tradition universal is the rule to judge all Controversies by, fit to be rested on, and evidently credible for itself. Behold the deduction thereof.  
35. That Church only is the true christian Church which hath universal Tradition of Doctrines evidently credible for itself. This is clear, because if Tradition credible of itself be the rule to judge all Controversies by, and the only means to know which be Canonical Scriptures, than the Church which wants Tradition credible of itself, wants the fundamental Principle, and ground of all Christianity, and so cannot be the true christian Church: But that Church only hath Tradition of doctrines, credible of itself, whose Tradition of Doctrines is evidently perpetual by succession from the Apostles, evidently universal by diffusion over the world, evidently one and the same in the mouth of all the reporters thereof. For Tradition which is not perpetual from the Apostles, but hath a known after-beginning wants credibility that it is Christian: Tradition which is not universal 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 universal preaching: Tradition which is not one and the same, but dissonant in the mouth of diverse reporters wants credibility that it is from truth, and not a devise of human fiction, or of deceived discourse from Scripture: Ergo the Church, whose Tradition is evidently credible of itself must be evidently perpetual, by succession from the Apostles: Universal by the notorious preaching of her Tradition diffused over the world One and the same, and uniform in all her Professors, so that they all agree in the belief of all doctrine delivered unto them by the full consent of Tradition. For they who of Traditions delivered by full consent choose some, and reject others, are Choosers, that is Heretics. Nor can such Choosers choose, but there will be amongst them variety of choice, and consequently dissension, whereby they will appear a company void of all authority and credit to testify what is the true Christian Tradition from the Apostles. These be the marks whereby the true Christian Catholic Church is known, which to be found in the Church of Rome only, shall be showed in the seaventh Chapter, though I cannot but presume the thing is to every considering man evident enough. Wherefore Catholics, and all true Christians do not choose their Church or Religion by their own natural reason & and wit; but Tradition notorious, and evident of itself, Perpetual, Universal, Uniform shows them the Church, and with her, and in her that Religion which was for them chosen, ordained, delivered by the wisdom of Christ jesus, brought by him from the bosom of his heavenly Father. You see then that in granting Tradition to be the ground of all Christian belief, you have granted as much as we can desire, and (howsoever you be pleased to term us unconsidering men) yet we have considered the sequels of your assertions, perchance more deeply, than you have done yourself.    

That the assent to God's Word of Christian saving Faith, is not mere human, moral, and probable; but Divine, infallible, and certainly unerring. CHAP. II.  
THE contrary error cousin german to the refuted in the former Chapter, & consequent thereupon, is often inculcated by you in your book; That an infallible faith 
(a) Cap. 6. n. 6.  is not necessary unto salvation, nor for our walking unto happiness, through a world of oppositions backed by the strength of flesh and blood. A weak probable and credible assurance, that there is an Heaven sufficeth, though 
(b) Cap. 1. n. 8. versus finem.  undiscernible from the belief we give to other human histories. It is enough men believe the Gospel, and mysteries of faith, 
(c) Cap. 6. n. 5. l. 28.  as much as Caesar's Commentaries, or the history of Sallust. That men are not bound, nor is it possible they should believe 
(d) Preface n. 8. in fine.  things impossible in human reason. 
(e) Cap. 6. n. 7. in fine.  That we should believe the truth of any thing, the truth whereof cannot be made evident with evidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of us, this for any man to be bound to, is unjust, because to do it is impossible, As sure as God is good he will not require impossibilities of us; but 
(f) Cap. 6. n 7. circa medium.  infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in itself, yet is not made to appear to us to be infallible certain, is an impossibility. These and the like nullifidian Pardoxes you often utter, and endeavour to prove, which are plausible and applauded by those S. Peter termeth unlearned and unstable heads, 
Varro.  who now pass under the name of Gallant wits, whose life we may fear is suitable to the levity and vanity of their Faith; 
Nam quae venustas hic adest Gallantibus?  
Quae casta vestis?—  These doctrines (I say) be welcome to such as groan under the 
(g) Nam vera Religio omnino sine gravi Authoritatis imper●o intri rectè nuilo pacto potest. August. de util. Cred. Cap. 9  yoke of humble obedience to God's word; under Christian duty of believing things invisible, the revealed manner whereof is incomprehensible to humane understanding, who because they find difficulty to do it, will not endeavour by God's grace to raise their erring, and wand'ring thoughts, and stay them by firm and fixed faith, on high and heavenly objects. For as 
(h) Ser. 2. the Asconsione.  S. Leo saith, it is the vigour only of generous minds to believe without doubt what comes not within sight, and there to rest with our heart, whither we cannot reach with our eye. And because you accuse Catholics, that they require men to yield, upon only probable & prudential 
(i) Pag. 79. n. 70. Upon prudential motives, fallible and uncertain grounds  motives, 
(i) Pag. 79. n. 70. Upon prudential motives, fallible and uncertain grounds  most certain assent to things impossible in human reason; that the falsehood of this slander may be made apparent, I must briefly declare our Catholic doctrine, & together prove it, which shall be of this your error.  

The first Conviction.  
2. TO the constitution of an assent absolutely infallible, five things concur, all which by the consent of Catholic Divines are most certain and infallible in the assent of Christian faith. 1. The Object, with is doctrine revealed of God. 2. The motive, and reason of believing which is the Authority of God revealing whose veracity is altogether infallible. 3. Because we believe Revelations not made immediately to ourselves, but to the blessed Apostles, it is necessary there be a Proponent of God's word, that is a Witness worthy of all credit, an Authority whereon we may securely rely, that those Christian doctrines were delivered and preached by the Apostles as Divine Revelations. This Proponent and Witness is the present Catholic Church, delivering what she received by full universal tradition from her Ancestors, or (which is the same in effect) universal Tradition. Now we hold tradition to be altogether as infallible as Scripture, and that it ought to be received with the same reverence, with the same submissive devotion of pious belief, 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 believed, be represented and proposed to the Understanding of the believer in such manner, as he may know the same to be infallible, and that in believing it, he cannot possibly err. For the manner of believing, if it be not known to the believer to be infallible, though it be infallible in itself, will not make him sure and infallible. This condition is found in the assent of Christian faith; for the things to be believed are represented as clear by noted and marked with divine and supernatural proofs, that is, confirmed with innumerable manifest miracles, which the believers have 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 equivalent to the evidence of sense. These Divine proofs and marks evidently show, that the things marked with them, are under the special care of God and of his infinite goodness, that he cannot but provide, that the pious believer be not deceived about them.  
4. Hereby is concluded, that the Christian manner of apprehending the mysteries of faith is infallible, & more sure and certain then any manner of natural representation, and apprehension of things can possibly be. Natural knowledge is either Physical, whereby we apprehend things as true, because represented as such by the evidence of sense; or Metaphysical, whereby we apprehend things as true, by the light of understanding, which clearly beholds the necessary connexion the thing apprehended hath with truth. As in this proposition, Every whole thing is greater than any single part thereof, our understanding, by the notion of the single words, presently without discourse sees and believes the truth of the speech. Neither of these representations is so certain & infallible, that it implies contradiction that men should be deceived by it, either by some extraordinary working of God to men unknown, or through the infinity of the thing apprehended, which men cannot comprehend. For example, men see the Chimneys of a Town smoke, thence they conclude with Physical certitude, that there is fire in those Chimneys; wherein they may be mistaken, seeing God may have raised that smoke without any fire. We are better assured, by the light of understanding about universal principles, which appear manifestly true, by the very notion of the single words; yet not so universally sure, but we may be deceived by them about infinite and incomprehensible things. That Principle I before named, Every whole thing is greater than any single part thereof, we are not sure thereof in infinite whole things; yea many learned men do maintain, that in an infinite multitude, the whole multitude is not greater than a single part thereof. That known rule and principle of all discourse, The things with be one and the same with a third thing, are one and the same between themselves, Faith assures us, that the same fails in the divine Nature, which being infinite and incomprehensible, may be and is identified with three divine Persons really distinct. Nor is this to destroy all certitude of natural knowledge, but only to make the same finite, and limited within the compass of its weak reach and capacity, infinitely inferior to divine wisdom, and altogether subordinate to his most infallible word.  
5. Now deception cannot possibly happen in our believing of doctrines represented to our understanding, clearly marked with evident miracles and other supernatural notes, showing they are revealed of God. For God working by his power above nature to move men to believe such Divine and miraculous doctrine, cannot also work above nature what may be the cause of our deception therein: for than he should be contrary to himself, with is altogether impossible Nor can there be fear, danger, or possibility, that in this belief we may be deceived through weakness of judgement, caused by the finite capacity of humane wit, because in this belief the light of nature all reason is not our guide, but the word of God discovering high mysteries and hidden secrets conform to his infinite and undeceivable understanding. Hence a late learned Writer our Countryman saith excellently to this purpose, 
(a) P. Thomas Baconus Southellus in sua Regula viva seu Analysi fidei. Dispat. 3. cap. 6. n. 122. Haec motiva convincunt necessarió & metaphysice, quod si ulla vera sit in mundo Religio etc. ea alia esse non possit quám baec nostra his motivis insignita.  That the motives of Christian Catholic credibility are most certain and infallible in themselves, and do most manifestly, and even with metaphysical evidence convince our Christian Catholic Religion to be the true way of salvation, as certainly, as that there is any true religion in the world, or any divine providence about the salvation of mankind. Who can desire greater certitude, and evidence than this?  
6. The fifth thing is firm adherence to the doctrine proposed, so that the believer cannot at all, or else very hardly be driven from his persuasion of the truth thereof. This adherence in Christian Catholics is so firm, that they are ready not only to give their life in testimony thereof; but also will deny their own senses, their reason, and all natural evidence, rather than admit any doubt of doctrine in this manner, represented to them as God's infallible word.  
7. If any object, that the assent of Christian faith, is often shaken with doubts, sometimes overthrown; whereas the assent of natural knowledge stands constant and unmoved without danger of falling: I answer, this is true, but the reason hereof is not because the assent of natural knowledge is more certain and firm of itself; but because Christian faith, is more exposed to the blasts of temptation. An Oak, on the top of an high mountain is shaken with wind and storm, and many times beaten to the ground; whereas a tender sprig growing low out of the wind is not subject to this danger; yet no man will say, that the sprig is more firm and deeply rooted in the ground then the Oak. Christian faith standeth on high having for matter and subject, high invisible and incomprehensible mysteries, which though they are by the believer sufficiently seen to be revealed of God; yet not seen at all by natural reason to be true in themselves; yea still in themselves they remain dark, obscure, difficile, and seemingly impossible in humane reason. Hence though faith be firmly grounded, and deeply rooted on the authority of God revealing Christian doctrines, yet strong apprehensions of the seeming impossibility thereof, like violent blasts cause the same sometimes to shake & waver with involuntary doubts: whereas the assent of natural knowledge is never, or seldom tempted to doubt, because there is no seeming impossibility in such truth. By this explication of our Catholic Resolution of faith, it is manifest, you have done us wrong in saying, that we require, That men build a most certain assent on fallible, uncertain, and only probable grounds.   

The second Conviction.  
8. YOur ground to make the assent of Christian faith 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 faith is an assent to this conclusion: The doctrine of Christianity is true, which being deduced, from the former Thesis, All which God revealed for true, is true, which is metaphysically certain; and the former Hypothesis, All the articles of our faith, are revealed of God, whereof we can have but moral certainty, we cannot possibly by natural means be more certain of it, then of the weaker of the Premises; for the conclusion still follows the worse part, (if there is any worse) and must be negative, particular, contingent, or but morally certain, if any of the propositions from whence it is derived be so. Neither can we be certain of it in the highest degree, unless we be thus certain of all the principles whereon it is grounded. As a man cannot stand, or go strongly if either of his legs be weak, or as a building cannot be stable, if any one of the necessary pillars be infirm and instable. Thus you; And then to show, this Hypothesis, All the articles of our faith, that is, all the doctrines of the Christian Creed and Scripture be revealed of God, to be only morally certain; you bring this reason, because it is proved only by tradition universal, only by the testimony of the ancient Churches, an argument only probable. Cap. 6. n. 40. The joint tradition of all Apostolic Churches, with one mouth, and with one voice teaching the same doctrine, was urged 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 son cannot be a fit ground but of moral assurance. Cap. 3. n. 44. lin. 55. Who can warrant us that the universal Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical. Thus you.  
9 This is your discourse to prove your Paradox, that the assent of Christian faith is fallible and only morally certain. But the foundation whereon you build your main Principle, Universal Tradition is not infallible, you yourself over throw, and establish the contrary ground that tradition unwritten is as infallible as Scripture. Cap. 4 n. 13. lin. 19 Universal and never-failing Tradition giveth this testimony both to the Creed and Scripture, that they both by the works of God were sealed and testified to be the word of God. Behold the Hypothesis, that the articles of Christian Religion (that is of the Christian Creed and Scripture) are revealed of God, stands upon a pillar firm, and never failing. If you say, morally certain, and never failing, not absolutely; I reply objecting unto you another place where you expressly suppose your certainty of the Scripture to be absolute, to wit of those books of which there was never doubt made. Pag. 69. We do not profess ourselves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain; neither do we urge others to be so, of those books with have been doubted, as of those that never have. How clearly and in express terms do you profess, that your certainty of the Scriptures that were never questioned, is not only probable and moral, but absolute certainty undoubted. And how can it be otherwise, seeing Tradition by lively voice conveyeth unto us what the Apostles delivered about the Canon of the Scripture, to wit, which books were to be held as the word of God. For no man can doubt, but the Apostles delivered, what they had by divine revelation from Christ jesns, and the holy Ghost; & consequently, that these books be the word of God, is a divine revelation unwritten, as certain as if it were written. For as D. Field 
(b) D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 238.  saith, It is not the writing that giveth things their authority, but the worth and credit of him that delivereth, though by word, and lively voice only.  
10. Perhaps you will tell me, as you do Charity maintained upon another occasion, cap. 2. n. 86. If D. Field were infallible, and these words had not slipped unadvisedly from him, this had been the best argument in your Book. Well then: I must, I see, bring an Author infallible in proof, that Tradition is equal in certainty unto Scripture, & one so advised as all Catholics compared to his wisdom, be but a company of blind unconsidering men. What if I find this Doctrine in your book proved even by the same argument D. Field useth, because, being written gives not Authority to God's word, than I hope you will say without any if, that this is the best argument in my book. But where is this passage to be found? Perchance if you were to find it yourself, you would be to seek, & more to seek if you go about to reconcile your contradictions. In which case you who vaunt yourself for the witty Oedipus in soluing the Sophisms and Knots of Charity maintained, will perhaps be at a stop, and be forced to say with Oedipus being to solve his own riddle.  
Ego ille victae spolia qui Sphyngis tuli,  
Haerebo 
* Scripti:  fati tardus interpres mei.  
11. The place is Pag. 153. n. 45. where you speak thus to your Adversary: No less (say you) is S. Chrysostome for the infallible Traditions of the Church. But you were to prove the Church infallible, not in Traditions, which we willingly grant (if they be universal as the Tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture is) to be AS INFALLIBLE AS THE SCRIPTURE is. For neither doth being written make the word of God more infallible, or being unwritten make it less infallible. In these words you affirm, that Traditions universal, namely and principally, that Tradition, that the undoubted books of the Scripture be the word of God, are as infallible as Scripture. You prove it, because, Neither doth, being written, make the word of God more infallible, or being unwritten make it less infallible. In which proof you suppose that as Scripture is the written word of God, so Tradition is the word of God unwritten, and therefore equal in certainty and infallibility to Scripture.  
12. Now the ground of your error being by your contradiction thereof, and by your confession, yea by your demonstration of the contrary truth overthrown, I prove the assent of Christian faith to be absolutely certain in this manner: Christian faith is an assent to this conclusion, The doctrine of Christianity is true. This conclusion is deduced from this Thesis, Whatsoever God reveals 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 certain, than the assent to the conclusion is infallible and absolutely certain. Now that both these Premises or Propositions be absolutely certain I prove; The Thesis, Whatsoever God reveals is truth, you grant to be absolutely and metaphysically certain: But the Hypothesis, The Christian Creed, and Scripture is divine revelation, and the word of God, is also absolutely certain. First, because it is, as you grant, an universal Tradition as infallible as Scripture. But Scripture is absolutely and metaphysically certain truth, because it is doctrine revealed of God. Secondly, whatsoever God reveals whether it be delivered in writing or by lively voice only, is absolutely and metaphysically certain: But the Tradition, That the Creed and Scripture is the word of God, is divine revelation which the Apostles delivered by lively voice, sealing and confirming the truth thereof with works of God, as you confess: Ergo the Tradition, that the Christian Creed and Scripture is of God is absolutely certain 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 Gospel is brought to me and to every Christian, from a man of absolute credit Christ jesus the Eternal Son of God, in whom are all the treasures of Divine wisdom by a messenger of absolute credit, to wit, by the Church, delivering universal Tradition, which is as you confess as infallible as Scripture: Therefore our faith of the Creed and Scripture is not rebated or lessened by being delivered by the perpetual visible Church of Christ, but is as infallible, as if we had had the message immediately from the mouth of our Lord and Saviour.  
13. jadde, Tradition universal is not only as infallible as Scripture, but also more certain in respect of us. This I ground upon what you writ Cap. 6. n. 59 We must be surer of the proof, then of the thing proved thereby, otherwise it it no proof, that is, the certainty of the proof must be better known and more evident to us, than the thing proved. But cap. 2. n. 8. you say, the Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God, and a perfect rule of faith, but only by Tradition, which is credible for itself. Ergo, the certainty of Tradition is surer, that is, better known and more evident to us then the Scripture. Yea further, Tradition is a Rock of our belief, a principle so evident, that it needs no further proof. This I prove by this argument grounded upon your sayings; That which is credible for itself, and fit to be rested on, must be so evident, that it need no further evidence. This you suppose Cap. 2. n. 45. lin. 8. where you say, I will never cease multiplying demands upon demands, until you settle me upon a Rock, I mean give me such an answer, whose truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence. But Cap. 2. n. 25, lin. 5. you say, The credibility of universal Tradition is a thing credible of itself, and therefore fit to be rested on. Ergo, the Authority of Tradition universal, or of the Catholic Church is a Rock, a rule, a reason of believing, so evident and credible of itself as it needs no further evidence.   

The third Conviction.  
14. WE have convinced your error by the overthrow of the ground thereof: Now I prove the absolute infallibility of Christian faith by the proper cause, showing why it is so, and must of necessity be so, grounding my proofs on truths so clear, as they are by you granted. Cap. 6. n. 9 lin. 2. you say, If we were required to believe with certainty, (I mean a moral certainty) things no way represented, as infallible and certain (I mean morally,) an unreasonable obedience were required of us. And so likewise were it, were we required to believe, as absolutely certain, that which is no way represented to us as absolutely certain. Thus you. Now I subsume. But the Articles of our faith are represented unto you as absolutely infallible, not only as morally, but as metaphysically, and mathematically certain in themselves. This I prove by what you writ Cap. 6. n. 3. lin. 6. I do hearty acknowledge and believe, the articles of our faith be in themselves Truths, as certain, as the very common principles of Geometry, and Metaphysics. But that there is required of us a knowledge of them, & an adherence to them, as certain as that of sense or science, that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, this I have showed to be an error etc. Thus you. Here you profess, that you do hearty believe the articles of our faith to be in themselves truths altogether infallible, even metaphysically certain. But you could not believe them hearty, as absolutely certain Truth, were they no ways represented to your understanding as absolutely & metaphysically certain. What more clear than this? For how can you apprehend that truth, by firm & hearty faith, which you do not apprehend at all? Or how can you apprehend that truth at all, with is no ways represented to your understanding? Ergo, the mysteries of Christian Religion are by the reasons and motives of Christian Tradition represented to your understanding, as truths most certain and infallible in themselves. How then are you not bound to believe them as Truth, absolutely and metaphysically certain in themselves, with an hearty adherence to them, as certain as that of sense and science? The mysteries of Christian faith being represented to you as morally certain, you are bound (as our confess) under pain of damnation to believe them with moral assurance: Ergo, if they be represented to your understanding as truth absolutely certain, you are bound to believe them with absolute certainty, equal to the certainty of mathematical, and metaphysical science. But they are so represented to your understanding, and you hearty apprehend them as absolutely infallible in themselves.   

The fourth Conviction.  
15. I convince the absolute infallibility of Christian faith by what you writ Cap. 4. n. 11. lin. 20. Which of us ever taught that it was not damnable either to deny, or to so much as doubt of the truth of any thing whereof we either know or believe, that God hath revealed it? Thus you I do not know of what sect you are, and so I not say which of you, but I can say, that you, of what Sect soever you be have taught, that it is not damnable for men not to doubt of that doctrine which they believe to be revealed; for you accuse Catholics, as blind, as perverse enemies of truth, and of many the like crimes, and in proof thereof, you say. Cap. 6. n. 72. lin. 15. My own experience assures me, that in this imputation, I do you no injury; but it is very apparent to all men, by your ranking doubting of any part of your doctrine, among mortal sins. Here you reprehend our doctrine, that to doubt deliberately of the doctrine we believe to be revealed of God, is a mortal sin, that is, damnable: for I hope your own experience assures you, that we believe our Catholic doctrine, and every part thereof to be the word of God written or unwritten. With what reason and congruence then, can you reprehend us for holding that it is a mortal sin, 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 Devil though falsely, that it is divine revelation, you are bound not to disbelieve it under pain of formal 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 believe to be revealed of God, and then I dispute thus: There can be no more certain nor stronger adherence to any doctrine, then that which is so firm, and undoubted, as the believer esteemeth it damnable, and an heinous 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 certain, equal to that men give to the principles of Metaphysicke, is required of Christians under pain of damnation, yea stronger adherence, seeing a Christian is ready, and aught to be ready, to deny the principles of Metaphysicke, rather than doubt of Christian doctrine proposed to him as God's word by perpetual Christian Tradition. Finally it is unreasonable that men should be bound under pain of damnation never to doubt of that doctrine, which is not so much as represented unto them, as undoubtedly and absolutely certain. It is a burden intolerable to maintain a thing without any staggering and doubting, which is proposed only as probable and but morally certain, against arguments which seem demonstrative and metaphysically certain, and it is a condition very dangerous for men to live under such hard or impossible laws. But God doth not require of us things unreasonable, his yoke is sweet, his burden light. Ergo, he hath provided motives which propose matters of faith, as undoubtedly and absolutely certain.   

The fifth Conviction.  
16. YOu set down the principle whereon you rely in teaching the absolute fallibility of Christian faith Pag. 
Second edition pag 314. lin. 27.  329. lin. 27. Had you made the matter of faith, either naturally or supernaturally evident, it might have been a fitly attempered and duly proportioned object, for an absolute certainty natural or supernatural. But requiring, as you do, an infallible certainty of a thing, which though it is in itself, yet is not made to appear to us to be infallibly certain, to my understanding you speak 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 faith, may very well become a contradictious Religion. Your faith then, let it be a free, necessitated; certain, uncertain; evident, obscure; prudent, and foolish; natural, and supernatural; unnatural assent. Thus you, with a Demosthenian thunder of eloquence, discharge your bolts upon our Church, without taking any pity of a poor company of only blind men, though some drops of Xantippes' rain come mingled therewith.  
17. But your misery is a poor memory; words be no sooner out of your pen, than out of your mind. Forin other places you approve this very contradictious doctrine, which here you so fluently declaim against. For though you say. Pag. 330. lin. 14. That God cannot infuse a degree of certainty into our understanding beyond the degree of the evidence he giveth us of the object; 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 unknown, obscure, and unevident etc. Can any words be invented more directly repugnant to what you said before, that assent and evidence must correspond to each other in degree; a probable assent must have an object of evident probability; a certain assent an object of evident certainty? Now you say absolutely, we may well, that is, not only possibly, but also easily assent to a thing unknown, obscure, unevident; How doth this agree with what you say, Cap. 6. n. 7. in fine. It is impossible I should believe the truth of any thing, the truth whereof cannot be made evident to me, with evidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of me. How contrary is this to what you say Cap. 2. n. 154. lin. 6. God's spirit, if he please may work more, a certainty of adherence, beyond the certainty of evidence. But neither God doth, nor may require of us etc. And cap 1. n. 9 lin. 43. The spirit of God being implored by devout and humble prayer, and sincere obedience, may and will by degrees advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adherence beyond the certainty of evidence. Thus you, most directly against what you said before, that infallible certainty of a thing not evidently certain, is impossible; that if God infuse certainty into the assent of faith, he must infuse also evidence into the object, and so make the object of faith as visible and evident, as the assent of faith is certain. Which is now the contradictious Religion?  
18. And where you say that God doth not require of men more than they can do by themselves; 
2. Edit. pag. 315. lin. 13.  and that the contrary were (you say, pag. 350. lin. 15.) as unreasonable, as to bind a man to go ten miles an hour, on an horse that will go only five, is impious, as disannulling all precepts of divine and supernatural actions. For why may not God require of a man, that is able of himself to go only five miles an hour, that he go ten, moved by his hand: binding him not to resist, but to concur with that his special moving, above the strength of natural forces? And what Christian dares deny this to be required of all Christians, to wit, that they come unto 
(a) come unto me all. Mat. 11.28.  Christ, and believe in him, which yet is the work of 
(b) This is the work of God that you believe  God,. & an act which the understanding doth not exercise; but by the special motion, and 
(c) Except my Father draw him.  attraction of Divine grace.   

The sixth Conviction.  
19 YOu affirmed in the prealleadged place of the former Conviction, that our Catholic saith is contradictious, free, necessitated; certain, uncertain; evident, obscure; prudent, foolish; natural, supernatural; unnatural assent. A declamation backed with no proof, childish fluent Rhetoric, Claudite iam rivos pueri.— I will make the same good upon yourself, and prove you do attribute in direct terms these contradictious conditions to your witty witless faith. First you make it free, necessitated. That your faith is free you say c. 6. n. 7. lin. 16. 
2. Edit. cap. 6. n. 7. lin. 16.  It is necessary to faith that the objects of it the points which we believe be not so evidently certain, as to necessitate our understanding to assent. That it is necessitated & enforced by evident reasons, you suppose cap. 1. n. 9 lin. 15. God requires of all, 
2. Edit. cap. 1. n. 9 lin. 2●.  that their faith should be proportionable to the motives enforcing to it. Behold reasons enforce, that is, necessitate you to assent and so make it a free necessitated assent. Secondly evident, obscure: Evident, because you say cap. 6. n. 7. in fine. That I should believe the truth of any thing, the truth whereof cannot be made evident to me, is impossible: Obscure, because you say, Cap. 6. n. 7. lin. 10. Well may we assent to a thing unknown, obscure, unevident. Thirdly certain, uncertain: most certain and infallible, cap. 3. n. 86. lin. 12. Use the means, 
2. Edit. cap. 3. n. ●6. lin. 12.  and pray for God's assistance, and as sure as God is true, you shall be lead into all necessary truth. Here you profess, that Christian Religion is the true necessary way to salvation; 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 profess to be (d) most undoubtedly sure, that God is true. Ergo, 
2. Edit. cap. 2. n. ●.  you are most undoubtedly sure, that Christian Religion is the true necessary way to heaven. For how can you assure others of that whereof you are not sure yourself? And if this be so, then contrary to the ground of your impious error, you here profess certainty of adherence, beyond certainty of evidence. You say you are as certain as God is true of Christian saving truth; and yet I think you will not say, that the truth of Christian Religion is as evident to your understanding, as it is evident that God is true. Your faith then in this place is most infallible; but in other places it stands upon weak legs, upon Tradition which is fallible, upon 
(e) Cap. 2. n 154 Highly credible but not infallible motives.  only probable motives. Fourthly, Prudent, foolish: Foolish because you say cap. 6. n. 10. many of yours believe a right which are not wise. And cap. 6. n. 74. in fine The imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from Divine motion. Is not this to say your Faith is prudent, foolish? Prudent, because they that follow it, go to heaven and follow therein the spirit of wisdom. Foolish, because you say they be not wise, their believing is justly 
(f) Cap. 6. n. 9 in fine.  condemned of levity and rashness 
(g) Cap. 2. n. 49. lin. 35.  a foolish and imprudent action. Fiftly, your assent is natural, unnatural. Natural, because 
(h) Preface n 12.  resolved by Logic, finally determined 
(i) Cap. 2 n. 3 in fine.  by natural reason. Unnatural because it can (against nature, against the prime rule of natural reason & discourse) stand with the contradictory assent at the same time 
(l) Pag. 215. lin. 4. & 2. Edition pag. 206. lin. 6. : your faith I say, of this truth, Christ is the eternal son of God, with your belief of this Socinian Heresy, Christ is not the eternal son of God. Is not your faith then natural, unnatural; noble; base; Catholic, heretical; reasonable, unreasonable all at once? Finally, undernaturall, supernatural: which is proved by what you writ Cap. 6. n. 62. Reason will convince any man unless he be of a perverse mind, that the Scripture is the word of God, and then no reason can be greater than this, God says so, therefore it is true. From these words I gather first, that your faith of the Scripture is undernatural, and inferior in certainty to natural reason; for you say, by natural reason the same is convincingly proved 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 proved by it: Ergo, your faiths certainty of Scripture is under natural reason, and not so sure and infallible as your reason. And yet it is also supernatural certainty because you say, no reason can be greater than this, God says so, therefore it is true. And preface n. 2. pag. 2. lin. 14. I submit all other reasons to this one, God says so, therefore it is true. Now that one reasou to which all other natural reasons yield and submit themselves, must needs be supernatural and superior in certainty to all natural reason; so that I have proved by your own plain & express words, that your Religion of Wit is contradictious, free, enforced; evident, obscure; certain, uncertain; prudent, foolish; natural, unnatural; undernatural, supernatural; whereby one may see, your assertion, that Christian faith is not certain and infallible, but only highly credible, what a main and mighty contradiction the same is, and what a world of gross absurdityes, and repugnances are involved therein.   

The seaventh Conviction.  
20. CAP. 2. n. 154. lin. 8. you give this reason why the assent of Christian faith is not certain and infallible, and why God cannot require it of Christians, because, say you, No man can give, and so cannot be required to give a greater assent to the conclusion, than the premises deserve. And Cap. 6. nu. 7. ante finem, Nothing is more repugnant than that a man should be required to give most certain credit unto that which cannot be made appear most certain credible. But c. 5. n. 8. to the contrary you writ, Of this that we are to believe Christian Religion, we are, & may be made infallibly certain. And c. 6. n. 9 Arguments so credible that though they cannot make us see what we believe, yet they evidently connince that in true wisdom and prudence the articles of it deserve credit, and aught to be accepted as things revealed of God. Thus you. And are you so dull as not to see how from these your two sayings joined together in discourse vild blasphemy may be concluded? The mysteries of Christian Religion cannot (you say) by the motives of credibility be made certain, or fit to be credited with infallible faith. But the mysteries of Christian Religion can be made credible, and fit to becredited as things revealed of God: Ergo things credible as revealed of God, are not credible with infallible faith. And consequently to things revealed of God a most certain and infallible assent is not due. Is not this to deny the infinite verity and veracity of God and his word? Hence grounding upon the contradictory I dispute in this manner. What we may & must believe as the word of God, that we may, and must believe with a most certain and infallible assent; for nothing can be more certain, and so nothing can more deserve to be undoubtedly credited then the word of God. But we are (as you say) infallibly certain, and arguments evidently convince, that we may and must believe the articles of our faith as the Word of God, or as things revealed of God. Ergo, we may, and we are bound by Christian duty to adhere to the articles of our Faith with a most certain, and infallible assent.   

The eight Conviction.  
21. IN your Preface. n. 2. you say, I am most apt, and most willing to be lead by reason, always submitting all other reasons to this one, God says it, Ergo it is so, This saying doth imply of necessity that the adherence of faith unto God's word, is more certain, then that of sense, or any knowledge grounded on reason. Because if all other reasons must yield & submit to this one reason, Gods says it, therefore it is so, than this reason, I see this with my eyes; Ergo, it is so, must yield to this, God says, it is not so, Ergo it is not so. But if the assent due to the word of God were not more certain and infallible then that of sense, the conclusion from the evidence of sense were not to yield to the conclusion from the certainty of God's word: Ergo by your own profession you are convinced to be false, in saying the adherence by faith to the word of God, is not more certain than that of sense; or else you cog 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 infer that Christians ought, & you are bound to believe, the mysteries reveased in Scripture, though they seem 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 says so, therefore it is so, then also this reason, The mysteries of the Trinity, of Hypostatical union of two natures in Christ, of the Real Presence seem manifestly impossible to my reason, therefore they are impossible; aught to yield to this reason, God saith these mysteries are possible, and certainly true; Ergo they are possible, and certainly true. You will say, that though this consequence be most certain, this is the word of God, Ergo it is most true, yet you cannot be so certain 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 proved by Tradition, which is as certain and infallible, as Scripture and evidently true and credible of itself: Ergo your belief of Scripture, that it is the word of God, is also resolved into this one reason, unto which all others must submit, and yield themselves humbly subject, God saith that these books are his word, and infallible truth; Ergo it is so, these books are his word, & infallible truth; so that Christian resolution of faith even by your own confession, resteth finally upon a reason unto which all human reason and understanding ought to submit, and captivated itself. You see how by your contradicting yourself, your errors are over thrown, and true Christianity established.   

The ninth Conviction.  
23. 
Lond. Edition pag. 340. lin. 14.  PAg. 357. lin. 3. cap. 6. n. 28. thus you writ: I certaeinly know, that I do believe the Gospel of Christ, as it is delivered in the undoubted books of canonical Scripture, as verily as that it is now day, that I see the light, that I am now writing; and I believe it upon this motive, because I conceive it sufficiently, abundantly, superabundantly proved to be divine Revelation. And yet in this I do not depend upon any succession of men, that have always believed it, without any mixture of Error. Nay, I am fully persuaded, that there hath been no such succession, and yet do not find ANY WEAKNESS in my faith, but am so fully assured of the truth of it, that though an Angel from heaven should gainsay it, or any part of it, I persuade myself I should not be moved. Thus you: many ways establishing the absolute certainty of Christian faith, and in direct terms contradicting what elsewhere you most earnestly affirm.  
24. First, you overthrow what you else where 
(m) Pag. 325. n. 3.  say, that the certainty of faith is not equal to that of sense, for now you say, that you certainly know, and that you are fully assured that you believe the truth of the Gospel, 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 believe (not that which you think to be the truth of the Gospel (for every Heretic doth so) but the true Gospel: consequently you are as sure, that what you believe is the true Gospel, as you are sure that it is light which you see at noonday; as you are sure you writ when you write. And so you profess that the certainty of your faith is equal to the greatest certainty which can be had by sense. If you say you speak this, not of ordinary Christian faith, which is rational, & grounded on reasons, but of special faith which you have from God infused into your understanding in reward of your holy life; I answer this cannot be so, because you speak expressly of your faith which stands v. 'pon the proofs of Christianity, and the motives of credibility, and of that assent which you conceive, because proved unto you abundantly by the said reasons, which is ordinary Christian faith, and so you say in this place, that any man may believe the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives.  
24. Secondly, here you affirm that Christian Religion or the Gospel is proved to be divine Revelation sufficiently, abundantly, superabundantly to bear the weight of a most certain and fully assured faith, wherein there is not ANY WEAKNESS. By which you overthrew what you say elsewhere, 
(n) Pag. 36.  that Christian faith stands upon two legs, upon two pillars, the one that whatsoever God reveals is true, which is most strong, firm, immoveable; the second, that the Gospel is revealed of God; which pillar, you say, is weak, infirm, and instable, 
(o) Pag. 112. ●. 154.  moralty certain, but not able to bear the weight of an absolute certain & infallible essent, free from all weakness.  
25. Thirdly, you say that faith built upon the foresaid motives, is so firm, and so strong, so assured as you should not (as you think) be moved, though an Angel from heaven should gainsay it, which doth manifestly contradict and destroy what you so often contend, that the assent built upon the motives of credibility, cannot be absolutely certain, no not though it were infused into the understanding from God. What you say of yourself, you should not be moved from the faith of the Gospel, though an Angel from heaven should gainsay it, how stubborn and pertinacious in error you may be against the light of your conscience I do not know: but if your faith of the Gospel be not certain 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 heaven prudently, and according to the right dictamen of conscience, this I will believe, if you can make me believe, that a Shilling-worth is as much as an Angell-worth: Otherwise what greater folly then for a mere mortal man of so weak memory and miserable discourse, as he cannot write three pages together in good sense without contradicting himself, to prefer his private seeming, his human fallible certainty, his moral probabilities, that this is God's word, before the word of an Angel, and all the arguments he can bring against it?  
26. I conclude with this demonstration for the infallibility of our Christian faith. God commandeth all Christians, and requires of them under pain of damnation to stand constant in the belief of the Gospel, even against an Angel from heaven 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 every true believing Christian a most certain, undoubted, infallible assent, and adherence to the Gospel; this command were unjust, unreasonable, and such a precept as no man prudently might observe. For it cannot be wisdom to oppose the testimony of men, and seeming probabilities of reason against the word of an Angel, against Angelical reasons and discourse. Ergo, God doth infuse and bindeth all Christians to admit a most certain, and infallible assent of the truth of the Gospel, and of Christian Religion.    

That Christian Religion and Tradition is pure and incorrupt, both in the fountain and stream. CHAP. III.  
WHAT may have been your personal intention in penning and publishing of this work, the searcher of hearts knoweth best. The end whereunto your course driveth, the mark whereat it aimeth, the work it laboureth with all might and main to bring to pass is the total overthrow of Christianity. In the first Chapter I have showed, that you resolve Christian Religion into natural reason, whereby you destroy the Divinity thereof. In the second, that you make the same to stand upon principles and motives credible but fallible, whereby you undermine the absolute certainty thereof In this third Chapter I am to show, you overthrew the truth thereof, and make the same stained with ignorance and error, not only in the whole current of Tradition from the Apostles; but also in the fountain thereof the holy Gospel, and in our Saviour and Lord Christ jesus the Author.  

The first Conviction.  
1. You thrust a mortal stab into the heart of Christian Religion through S. Augustine his side, whiles you charge his speech with palpable falsehood which is the express word of Christ. S. Austin say you ca 6. n. 14. in fine) as he was in the right in thinking, that the Church was extended further than afric, so was he in the wrong, if he thought that of necessity it always must be so: but most Palpably Mistaken in conceiving, that it was then spread over the whole earth, and known to all nations; which, if passion did not trouble you, and make you forget, how lately almost half of the world was discovered, and in what state it was then found, you would very easily see, and confess. Thus you. Unto whom I say what the same S. Augustine said 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 soon would you reclaim yourself, did you fear to believe in heart, what you fear to say in words. For although you dare not openly profess with the Samosatenians, yet you dare believe that Christ jesus is a mere man, that he was ignorant, that there were any such people as Americans in the world, and so out of ignorance uttered a palpable falsehood, when he said, 
Luc. 24.47.  that his Apostles should preach penance in his name unto all Nations: that they should be witnesses unto him, not only in jerusalem, jewry, & Samaria, but also unto thee ut most of the world. Hereby he induced the Evangelists to mistake, 
Mar. vlt.  and falsely say, that the Apostles going preached Every Where, our Lord working with them, and confirming the word by signs that followed. And S. Paul; 
Rom. 〈◊〉 18.  that the Apostolical Preaching was spread into all Lands, and their words unto the ends of the world. If I say, S. Augustins saying, that the Church was spread over all Nations in his days, be a palpable falsehood, because it was not then in America; then the prophecies of our Lord, that his Apostles should spread his name, and plant Christianity in all Nations, as also the testimony of the Gospel, that this was performed by the Apostles, were also manifest mistakes; and if the Gospel be mistaken in one point through ignorance in the Author thereof, we can be certain of nothing.  
2. For if one confess, that our Saviour was true God and knew all things, and that there were Americans at that time, he must say, that either our Lord willingly spoke an untruth, in saying the Apostles should preach to all nations, & so by admitting on lie to be in one saying of the Gospel, 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 days of the Apostles, how can you tell they were not also in the days of S. Austin?) or finally he must confess the truth, that this speech of the Gospel, that the Church was every where, and in all nations, was a most certain, and infallible truth, even when the Americans: were not Christians, nor had heard of Christ. But this you deny and call it a palpable falsehood so clear, as every man not blinded with passion doth now perceive the falsehood thereof. Ergo you deny the Gospel, which you grant to be the word of God, and consequently you are a formal Heretic, 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 profess against, saying you would not be moved from the truth of the Gospel or any part of it, even by the preaching of an Angel from heaven. So that your last refuge must be ro confess, that to call S. Augustine's speech, which is the express word of Christ, a palpable falsehood, you were persuaded not by an Angel from Heaven, but by the spirit of error, which makes you hate subjection to the one universal visible Church.   

The second Conviction.  
3. You do not undermine, but openly dig up the Foundations of Christianity by teaching, that the Apostles through ignorance, oversight, or partiality erred in matters of Religion which they were bound to know; Erred I say, and the whole Church with them, even after the coming of the holy Ghost, for thus you writ c. 3. n. 31. That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the holy Ghost, were, & through inaduertence, or prejudice, continued for a time in an error, it is (as I have already noted) unansverably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles. Thus you, & you avouch the same cap. 3. n 21. But in direct contradiction of this, you say cap. 3. n. 74. lin. 14. about the perpetual 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 ever. It signify, say you, not eternally without end of time, but PERPETVALLY without interruption during the time of their lives: So that the force and fence of the words is, that they should never want the Spirits assistance in the performance of their function. If the holy Ghost leading them into all truth did after his coming perpetually without interruption during the time of their lives stay with them always assisting them, & teaching them all truth; how can it be true, that even after the sending of the holy Ghost they were lead into error, and continued therein for as TIME, through inaduertence or prejudice? An error so plain and manifest against the word of God, and which they could not fall into without they were stupid, seeing the very gift of speaking the tongues of all nations, which they received together with the holy Ghost, still continued with them. Were they so dull and heavy-hearted even after they had received the holy Ghost, as not to understand, that by the gift of Tongues they were declared, and made preachers of Christ unto all nations under the cope of heaven?  
4. What you say that they erred and continued in error through inaduertence, and prejudice, you contradict else where; saying cap. 2. n. 155. that the Apostles in their persons while they were living were the only judges of Controversies. And, c. 2. n. 17 you say, In matters of Religion none are fit to be judges, but such as are infallible. And cap. 4. n. 88 lin. 20. It is necessary for the constitution of infallible judges, that though they neglect the means of avoiding error, yet certainly they shall not err. Now can you put these propositions together in discourse? The Apostles were, whiles they were living, the infallible guides & judges of faith so made and ordained by the coming down of the holy Ghost upon them: judges and guides infallible certainly shall not err, though they through inaduertence or prejudice neglect the means of avoiding error: Ergo the Apostles certainly did not err, nor deliver error through negligence, inaduertence or prejudice. 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 into all truth sufficienter. So that the Apostles and the Church may be fifthly compared to the Star, and the Wisemen. The Star was directed by the fingar of God, and could not but go right to the place where Christ was. But the Wisemen were lead by the star 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 conceit 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 upon condition if they were not negligent, and if they kept their station. And. cap. 3. n. 77. Our Saviour said to his disciples, Yea 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 have been so of necessity, & could not have been otherwise, in vain had he put them in fear of that which follows; If the salt lose the savour, wherewith shall it be salted? Behold how you falter: before they were lead into all truth of necessity, efficaciter, irresistibiliter; now not infallibly, not of necessity, they were in possibility to err. Neither yet do you take up your standing here; 
(a) Cap. 6. n. 〈◊〉.  you run into the contrary extreme, that the Apostles, could not lose the savour of sanctity, or charity and truth, because it is certain they could not have any worldly or sinister intention in their preaching. And then again to the contrary, cap. 2. n. 93. This were to cross the end of our creation, which was to be glorified by free obedience. To conclude (for I am weary with the following of your lightheaded guide fetching frisks every way) you jump at last upon a truth, the direct contradiction of that you said of the Apostles erring for a time about the Church's Universality. For you say cap. 6. n. 14. The Apostles who preached the Gospel in the beginning, did believe the Church universal, though their preaching in the beginning was not so. They did believe the Church universal, even in your sense, that is, universal de iure, though not de facto. Thus you. Now this proposition; The Apostles even in the beginning, before their preaching was universal, when they preached to jews only, did believe the Church universal de iure, by divine law; is it not a direct contradiction of this; The Apostles in the beginning before their preaching was universal, did not believe the Church universal de iure, by divine law; yea they erred thinking it was against the divine law to preach universally, or to any but jews? It is well that your wit, the guide of your faith, doth profess that it can believe contradictions at once, this Heresy, and this Truth, otherwise it could not be the guide of that Religion you maintain in your book.   

The third Conviction.  
6. FRom the Apostles you pass to the second age after Christ, accusing the universal Tradition of that Primitive Church as stained universally with impure and corrupt doctrine. Cap. 5. n. 91. lin. 41. seeking to answer what Charity Maintained objects, that sundry Protestants acknowledge many of our doctrines to be taught by the ancient Fathers, you say, No antiquity, except it be absolute and primitive, is a certain sign of true doctrine. For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption (as we pretend it was) who can possibly warrant us, that part of this corruption might not get in, and prevail in the 5. or 4 or 3. or 2. age? Especially seeing the Apostles assure us that the mystery of iniquity was working, though secretly, even in their times. If any man ask, how could it become universal in so short a time? let him tell me how the error of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of Infants, became so soon universal, and then he shall acknowledge what was done in some, was possible in others. Thus you. Which you repeat, and inculcate, more than forty 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 own head, for the Angel of God shall divide thee with a sword in the mids, and do thee away. You are false against the spouse of Christ, the holy primitive Church, as that witness was against Susanna; and the same punishment of division, and contradiction against yourself is by God's just sentence fallen on your head.  
7. You are false in saying, so many times, that the doctrine of the Millenaries (to wit of Christ's earthly Kingdom in the earthly jerusalem, full of all earthly felicity for a thousand years) was delivered, as you say, pag. 347. lin. 24. as an Apostolical Tradition; that it was universally received, taught by all the Doctors, and Saints, and Martyrs, of, or about that time, whose judgement in this point is any way recorded. This to be false is proved by your falsification of S. justine Martyr, whom you make say, that all good and orthodox Christians in his time believed it, and only heretics denied it: for his words are, I, and the Christians who are rightly persuaded in all things, believe the Resurrection of the bodies, & a thousands years in the new jerusalem. It is true, all good Christians believe the Resurrection of the body (which you skip over, because Socinians do not believe it in the Christian sense) and a thousand years of felicity in the new jerusalem, in heaven not upon earth. Yea S. justine in that place doth plainly confess that, Many 
(q) Multos qui purae piaeque sunt Chriistianorum sententiae, hoc non agnoscere tibi significan●.  who are of the pure, and pions Christian faith, did hold against this conceit of Christ's earthly Kingdom.  
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 witness produced in this cause, being short of this sense, as Vasquez 
(r) Tom. 3. in 3. p. Disput. 212. c. 2. n. 13.  showeth: S. Cyprian 
(s) Serm. delapsis.  is the first that mentioned this custom to communicate sucking Infants under one kind, to wit, giving them to 
(t) Paruulis saltem sub specie vini tradatur.  drink of the Chalice, which custom was good & lawful, as all Catholics defend 
(u) Concil. Trid. sess. 21 c. 4.  It is clear that Pope Innocentius with 
(w) Nisi manducaverint carnem cius non habebunt vitam, significat Baptizatos vitam habere non posse praeter Christi corpus cui ut 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. Austin and other Fathers disputing against Pelagius, who denied Original sin, and taught that Children were saved dying without Baptism, did by the eating of the body of Christ, and drinking his blood necessary for Infants, understand no more than incorporation into the mystical body of Christ, which was done by Baptism. And this was in Infants to eat the body of Christ, and drink his blood, not with their own 
(x) Quamuis suo cord & ore id non agant. August. de peccat. merit & remiss. lib▪ 1. c. 20.  mouth, but by the mouth of the body whereof they are members, to wit of the Church.  
9 I have cleared the Catholic primitive Church, & shown her innocent of your slanders, now I come to the second, that mentitus es in caput tuum, your own false accusations light upon your own head, that by your depositions you are proved more impudent than impudencieit self. For c. 2. n. 163. in fine you say, That it is evident, and to impudence itself undentable, that upon this ground of believing all things taught by the present Church, as taught by Christ, Error was held. For example, the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants, and that by S. Austen himself, and therefore certain this is no certain ground of truth. Thus you. Now what you here prononce undeniable by impudence itself, yourself deny contending that S. Austin held the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants upon the warrant of the Tradition of all ages since the Apostles, which is a proof distinct from the doctrine and practice of the present universal 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 deviate from the ancient. Now that S. Austen did ground upon the credit of Tradition Apostolical, or of all ages, you say, cap. 3. n. 47. in fine. The practise of communicating Infants had even then, in the time of S. Augustine, got the credit and authority, not only of Universal custom, but also of an Apostolic Tradition. Behold the necessity of Communicating Infants is held by S. Augustine upon the warrant not of the present Church, but of the Church of all ages and places, which you, even in that very place allow to be a good warrant. Yea you affirm that S. Augustine in thinking the necessity of giving the Eucharist to Infants to be a Tradition of all ages since the Apostles to his time was not deceived, saying pag. 152. lin. 32. The doctrines of the Millenaries, and the Eucharist necessity for Infants have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages (you mean the. 2.3.4.5.) without any 
(y) A manifest falsehood They were contradicted by Dion. Areop. de Eccles. Hierar. c. 7. By Clem. Alex. 3. Strom. in the second age By Caius. S. Cyprian, Dionies. Alexan. Euseb. in the 3.  opposition from any of their contemporaries, and were delivered by them, not as Doctors, but as Witnesses, not as their own 
(z) Another impudent falsehood For they delivered their Millenary doctrine as an exposition of Mille Anni of the Apocalyps c. 20. v. 3.  Opinions, but as Apostolic Traditions. Thus you. Who now is more impudent, than impudence itself? Do not you deny S. Augustine's persuasion of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants to have been grounded on the bare universal custom of the present Church? And yet it is also false, that S. Austin grounded the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants on the custom of the present Church, or on the Tradition of all ages. For though there were an universal perpetual custom of communicating Infants; yet that doth not enforce that it was a thing necessary, but only lawful and godly, because all universal customs used in the primitive Church, were not necessary, but pious; S. Austin then his persuasion, that the eating of the body of Christ was necessary for Infants, he did build on the Scripture only, & the evidence thereof upon this text, 
(a) joan. 6.36.  Except you eat the flesh, and drink the blooud of the Son of man, you shall not have life in your, which testimony he termeth 
(b) De peccat. merit & remiss. lib. 1. c. 20. Nisi pertinacia pugnaces neruos adversus constantiamperspicuae veriati● intendat.  divinâ luce clarissimum, divinâ auctoritate certissimum so clear as it cannot be resisted but by pertinacity itself.  
10. You contradict yourself so fare as to prove yourself to be a formal Heretic against God and his Word: For you say, 
(c) cap. 1. n. 13. cap. 4. n. 11.  it is most impious for one to deny that to be true, which he knows, or believes to be God's word; In so much that if one be persuaded, though falsely, even by the Devil himself, that it is the word of God, if he disbelieve it, you say, he is 
(d) cap. 2. n. 122.  a formal Heretic. But you profess yourself not only persuaded, but convinced, not by the Devil's discourse, but by the 
(e) cap. 2. n. 25.  evident credibility of the thing, that universal Tradition since the Apostles is the word of God unwritten, as certain and infallible as Scripture, 
(f) cap. 3. n. 45.  the rule of faith to judge all controversies by. And yet you say, that this Tradition, this word of God unwritten, is fallible, yea false, and erroneous in some particulars. Can you have professed greater impiety, or more formal enmity against God and his word?  
11. Thirdly, by your contradictions and divisions against yourself, you divide yourself from Christ & salvation. cap. 6. n. 1. you say, that it is most absolutely, & indispensablely destructive of salvation to deny jesus to be the Christ, or the Scripture to be the word of God. But you are convinced by your own words, to do this, by charging with fallibility and falsehood even the Tradition of the primitive Church of the very first age since the Apostles. For you confess that the Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God, by the divinity & light of the matter, nor by any Apostolical writing, but by tradition, c. 2. n. 8. lin. 9 and cap. 2. n. 27. lin. 33. ONLY by the testimony of the ancient Church. Now if the only means to know that the Scripture is the word of God, be the testimony of the anccient Church, and of the primitive Christians, if you make (as you do) their testimony to be fallible, obnoxious to error, and in many things false, you make all assurance of this necessary point, that the Scripture is the word of God, impossible. You contend our Catholic Roman Church to be fallible, and to have 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 upon the judgement of the next man I meet, or upon the chance of a Lottery for it. For by this means I only know I might err, but relying on your Church, I know I should err. Thus you of the Roman church, which agrees to Tradition universal of the primitive Christians: for if it be, as you say it is, fallible, we cannot be possibly warranted that it doth not give quid for quo, a scorpion for an egg, an error in steed of Apostolical doctrine: for she hath done so, you say, in some other universal Traditions, and what was done in some, was possible in others. The primitive Church (as you contend) did by universal Tradition, and full consent deliver the doctrine of the Millenaries, and of the Communion of Infants for Apostolical, which you say be errors, and so it may be that the same consent of primitive Christians hath delivered unto us the Gospel of S. Luke, and of S. Mark, as approved by 
(g) Cap. 1. n. 7. Wrote indeed by some but approved by all.  all the Apostles, though there were never any such thing; nor have we any possible means to know whether herein we be deceived or no. You say cap. 2. n. 93. lin. 11. It was necessary that by his providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernible corruption in those things he would have known, otherwise they could not have been known, the only means of continuing the knowledge of them being perished. Now the only means to know which Scriptures be the word of God, and rule of saith is (as you confess) the testimony of the ancient Churches since the Apostles, and yet you say, God hath not preserved the same from undiscernible corruption; for the Church hath been corrupt in some of her universal Traditions from the Apostles: so that there is no means 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 have no warrant that the canon of Scripture is not corrupt universal Tradition of the Church since the Apostles. You see that I said true, that by being a false witness against the incorrupt purity of the Primitive Church, you have been false against your own Salvation, and have lost all means to be assured of Saving faith.   

The fourth Conviction.  
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 days of S. Austin, 
(h) Pag. 155. lin. 20. cap. 3. n. 47. Second Edition pag. 149. & 150.  the Catholic Church itself did tolerate, and dissemble vain superstitions, and human presumptions, suffer all places to be full of them, suffer them to be more severely exacted then the Commandments of God, 
(i) Pag. 156. lin. 1:  doing therein directly against the command of the holy Ghost; 
(k) Ibid. lin. 11.  permitting the divine precepts every where to be laid aside; so that these superstitious Christians every where might be said to worship God in vain, as well as Scribes & Pharises. Great variety of superstitions in this Kind were then already spread over the Church, being different in diverse places. That 
(m) Pag. 156. li. 36.  this universal superstition in the Church, nourished, cherished, strengthened by the practice of the most, and urged with great violence upon others as the Commandments of God might in time take deep root, and pass for universal custom of the Church, and an Apostolic Tradition, he that doth not see, sees nothing. Finally, that in S. Augustine's days the Church did not tolerate only such superstitions, (for but a part only, and fare the lesser did tolerate them in silence) but the Church or the fare greater part publicly allowed them, practised them, and urged them upon others with great violence etc.  
13. Thus you writ, and make the face of the Church in S. Austin's days to have been most miserable, full of superstition, in which not so much as one could be saved, but by repentance, and leaving their superstitions, which they never did. But, as it is your fury against God's Church to utter whatsoever comes into your mind to her disgrace, without any care of truth, so your folly is to forget presently what you have said and speak the contrary. For Cap. 6. n. 101. lin. 12. you say, that in S. Austin's time the public service, wherein men are to communicate was impolluted, and no unlawful thing practised in their Communion; which was so true as even 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 have studied to contradict your slander against the Church of S. Augustins time, could he have done it more directly? The Church being then, as you say it was, in her communion and divine service, an impolluted virgin, how can it stand with what you said before, that Christians in all places were urged with great violence to communicate in superstitions, and vain worships, and to lay the commandments of God aside? Again, you clear the Church of that age cap. 6. n. 101. versus finem. The Donatists (in S. Augustine's time) were separated from the whole world of Christians united in one communion, professing the same faith, serving God after the same manner, which was a great argument, they could not have cause to leave 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 unanswerable argument that you err and wander from the truth? Now, you say, there was then every where the same faith, the same communion, one manner of serving and worshipping God, without any variety of superstitions, and errors; whereas before you said, that in S. Augustine's days, all places were full of vain superstitions, vain worships, with great variety of them, spread over the Church being different in diverse places, urged with great severity, and violence. How different are you from yourself in diverse places? To bring in your new Religion of the Bible, and only the Bible, you accuse the Ancient Fathers, that they are with full consent, opposite one to another, ages against ages; but in your so wisely chosen Religion, there is such a perpetual fight that there is more difference betwixt two of your pages, then betwixt all Christian ages.  
14. I must note in this place (to answer a silly calumniation against our Church, the only argument in your Book that may trouble an ignorant Reader, because it requires some little historical erudition to confute it) that though you feign the Church in the days of S. Augustine full of great variety of superstitions, yet you say, that the Donatists did falsely calumniate Catholics, that they did set Images upon their Altars, and 
(n) Cap. 6. n. 101.  S. Austin doth not justify the Church, saying, as we would have done in that case, Those pictures were worshipped not for their own sake, but for them who were represented by them, but doth abhor 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 Rhetorical figure calls it (I know not what:) but (say you) compare him with Optatus, and you shall plainly perceive, that this, I know not what, pretended to be set upon 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 Catholics for setting up all kind of pictures in the Church, or upon the Altar, but for a picture. I will not stand to note and show 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 whom, to wit of Constans the Emperor, Son to Constantine the Great. This most pious Christian Emperor (as Optatus relates) sent two chief noble men of his Court Paulus and Macarius eminent for Christian piety and wisdom in ambassage into Africa, with 
(o) Cum elee mosynis, quibus sublevata per Ecclesias singulas, possit respirare, vestiti, pasci gaudere paupertas.  great liberalities to bestow on poor Christians, Donatists especially, hoping by this courtesy, to win their hearts unto unity with the Church. The Bishops of the Donatists fearing the success of this Imperial liberality, did mightily malign the two Noblemen, especially Macarius, whom they sometimes assaulted in his journeys, 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 slain, they presently proclaimed them Martyrs, 
(p) Aug. contr. litter as Pitil. l. 2. c. 39  Macarius a Persecutor, a Pagan, and called Catholics Macarians of him. Amongst other tales and slanders they gave out, that 
(q) Falsa opinio omnium populorum aures oppleverat Dice batur enim venturos Paulum & Macarium, qui interessent sacrificio, ut cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur preferrent illi imaginem & sic Sacrificium 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, used to set up the image of the Emperor, on the Altar, and that before it sacrifice was offered, and the oblations of the people made: whereof the Reader may be more fully informed in Baronius Anno 348. Behold the best argument & erudition of your Book, what a poor snake it is being brought to light out of the lurking hole of your dark and dimidiate narration of the fact.   

The fifth Conviction.  
15. YOu often affirm that the whole Church cannot utterlyperish, nor lose its Essence and Being. cap. 3. n. 78. You know we grant, & must grant that the Church still holds all necessary truths; for it is of the essence of the Church to do so. But pag. 347. l. 21. You faith the contrary The Roman Church in particular was forewarned, that she also, nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they looked not to there standing. Pag. 338. lin. 11. speaking against the privilege of infallibility of the Roman Church, Me thinks (you say) S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their privilege to them, bade he acknowledged, that their saith was the rule for all the world for ever. But then sure he would have forborn to put them in fear, that they, nay the whole Church of the Gentiles, if they did not look to their standing, might fall away to infidelity, as the jews had done. Cop. 3. n. 30. in fine. It is in the power of she Church to deviate from this Rule, being nothing else but an aggregation of men, of which every one has free will, & is subject to passion and error. This your reason convinceth, if your supposition be true, to wit, that the Church is NOTHING else but mere men left to their ntture having freewill, subject to passion and error. But for my part I did ever and shall still believe, that no true Christian will be so profane, as to think that in the Church there is freewill without divine grace; nothing but nature subject to passion and error, without the spirit of God guiding them into all truth; the Church being the mystical Body animated with his spirit, which she shall never abandon.  
16. Nor doth S. Paul fright the whole Church of Rome, much less the whole Church of the Gentiles with possibility of falling away into Infidelity, but says in the singular number 
(r) Rom. 11.  thou standest by faith, be not high minded, but fear, to show that he speaketh of every single Christian, that he may fall away from the faith; on the other side, he saith in the plural number 
(s) Rom. 1.4.  Your faith is declared in the whole world: which words the Fathers 
(t) Hieron. Apolog adversely. Ruf. Scito Romanam fidem huiusmodi praestigias non recipere, & Pauliauthoritate munitam, non posse mutari.  understand to signify, that the faith of the Romans shall ever be an infallible rule of Faith to the rest of the Christian Church. But more clearly afterward in the end of his epistle; 
(u) Rom. 16.17.  Note such as make dissensions against the doctrine you have received: signifying that the Church of Rome hath the office to note & censure all Heretics, that shall raise discord in the Church against the Roman Tradition of faith. And incontinently he showeth the privilege of Divine effications assistance not to err in this office, saying, And the God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet with speed. What is this, but the God of peace hath made the Church of Rome the head and root of peace and unity (as 
(x) Radicem & matricem Eeclesiae Catholicae. Cyp Ep. 45.  the Fathers term it) to the rest of the Church, to crush Satan, that is (saith Origen) every contradictious spirit that teacheth against the doctrine of Tradition, under their feet? Which speech hath no small allusion to the Reverence used by Catholic Christians to the feet of S. Peter's Successor. If you had any text in Scripture but half as clear against the infallible authority of the Roman Church and Bishop, as this is for it, your triumphing vociferations that the text is clear as the sun, would hardly be contained under the cope of heaven. This appeareth by your urging the place, Be not high minded, but fear, as threatening the whole Church of Rome with possibility of falling from Christ; which, seeing you could not do without involuing in the same damnation and defectibility the whole Church of the Gentiles, you profess the whole Church of God may fall away into Infidelity against the promises of Christ, 
(z) Infra c. 7. conu. 9  yea against what yourself affirm an hundred times.    

That scripture is not the only Means, or Rule to know all necessary truths: or that all necessary things are not evidently contained in Scripture. CHAP. FOUR  
1. IN this Chapter I lay the axe to the root of your unfruitful tree covered with green leaves of assertions without any branch or bow of strong proof I dig up the ruinous foundation of your babilonical building of confused language full of doctrines different, yea opposite the one to the other; I shall demonstrate that you mistake the Protestant sense of this their principle, The Scripture is the only Rule, o●, All necessary points of faith are clearly contained in Scripture; that you understand not the state of the Controversy betwixt us and them about Tradition unwritten; that you run headlong on with this principle in your mouth without any bit of true sense, or Christian belief, stumbling against all the Articles of Christianity, whereby you get many new noble victories over yourself, by falling down in flat contradiction upon yourself.  
2. To understand this we must observe, that a thing may be contained most clearly to the seeming in some text of Scripture taken singly by itself, which yet if places of Scripture be conferred, and all things considered, is but darkly and doubtfully delivered therein. For example, by the saying of S. Luke, that joseph the husband of the Virgin Mary, was the Son of Hely; it seems most clear and evident that Hely was his true and natural father; neither would any Christian have doubted thereof, had not S. Matthew written that jacob begat joseph the husband of Mary; so that the two texts, which taken by themselselues seem most clear, being conferred together, do mutually darken & obscure each other. This truth supposed the doctrine of Protestants about the question, whether all points of necessary faith be contained in Scripture, consists in two assertions, in the one they agree, in the other they disagree from us.  
3. First they teach that all necessary things of Faith are not contained clearly in Scripture understood by conference of places, but for the clearing of ambiguytyes, the Rule of faith delivered by Tradition is necessary; which Rule comprehends all points of faith which have been always notoriously known, and explicitly believed of all Christians. Thus fare they and we consent. There is 
(y) D. field of the Church lib. 4. c. 16. item. c. 14.  saith D. Field) betwixt our Adversaries and us, no difference in this matter; for we confess, that neither conference of places, nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia, nor looking into the Originals ARE OF ANY FORCE, unless we find the things we conceive to be understood, and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of faith etc. neither is there any of our Divines that teach otherwise. Thus he.  
4. Secondly, Protestants teach that all necessary points of faith are clearly contained in Scripture, in some text or texts of Scripture clear and conspicuous, taken by themselves; so that though we need the rule of Tradition, that we may assuredly understand the Scriptures conferred together, yet not to deliver unto us some necessary matters of faith 
(z) D. Field. lib. 4. c. 14. We do not so make Scripture the rule of our faith, as we neglect the other (of Tradition:) nor so admit the other as to detractany thing from the plenitude of Scripture, in which all things are contained that must be believed.  which are no ways delivered in Scripture. Herein there is some disagreement betwixt them and us, because we hold that some verities of necessary belief cannot be proved by any text of Scripture, sufficiently to be a matter of faith, by that sole proof without the help of Tradition. Now you agree neither with Protestants nor with us: you maintain that all necessary things are evidently certain in Scripture, expounded by conference of places without any rule of Traditive interpretation; yea you contend that no such rule is extant. This you do not as Protestants do, to establish the total sufficiency & clarity of Scriptures about the received articles of Christian faith, but to overthrew totally all explicit belief of any Christian mystery whatsoever, as by the ensuing Conviction of your error from your own sayings will manifestly appear. For whiles you endeavour to spread this Infidelity covertly under the mask of a Protestant, or of a Christian, for want of consideration, memory and wit, you every where contradict yourself; affirm, and deny; say, and unsay; build, and unbuild.  

The first Conviction.  
5. THus you writ cap. 2. n. 159. lin. 9 The books of Scripture are not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine, as requisite to the well being thereof: men may be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God, much more without believing it to be a rule and perfect rule of faith. And cap. 2. n. 33. lin. 7. If men aid believe the doctrine contained in Scripture it would no way hinder their salvation not to know, whether there were any Scripture, or no. Those barbarous nations S. Irenaeus speaks of were in this case; yet no doubt they might be saved. Yea, say 
(b) Cap. 2. n. 159. lin. 20.  you, though they had rejected the books of Scripture proposed unto them by all the rest of the Church which received them, I do not doubt but they might be saved, God requiring of us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verityes therein contained, and not the divine authority of the books wherein they are contained. Thus you, destroying your Principle, that Scripture is the only rule, and the only safe way to heaven, as I prove by three arguments, from these words which indeed are evident truths. The first argument: Christian faith cannot be ruled and guided to salvation, and attain to heaven without the only rule, without the only guide, without the only means. No man in his wits can deny this: Now you say, men may attain by faith unto salvation without Scripture, though they be wholly ignorant of Scripture (as you truly say with us) yea though they actually reject Scripture, and refuse to be ruled by it, though the same be proposed to them by the whole Church (as you say without us, and truth:) Ergo, Scripture is not the only rule, and means of Salvation.  
6. Hence you contradict yourself, when you say. To 
(c) Cap. 6. n. 19  reject Christ, or to deny the Scripture is such an heresy, the belief of whose contrary is necessary, not only necessitate praecepti, sed medij; and therefore is so absolutely destructive of salvation, that no ignorance can excuse it, so that the Church may most truly be said to perish, if she Apostate from Christ absolutely, or directly reject the Scripture; denying it to be the word of God. Thus you: so conrradicting you self, that if what here you writ so absolutely be true, your doctrine, that men wholly ignorant of Scripture, yea though they reject and deny it to be God's word, may be saved, is not only heresy damnable in itself, but also Heresy Apostatical, so absolutely, and indispensably destructive of salvation, as no ignorance can excuse it. You are a fit man to teach others the safe way of salvation, who by your own words are convinced to run a way absolutely destructive of salvation.  
7. The second argument. If the divine authority of the Scripture be the only rule and guide of faith, than it is so appointed of God, and God requireth of men, that they should believe Scripture to be their rule as being his infallible word, & his only doctrine. But you say, God requires not, that men believe the divine Authority of Scripture, yea they may reject this light and the direction thereof, without doing against any divine ordinance, or appointment: How then is Scripture the only rule of faith, the only means and way to salvation? except you will say it is the rule appointed not of God, but by yourself, & the deep wisdom of your excellent wit. We shall doubtless be well guided, and besure not so miss, if we follow you for our guide: you will teach us to go every way, yea contrary ways at once, to believe contradictions at the same tyme. Consider, I pray you, this your saying now refuted, how contrary the same is to what you writ cap. 6. n. 54. in fine, where you set down the total Sum of your new chosen Religion. I am fully assured, that God does not, and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man, but this; To believe the Scripture to be the word of God; to endeavour to find the true sense thereof; and to live according to it.— Quo te Maeripedes? Quae te via ducet ad Orcum? You go contrary ways, yet both be damnable errors, and lead directly to Hell. One way to damnation is, believing that God doth require nothing else, no more then, that we believe the Scripture to be his word, not the verityes contained therein, but only that we endeavour to find them. This way you take, and it is your 
(d) Cap. 6. n. 57 I am verily persuaded that I have wisely chosen after a long deliberation.  new wise choice, the only 
(e) After a long unpartial search I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only.  rock of rest for the sole of your foot, wearied with a long search of the true way to eternal happiness. You have indeed found rest, not for the foot of your soul, but for the sole of your foot; because your Religion newly chosen hath no footing in your soul, but only Ventosâ linguâ, pedibusque fugacibus.— Hence your sole in your foot wearied to stand long upon any persuasion, flies from this way, God requires of us, that we believe the Scripture to be his word, and no more, to the plain contrary, That God requires of us that we believe the verityes contained in Scripture, not the divine 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. Poor wearied, commiserable creature! One of those wavering babes tossed this way and that way with every gust of different fancies. Behold the only rock of rest for Christian faith is offered you in your own words, you have it if you know what you say, if you will not stand over by proud ignorance, but understand, or stand with humble belief, under this your own saying, Scripture is not so much of the being of Christian Doctrine, as requisite to the well being thereof. For on this Catholic saying of invincible truth, I ground my third argument, and by it prove, that not so much the being written in Scripture, as the Being taught by the Church, is the rule to know which is the Christian Doctrine, and to believe it. For the Being proposed and taught externally is requisite not to the well being only, but to the very being of Christian Doctrine; because it cannot be credible, and fit to be believed of Christian men, except it be externally proposed and taught them to be of God by some credible witness. But the Being taught, which is so much of the being of Christian Doctrine, is not the being taught in Scripture: For this is requisite but to the well being thereof, 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 believed, and this can be no other but the Being taught by the Church of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth. So that the rock, the solid, firm, substantial reason of believing Christian Doctrine, is the Being taught by the Church; and the Being written in Scripture is requisite ad melius esse, to the well being thereof, because we believe 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 absolutely necessary to the constitution of Christian Doctrine. Behold what is contained in your words: Hoc fac & vives; hic sta & quiesces: follow the counsel of S. Austin 
(f) Si iam satis tibi ia ctatus videris, finemque huiusmodi laboribus vis imponere, sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae, quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit. de util. The cred. c. 8.  which I I have noted for you in the margin, and abandon that sandy bank, an imaginary rock, the Scripture is the only rule of faith, from which you are carried away into a sea of inconstant swelling fancies, which fight together like waves to the dissolution of each other.   

The second Conviction.  
9 THis Conviction I ground upon this truth● that Scripture cannot prove itself to be the word of God: which truth you deliver ca 2. n. 46. That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from itself alone, but by some extrinsical authority you need not prove: for no wise man denies it. But then, this authority is that of universal Tradition, not of your Church. From this truth by you granted, I thus argue: That cannot be the only rule, or by itself alone a rule of faith, with is not of itself able to prove and show that which it contains to be the word of God. For the matter of Christian Faith being the word of God only, that which cannot show itself to be the word of God, cannot show itself to be matter of Christian faith. But Scripture alone by itself, cannot prove itself, nor consequently the doctrine it contains to be the word of God, but to this end needeth the extrinsecall Authority of Tradition. Therefore not Scripture alone, but Scripture joined with the extrinsecall authority of Tradition is the rule of faith.  
10. This defect of Scripture, in respect of being the only rule, or by itself alone any rule of faith, you lay open, cap. 2. n. 8. lin. 7. Though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of faith by its own saying so (for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a book) but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of itself: yet it may be so in itself. Thus you. I would gladly know, how can Scripture be the only rule of faith, or by itself any rule of faith, if nothing be proved true, nothing showed to be the word of God barely by being written therein, but only by the light of Tradition, joined unto Scripture?  
11. Hence I infer, if Scripture by itself without Tradition cannot be a rule of Faith, nor show any doctrine to be of God; how much less can it be a rule of faith against the universal 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 Master in Physic or the Mathematics, I may learn those rules and principles by which I may confute his erroneous Conclusions. Thus you, who verily are such a master you speak of. For you deliver rules and principles by which you may be confuted yourself. For do not you often inculcate this Principle, that the Scripture is known to be the word of God only by Tradition, only by the testimony of the ancient Churches? If then you prove by Scripture any Tradition of the ancient Church, to be against Scripture, you shall not prove that Tradition of the Church to be against the word of God; but that you have no sure ground to believe the Scripture to be of God: and that you were unwise to believe it upon the warrant of Tradition, as you say you do. For the rule which may be false in one thing, cannot be a sure ground of belief in any thing. May I learn this lesson of my good Master your book, which being your scholar, hath taught me many rules and principles by which I might confute his master? Pag. ●5. lin. 23. The means to decide Controversies in Faith and Religion must be endued with universal infallibility, in whatsoever it propoundeth as a divine truth: For if it may be false in one thing of this nature, we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful assent in any thing. Thus you Wherefore if Tradition be not endued with universal infallibility, if it may be false in any one thing it proposeth for divine truth, it cannot be believed with firm assent in any thing at all. Now the principles of Physic or Mathematics are believed because evident of themselves and not upon the bare word, tradition, and authority of the master. For a scholar if he be not assured of those rules & principles, otherwise then by the word of his master, cannot by the authority of these rules and principles prove any thing against his master, but only against himself, that he is a fool, either in believing these rules upon his Master's bare word, or else in thinking he can by those rules convince his master of falsehood. In like sort you show small judgement & discretion, who persuade yourself you are able to prove some Church-tradition to be against the word of God by Scripture, which Scripture you believe to be the word of God only upon the warrant of universal Church Tradition, for this is a thing impossible and implicatory, as any considering man will see: wherefore not only Scripture, but Scripture joined with Tradition is a rule of Faith, & consequently it is not possible to confute any Church-Tradition by Scripture.   

The third Conviction.  
12. THis conviction is grounded on this truth, that unlearned men cannot be assured they have the incorrupt text, or the true Translation of Scripture, but only by the word of the Church. This you affirm pag. 79. lin. 7. 
2. Edit. pag. 75. lin. 36.  It were altogether as abhorrent from the goodness of God, and repugnant to it, to suffer an ignorant lay man's soul to perish, merely for being misled by an indiscernible false Translation, which yet was commended unto him by the Church, which (being of necessity to credit some in this matter) he hath reason to rely upon, either above all other, or as much as any other; as it is to damn a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired absolution. Thus you, from which I convince two things: First, that the Scripture is not the rule: Secondly that the Church must of necessity be still visible and infallible in guiding men to heaven. The first I prove in this fort. The only rule of faith must be for the capacity of all men aswell unlearned as learned, simple as judicious, occupied in worldly affairs 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 substantial matter. But Scripture is not able to do this, as you do confess, and consequently there is a necessity, that men unlearned, men of mean capacity, men occupied in worldly affairs, trust the Church. Ergo, not Scripture alone, but Scripture joined unto the authority of the Church, is the rule of faith.  
13. Secondly, that the Church is visible and an infallible guide, I prove. You say, It is repugnant to the goodness of God, to suffer the souls of men to perish for their trusting the Church, which they had reason to trust above all other, being of necessity to trust some. If this be true (and it is most true) than God is bound in his goodness to provide, that the Church which is to be trusted above 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 doubtful and questionable guide is as good as none at all. Is it then impious to think, that men being in necessity of a guide to heaven and for want of one in terms of perishing eternally, God hath commended and commanded unto them for their guide, a doubtful & questionable Church which men neither know where to find, nor being found how to trust.  
14. What you say of a penitent sinner, that God will not damn him for the secret defect in his desired absolution, because his Ghostly Father was perhaps an Atheist and could not, or a villain and would not give him absolution. First you are deceived in thinking, that a secret Atheist cannot give absolution; for he may, if he have intention to do what Christ instituted: and this intention he may have, though he esteem of that institution no better then of a foppery. As for a Villain, it is not credible, that any Christian Priest will be such a villain, as not to give his Penitent absolution: in which case if (perhaps it fall out) we think God of his goodness will not permit such a Penitent to perish: yet the case being rare & extraordinary, he hath appointed no ordinary means of succour, but he will supply such defects (as he many ways may easily do) by his special providence. Now the necessity of Christians for the defect in their assurance of the true text of Scripture, and uncorrupt translation is continual, ordinary, and it implies incertainty in all matters of faith, in respect of all Christians. For there be scare any that can assure themselves of the true Text, or of the truth of the Translation they use, by searching into the Originals and ancient copies. Wherefore God hath provided for them an ordinary means of assurance, continually at hand, and for the capacity of all, to wit a Church infallible, and so conspicuous as she may be seen of all.   

The fourth Conviction.  
15. ANother Principle you deliver c. 3. n. 33. li. 10. wherein you contradict yourself & deprive Scripture of being the only, or the prime Christian rule of faith. I must learn of the Church, or of some part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamental or not Fundamental. 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, unless I be taught it. So that the Church is, though not a certain foundation and proof of my Faith, yet a necessary introduction to it. Thus you, and in like manner you make the Creed containing all Fundamental articles of simple belief independent of Scripture. Cap. 4. n. 15. The certainty I have of the Creed, that it was from the Apostles, and contains the principles of faith I ground it not upon Scripture etc. But the contrary to this in formal terms your affirm. Cap. 3. n. 37. lin. 9 saying of Protestants, They ground their belief, that such and such things only are Fundamental on Scripture only, & go about to prove their assertion by Scripture only. Behold contradiction upon contradiction. For to say you ground your belief of the Fundamental articles or Principles of faith not upon Scripture, and you ground it on Scripture only, is direct contradiction. What you say that you believe such and such things only to be fundamental & prove it by Scripture, is repugnant with what you contest more then in an hundred passages of your Book, that you neither know, nor can know exactly which points be Fundamental.  
16. But omitting your contradiction, I convince that Scripture cannot be the rule of our faith about Fundamentals, 
Cap. 2. n. 48 circa. finem.  which must of necessity be known and believed before Scripture, I prove by what you writ, Pag. 70. lin. 29. If our understanding 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 than a Father can beget a son, that he hath already? or an Architect build an house that is built already? Or then this very world can be made again, before it be unmade: Transubstantiation indeed is fruitful of such monsters. But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of error, will easily perceive that iam factum facere, and, factum infectum facere, be equally impossible. These be your words, from which I thus argue: The Scripture cannot be the rule and reason of believing such points of faith, which must of necessity be believed before we can receive Scripture. But before we believe Scripture, we must believe the fundamental articles of Christianity, that Christ was, and taught such and such doctrine essential to the Gospel; that he chose Apostles to preach it, who confirmed it with new miracles, and left it us written in these books of Scripture: These things and the like you confess must of necessity be known upon the Tradition and Authority of the Church before we can believe Scripture. Ergo, the assent we yield unto the truth of these articles, is not by Scripture but by the Church's Tradition precedently to our belief of Scripture. And so the Church teaching us the Christian Tradition is the fundamental and essential rule of faith, and the Scripture is requisite not to the being of Christian faith, nor for the begetting thereof, but only ad melius esse, to the well being thereof, to confirm us more & more in what we are taught by the Church.   

The fifth Conviction.  
17. CAp. 2. n. 19 
(a) For so should it be though it be in the book n. 9  lin. 15. you writ, In all the Controversies of Protestants betwixt themselves, there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture reason with reason, authority with authority; which how it can subsist with manifest revealing of the truth, I cannot well understand. And cap. 1. n. 13. lin. 25. The contrary belief may be concerning points, wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alleged on both sides (which is a sure note of a point not necessary) that men of honest and upright hrearts, true lovers of God, and the truth, such as desire above all things to know Gods will and to do it, may without any fault at all, some go one way, and some another; and some (and those as good men as any of the former suspend their judgement and expect some Elias to solve doubts, and reconcile repugnances. And Preface n. 30. There is no more certain sign, that a thing is not evident, than that honest understanding 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 stamp together by the ears, I gather three arguments, which convince that Scripture by itself cannot be the only rule of faith. First, That cannot be a rule of believing with is incredible itself. But Scripture being seemingly contrary to itself and contradicting itself, is by itself incredible, therefore it cannot be a rule of faith by itself; but to be a rule of faith it must be made credible by some extrinsecall Authority, with is so worthy of credit, as upon the warrant thereof we may believe things incredible which is as you grant the rule of universal Tradition.  
18. Secondly that cannot be the only rule, or by itself a rule of Christian faith, with is not able to assure us about the chiefest articles of our faith, as the Trinity, Incarnation, Real presence, the knowledge whereof is for Christians essentally necessary unto salvation. For if Christ jesus be the true God consubstantial to his father, than Heretics, to wit Socinian and Arian Protesters against the Church of Rome, cannot be saved by Christ, seeing they refuse to believe and worship him as the true God. On the other side, if Christ be not the true God, than Roman Catholics cannot be saved by the true God, seeing they were worshippers of a false God Now this article that Christ jesus is the true God, so absolutely necessary, cannot be proved unto them by Scripture only: for about this point 
(a) Arius did allege against the God head of Christ 40. places of Scripture and Catholics allege no fewer.  Scriptures are alleged with so great probability on both sides, that of learned Christians honest and understanding men, esteemed pious, religious, true lovers of God and his truth, Pastors and guides in the Christian Church, some have 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 sign of a point not necessary, implies Atheism, to wit, that it doth not import Christians to know whether in worshipping Christ jesus as the true God, they be not worshippers of a false God. And if this be Atheism, them is it blasphemy to say that Scripture only is the rule of Christian faith, and that Christians cannot be assured of any doctrine whereof they be not assured by the rule of Scripture only. For it is evident truth, and undeniable (though other Protesters against us, will not confess it so clearly as you do) that where there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture, where Scripture is alleged on both sides with so great probability, that learned, understanding and indifferent men differ about it; it is clear I say, that about such points there cannot be any decision of controversyes by Scripture only.  
19 Thirdly by defending the Scripture to be the only rule (besides this blasphemy that Christians by their rule of faith cannot be assured, that they be not worshippers of a false God) you are forced to add another; that on God and his word the fault lieth that there be so many factions of faith, and so great dissenssion amongst upright hearted Protestants; for that these your true lovers of God and his truth stand for contrary belief, that in matters of Religion Christendom is divided into Factions and Sects, that some go one way and some another, cursing and damning each other to Hell, is no doubt a great fault, a mighty scandal, an huge mischief, which must of necessity lie heavily either upon such Dicisioners, or upon God But you excuse the Divisioners, saying that 
(b) Cap. 1. n. 13.  they go some one way, some another, without any fault at all. Ergo, the whole fault must rest on God, who gave to these true lovers of him & his truth the Scripture for their only rule, which being itself as you say seemingly factious, contradictious, and one part thereof fight against another set these innocent, honest, upright hearts together by the ears, one with the other, in good earnest, and implacably. Thus to excuse Protestant's, you protest against God, that he is not the God of peace, but of dissension, and the author of all the discord among Christians in matter of Religion, and of all the mischiefs, that are consequent thereupon by giving a Scripture so full of seeming conflicts for the sole rule of their faith. The day will come, that these boasters of their honest and upright heart, of their true love to God and his truth, shall sinned the Apostles saying true, Not who commends himself, but whom God commends, he is approved. They shall see that in their trusting only the Scripture, and their own reason in expounding it, contemning the Tradition of the Church, they were not lovers of God & his truth, but fast friends to their own fancy and fond conceits, lovers of themselves, adorers of their own poor miserable wit.   

The sixth Conviction.  
20. THough we were sure that the Scripture is the word of God, that we have the incorrupt text, the true translation thereof cleared from seeming contradictions; yet for all this, Scripture could not be to us a rule of faith alone by itself, by reason of the high senses of Scripture, incredible and incomprehensible to humane reason. This I prove by your own writing, wherein you deliver a grand Catholic verity, which overthrows the Scriptures being the only rule. Protestants pretend they know their doctrine and interpretation of Scripture to be the word of God, by the divine light and evident certainty thereof: you will not believe this resolution to be theirs, and affirm the contrary cap. 6. n. 5●. That the Scripture is not evidently certain, nor of itself disuested of the motives of credibility evidently credible. For Protestants (say you) are not so vain as to pretend that all men do assent to it, which they would do, if it were evidently certain, nor so ridiculous as to imagine, if an Indian who had never heard of Christ should by chance find a Bible in his own language, that he would by reading it without miracle certainly believe it to be the word of God, which he could not choose if it were evidently credible. Thus you, and hence I thus argue.  
21. That Authority cannot be of itself, and by itself alone the rule and guide of Christian saving faith in the understanding and believing of Scripture, which is not of itself evidently credible, and worthy of all credit. This I prove because the rule and reason to believe the Scripture, must be able to convince the understanding, and to resolve it to believe many high and incomprehensible mysteries. For these are taught and delivered in Scripture, and must be believed by every Christian that will be saved. But an authority which of itself is not evidently credible, or worthy of all credit is not of itself a sufficient reason, or a good rule for me to believe incredible things, incomprehensible to my humane reason, as is manifest to every man that hath wit to apprehend the sense of this speech. Ergo the Scripture alone, & by itself not joined with the evidently credible authority of some other witness cannot be the rule of faith. This may be made manifest by examples, as by this; What the Scripture saith, Asonne of thirty years was David, when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years, I easily believe in the plain sense, because there is no incredibility therein. But when the Scripture saith a son of one year was Saul when he began to reign, and he reigned two years, the incredibility of the sense (the Scripture in other places assuring me, that when he began to reign he was higher by head & shoulders then any man in Israel) makes me presently stagger, and to seek for some stronger pillar than the evidence of the text in my private seeming; and finding none, my reason is presently overcome, and won to forsake the seeming evidence of the the text. The same no doubt would happen in other texts of Scripture about the B. Trinity, Incarnation, and other mysteries of faith; My faith, I say, would give back had I no stronger rule and reason of believing them, than the evidence of the text in my private judgement. But when I perceive the evidence of the text in my private judgement, to be upheld and confirmed by the judgement of the Catholic Church, which did ever understand & believe such texts in that incredible and incomprehensible sense; then am I fully confirmed and Christianly resolved to believe those high senses, though never so impossible to the seeming of my reason; because tradition, or traditine Interpretation, as you speak, that is, the perpetual doctrine and belief of Christians in all former ages is able to overcome all incredulity which the incredibility of the thing may represent unto reason. For it is (as you are forced to confess) the rule to judge all controversies by, 
Cap. 2. n. 25. & ca 3. n. 45.  being Gods infallible word evidently credible of itself, and so a fit rule whereon Christian faith may rely; for what witness can be more illustrious and known, and of more eminent credit, than the Church founded by Christ jesus and his Apostles, bathed with the blood of innumerable Martyrs, adorned by the glorious lives and miracles of millions of holy men?  
22. I confess the Protestants opinion, that the doctrine of Scripture is to them evident, that they see the truth thereof, as clearly as they do the light of the sun, to be absurd, fond, ridiculous as you tear me it. But also I must acknowledge, that they speak consequently, other wise they could not say their faith doth finally rest on the Scripture, nor pretend the Scripture to be their only rule. And you who reject this Protestants conceit of the intrinsical light of Scripture do not only harbour Infidelity in your heart, but also profess it openly in words, pag. 330. lin. 28. I deny not, 
2. Edit. n. 318. lin. 24.  but I am bound to believe the truth of many texts of Scripture, the sense whereof is to me obscure, and the truth of many articles of faith, the manner whereof is obscure, and to humane understanding incomprehensible. But than it is to be observed, that not the sense of such texts, nor the MANNER of such things is that which I am bound to believe, but the truth of them; for that I should believe the truth of any thing, the truth whereof cannot be made evident to me with an evidence proportionable to the faith required of me: this, I say, for any man to be bound to, is unjust and unreasonable, because to do it is impossible. Thus you profess, that you neither do, nor can believe the incomprehensible mysteries of Christian Religion. For when the manner is the very substance of the mystery, than the very substance is incomprehensible. For example in the B. Trinity that Three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be One, the mystery is not, that these three names signify one thing (as Sabellians and Socinians understand it) but that in the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons distinct, of one substance But you profess not to believe the manner of these mysteries, because it is incomprehensible: Ergo, you do not believe the substance of the mystery, the substance thereof being a manner of being incomprehensible. Moreover he is no faithful Christian, who believes not the articles of Christianity, according to the Christian manner and sense; But the Christian manner of believing them is according as they are incomprehensible to humane understanding, and seem to profane Wit and Gentilism follies and absurdities, as S. Paul doth declare: 
1. Cor. 1. 23.  Ergo, you are no Christian who openly show yourself a shamed to believe any MANNER of things revealed by Christ upon his word, that is incomprehensible, except he make it evident to your understanding; and than if you believe him he shall be much beholding unto you for believing him, so fare as you see he speaks truth, and no further, that is, so fare as you will trust any liar whatsoever. The sum of all is, that seeing you reject the Puritanical conceit, that Scripture is known to be the word of God by its own light, as a foolery (for so really it is) you must either deny the Scripture to be the only rule, or else continue to profess unbelief of Christianity, and of all manner of incomprehensible mysteries.   

The seaventh Conviction.  
23. YOur Adversary often urgeth you to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals or necessary truths, without the particular and distinct belief of which you contend that it implies contradiction that any man be saved. You having used many tergiversations to divert the mind of the Reader, at last confess 
(a) 2. Edit. pag. 22. lin. 13. 2. Edition Pag. 129. lin. 15.  Pag. 23 lin. 8. That it is an intricate piece of business, of extreme great difficulty, and of extreme little necessity, almost impossible. And pag. 134. lin. 28. This variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals. And 
(b) 2. Edition cap. 4. n. 19 pag. 193. l. 10. Cap. 4. n. ●.  pag. 201. lin. 23. A Catalogue of Fundamentals (because to some more is fundamental, to others less, to others none at all) had been impossible. By this confession you overthrow your Principle, that Scripture is the only rule wherein all necessary things are evidently contained. For fundamental points being the essential parts of the Gospel, Doctrines intrinsical to the covenant betwixt God and man, 
Cap. 4. 〈◊〉 4. lin. 29.  not only clearly revealed, and so certain truths, but also commanded under pain of damnation to be distinctly known and believed of all, and so necessary truths: I demand whether these divine fundamental and essential laws about the distinct knowing and believing of these points in particular be clearly delivered in Scripture, or not? If not; Ergo, there be some divine Laws necessary unto salvation, without the observance of which it implies contradiction any man should be saved, 
Cap. 6. in fine.  not clearly delivered in Scripture. If they be clearly delivered, then points fundamental be clearly discernible from points not fundamental, as being not only clearly revealed in Scripture, as some points not fundamental may be; but also clearly commanded unto the belief of all under pain of damnation, as un-fundamentall points cannot be. What more easy for a man that hath eyes then to discern the places of a garden on which the Sun shineth, from those on which it shineth not, but are shaded from his beams? When light from heaven shined on the houses and habitations of the Israëlites, 
Exod 10.  and not on the houses and habitations of the Egyptians, was it an intricate piece of business for a man not blind, to have discerned the one from the other? But you affirm often and earnestly, that it is a thing of extreme great diffieulty, yea morally impossible to distinguish in Scripture, things fundamental from things not fundamental. Ergo, they are not clearly commanded in Scripture and consequently some things necessary, to wit, 
Cap. 4. n. 42.  some divine commands of faith, the observance of which is fundamental to the covenant betwixt God and man for their Salvation, are not contained in Scripture at all; or else only intricately and obscurely. 
(a) Cap. 4. n. 40. &. n. 43. lin. 4.    

The eighth Conviction.  
24. BY the discovery of this contradiction your chief, or rather only argument for the sufficiency of Scripture is answered. 
(a) Cap. 4. n. 40. & n. 43. lin. 4.  Pag. 210. lin. 28. & pag. 212. lin. 1. you affirm, that in the sole Gospel of S. Lake all necessary things are contained; so that in other books of Scripture, 
(b) Cap. 4. n. 42.  namely in the Gospel of S. john, whatsoever is revealed over and above that in S. Luke, is indeed profitable truth, but not necessary or fundamental. This you prove, because S. Luke in the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles saith: The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that jesus 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 difficulty is, how could S. Luke truly say, that he had written a treatise of all that jesus began to do and teach, if he have left some necessary doctrines, and fundamental matters unwritten?  
25. In this argument you contradict in plain terms both S. john, and yourself, showing your want of Christianity in the one, your want of wit, memory, & consideration in the other. The Eternal Generation of Christ whereby he is the only begotten of God in the bosom of his Father, is no where clearly delivered in the Gospel of S. Luke; yea your Socinians collect out of his Gospel many strong arguments (as they conceive) against this article of our faith: And yet the same is clearly delivered in the Gospel of S. john, and the belief thereof commanded unto all expressly under pain of damnation, john. 3.18. He that believeth is not judged, he that believeth not is already judged, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 
(a) Also ver. 36. He that believeth not the Sun shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth in him.  How can you believe in the Gospel of S. john; & not believe the Eternal Generation of the Son of God, and the eternal damnation of the disbelievers, thereof; and consequently that there is some necessary commanded truth in S. john's Gospel above the Gospel of S. Luke?  
26. You also contradict yourself, and overthrew this your so often asserted plenitude of S. Luke's Gospel, by objecting out of the Gospel of S. john, the Precept of Communion in both kinds, as a thing necessary to be known, believed, yea practised of all, aswell of the Clergy, as Laiety: for in proof of this (in your conceit) so necessary truth, you produce not any text, word, or syllable out of S. Luke. Yea S. Luke is so fare from teaching the necessity of both kinds, as he signifies the contrary clearly enough. 
Luke ●: 22. v. 19  For in his narration of the Eucharist how it was instituted, he doth expressly note, that our Lord delivering the Sacrament under the form of Bread, said: Do this in remembrance of me; but in delivering the Chalice he makes no mention of any such command: To this institution comformable was our Lord's practice, recorded by 
(c) Luke 24.21.  S. Luke, that in Emmaus he gave the two disciplies that were laymen, the Eucharist in the form only of consecrated bread. Nor is S. Luke his saying, that he had written his former treatise of all things jesus began to do and teach, to be restrained to necessary things only, his words being all things absolutely without limitation. He writ then all things not only necessary but also profitable, which he judged fit for the end & purpose of his writing; which was not (as you fond imagine) to set out a Catechism, or brief Sum of Christian doctrine, but to write such a History of the whole life of our Lord as might serve to confirm, and assure 
(d) Luk. cap. 1. v. 4. That thou mightst know the certainty of these things wherein thou hast been instructed.  Christians in the belief of that form of Doctrine, in which they had been instructed, catechised, and christened by the Apostles, and other Apostolical men.  
27. I conclude this Chapter, with noting the extreme misery, poverty, futility of your whole book. Do not you say in your Preface. n. 34. that this Principle, all things necessary are evidently contained in Scripture, is not only the corner stone and chief pillar, but even the base and adequate foundation of your answer? Now this Principle, not being prime, immediate, or evident of itself, you have not brought for it any  argument or proof. The plenitude of the other Ghospels besides S. Luke's you dare not so confidently maintain: you 
(e) Pag. 210. lin. 25. Of all the four Evangelists 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 each of them all necessary things are delivered; you 
(f) Pag. 212. lin. 2.  stand absolutely only upon the Gospel of S. Luke, that therein all is contained; which is so false and vain as it is contradicted even by yourself, nor do any Protestants hold it, but only Socin●a●s, who by pretending this fullness of S. Luke his Gospel, would put off the necessity of believing the Gospel of S. john. and the high mysteries thereof: and so you had good reason to term this principle by you so stoutly and perpetually avouched, so poorly and miserably proved, the adequate Base of your Book.    

That there is one visible Society of Christians infallible in all her Proposals, known unto all, by subordination to one visible Head, or Pastor. CHAP. V.  
IN proof of this Title, omitting many other, I produce only two or three arguments, as well to be brief, as because these be so full convincing and well grounded, even by such an Adversary as you are, that more will not be required.  

The first Conviction.  
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 certain Society of Christians of one denomination, of one obedience, subject 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 down your words fully, whereby you not only deliver, but also demonstrate them. The Major you acknowledge ca 2. n. 139. You must know, that there is a wide difference betwixt being infallible in Fundamentals, and being an infallible guide in Fundamentals. The former we grant, for it is no more but this, that there shall be a Church in the world for ever. But we utterly deny the Church to be the later: for to say so, were to oblige ourselves to find some certain Society of men, of whom we might be certain, that they neither do, nor can err in fundamentals nor in declaring what is fundamental and what is not; and consequently to make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things she proposes to be believed. 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 controverted; and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine, but by the true doctrine to the Church. Hereafter therefore when you hear Protestants say, the Church is infallible in fundamentals, you must not conceive them, as if they mean, as you do, some Society of Christians, which may be known by adhering to some one Head, for example to the Pope or Bishop of Constantinople etc. Thus you deliver the sequels of this proposition, the Church is an infallible guide in fundamentals, which are in a word our whole Catholic doctrine about the Church: that if that proposition be by you granted expressly and clearly, yea proved invincibly from Scripture, you must return again to the Church of Rome, or else by your own judgement be damned to Hell; specially because you repeat the same consequences of the granting of an infallible guide in fundamentals, and both approve, and prove them Cap. 3. n. 39 lin. 11. speaking to your Adversary, Good Sir, you must needs do us this favour, to be so acute, as to distinguish between being infallible in Fundamentals, and being an infallible guide in Fundamentals. That she shall be always a Church infallible in Fundamentals, we easily grant: for it comes to no more but this, that there shall be always a Church. But that there shall be always such a Church which is an infallible guide in Fundamentals, this we deny. For this cannot be without settling a known infallibility in some one known Society of Christians, as the Greek, or the Roman, (or some other Church) by adhering to which guide, men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals. A man that were destitute of all means of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet in himself, and to himself be infallible, but he could not be a guide to others. A Man, or a Church that were invisible, so that none could know how to repair to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, and yet he might be unto himself infallible.  
2. Thus you have told us clearly and fully what will follow if you grant the Church to be an infallible guide in Fundamentals: which sequels be so much denied and detested by you, as one would think it were impossible you should be so forgetful as to affirm it. And yet you do clearly say, that the Church is not only infallible in Fundamentals, but also an infallible guide in Fundamentals, being even by essence not only a believer of all necessary truth, but also a teacher or mistress thereof: Cap. 2. n. 164. initio. The visible Church shall always WITHOUT FAIL PROPOSE so much of God's revelation as is sufficient to bring men to heaven; for otherwise it will not be the visible Church: yet it may sometimes add things hurtful, nay in themselves 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 ever in fact, but also, because it always shall and will be so; yet, (say you) this is short to prove your intent, that the Church is infallible in all her proposals, unless you can show, that by Truth is certainly meant not only necessary to Salvation, but all that is profitable absolutely, & simply ALL. For that the true Church always shall be the MAINTAINER and TEACHER of ALL NECESSARY TRUTH you know We grant and ●●st grant: for it is of the ESSENCE of the Church to be so: and any company of men were no more a Church without it, than 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 deserve to carry away the title of a true unreasonable man, from all men that hitherto have ranked themselves in the number of Writers. You are a true man, for that you deliver manifest truth; made good by strong reasons; you are an unreasonable man, in that you wilfully and obstinately stand in defence of the contrary falsehood. I will briefly note first your contradictions, secondly the sequels thereof.  
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, jesting at your Adversary, as though his confounding them did argue in him want of such an acute wit, as you suppose yourself to have. But in the second citations you do us the favour to be so acute, so perspicacious, so sharp-sighted, as to penetrate into the very essence of the Church, and out of that Closet of Truth pronounce, that to be infallible in Fundamentals, and to be an infallible guide in Fundamentals, be inseparably conjoined in the Church; and that to grant the former to the Church and deny the later, were to divide 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 always in fact without fail the teacher, the proposer, the maintainer, in a word the mistress of all necessary truth even by essence; that she can no more departed from teaching, proposing, and maintaining all fundamental Christian doctrine, then from her own being. Nor do you only so affirm the Churches essential infallibility in teaching all Fundamentals, but also prove the same by the word of God, which proposes the Church of Christ as the pillar and ground of truth, as built on the Rock against which the gates of Hell shall never prevail. For these words at least evince (as you confess Cap. 3. n. 70. that there shall still continue a true Church, and bring forth children unto God, & send souls to Heaven: which could not be unless she did always without fail teach all necessary truth, & so be an infallible guide in Fundamentals.  
4. Now this being a truth infallible, that the Church cannot err in teaching fundamentals, let us proceed to note and number the doctrines which you openly grant and prove to be consequent thereupon, which be such as no more could have been desired. A Sicilian Nobleman, when Scipio Praetor of that country offered him one wealthy and talkative, but of little wit for advocate of his cause, replied, I pray you Sir give this man for Advocate to my Adversary; and then I will be content to have no Advocate at all. So we may say that the cause of Protestants about the Totall of their Religion and Salvation controverted with the Church of Rome, being abandoned by learned Protestants, none presuming to appear against evident truth so clearly demonstrated by Charity maintained, it was the Roman Churches good luck you should prefer yourself, and be admitted for their Advocate, for you speak so wisely, so pertinently, so coherently for Protestant's, as the Roman Church needs not any other Advocate in her behalf. No Catholic Patron, no learned man howsoever well seen in Controversies of Religion, nay the Author of Charity maintained himself could not have spoken more fully, groundedly, unanswerably in the defence of the Roman Catholic Church, than you have done, while you are persuaded, that you plead against her, as appeareth by these Conclusions, the deduction whereof is confessed and expressed by yourself.  
5. First there is, ever was, and shallbe a true Church visible and conspicuous to the world, that all men according to the will of God may be saved (if they please) by the means of her preaching over the world. This you grant in saying, that if the Church be an infallible guide in Fundamentals, than this known infallibility, must be settled in some known Society of Christians, by adhering to which guide men may be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals. 
1. Tim. 2.4.  No was the Apostle saith, God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of truth, and consequently he will have the means, which proposeth all the truth of Salvation infallibly guiding men to heaven, to be sisible, & so diffused in the world as all men may come to see her, and learn of her, and be saved if they will by the grace of Christ jesus.  
6. Secondly this Church being an infallible guide in Fundamentals, must be likewise infallible in all her proposals in matter of faith. This sequel, according to your good custom, you both deny and grant. You deny it pag. 177. saying, that the Church, though she be the ground and rock of all necessary truth, yet not the rock and ground, or infallible teacher of all profitable truth, but may err and maintain damnable error 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 believe her in nothing upon her word and authority; which you prove by this demonstration unanswerably, Because, say you, an authority subject to error can be no firm and stable foundation of my belief in any thing. And if it were in any thing, than this authority being one & the same in all proposals, I should have the same reason to believe all, that I have to believe one. And therefore must do unreasonably either in believing any one thing upon the sole warrant of this authority, or else in not believing all things equally warranted by it. Behold how earnestly you aver 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 Salvation, must of necessity be the pillar & ground of all saving Truth; because a Church subject to error in some things cannot be the ground and firm foundation of my belief in any thing whatsoever.  
7. Thirdly, the true Church of Christ, the pillar and ground of Truth, to which it is essential to propose teach, and maintain all necessary truth, is one Society of Christians notoriously known by subordination to one universal visible Head or Pastor. This you grant saying, that an infallible guide in Fundamentals, or, which is all one, such a Church as shall always without fail be the pillar, ground, and teacher of all necessary truth must be one known Society of Christians, by adhering to which we are sure to be gurded aright to believe all Fundamentals; one certain Society of men by whom we are certain they neither do, nor can err in Fundamentals; one certain Society of Christians which may be known 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 controverted, but by evidence of the mark 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 judgement. These four sequels you teach to be involved and contained in your grant, that the Church is always, even by ss●nce, the pillar and ground of faith, the infallible teacher and maintainer of all necessary truth; whence we shall in the sixth and seventh Chapter infer the total overthrow of your cause, and show salvation to be impossible against the Catholic Roman Church.   

The second Conviction.  
9 FOr the total infallibility of the Catholic Church I propose this Syllogism out of your sayings: In matters of Religion none can be lawful judges, but such as are for that office appointed of God, nor any fit for it, but such as are infallible; but the Catholic Church is lawful judge endued with authority to determine controversies of Religion; Ergo, she is apppointed of God, and made by him fit for that office, that is, infallible. In this Syllogism, as in the former, both propositions be your own; the Mayor you delyver pag. 60. n. 21. For the deciding of civil controversies men may appoint themselves a judge: But in matters of Religion this office may be given to none, but whom God hath designed for it And pag. 59 n. 17. In civil Controversies every henest understanding man is fit to be judge; but in matters of Religion none but he that is infallible.  
10. The Minor also you deliver often, but specially in two places. Cap. 2. n. 162. explicating a Conclusion defended in Oxford the year 1633. That the Church hath authority to determine Controversies of faith, obrected by your Adversary; you answer; Me thinks so subtle a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide difference between authority to do a thing, and infallibility in doing it: & again, between a conditional infallibility, and an absolute. The former the Doctor together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church, and I subscribe to this opinion, that is, an authority in determining Controversies of faith, according to plain, and evident Scripture, and universal Tradition & infallibility, so long as they proceed according to this rule. As if there arise an Heretic that should call in question Christ's Passion and Resurrection, the Church had authority to decred this Controversy, and infallible direction how to do it, and to excommunicate this man, if he should persist in error. I hope you will not deny, but that judges have authority to determine criminal and civil Controversies; and yet I hope you will not say, that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations. Infallible, while they proceed according to law if they do so; but not infallibly that they shall ever do so. Thus you. Now let the Reader be judge whether it be not a thing in you both ridiculous and hateful to be still vaunting of the subtlety of your wit, and reproaching want thereof to your Adversary, whereas your subtleties be gross contradictions of yourself, that I am even amazed how any man could be so forgetful and void of consideration. You say, there is a wide difference between authority to decide matters of Religion, and Infallibility in doing it; which you prove, because judges have authority to determine criminal and civil Controversies, and yet are not absolutely infallible, but infallible only conditionally if they proceed according to law. Now this your subtlety yourself condemns for ignorant folly, as not considering the wide difference betwixt judges in civil Controversies, and judges with authority to determine matters of faith: that the former may be fallible, but not the later. Be not these your very words pag. 59 lin. vlt. and pag. 60. lin. 1. In civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a judge, but in Religion none but he that is infallible. How then do you now distinguish betwixt a judge, and an infallible judge in matters of Religion?  
11. Your other distinction also of Infallibility absolute and conditional, is a mere foppery as you declare it: and by attributing only conditional infallibility to the Church, you contradict yourself. For you say, in civil Contronersies every honest understanding man is fit to be judge, but in Religion none but he that is infallible: here you attribute greater infallibility to the Church or Ecclesiastical judge, then to a judge in civil causes; But you say, a judge in civil affairs is infallible conditionally if he proceed according to law. Ergo, the Church is infallible absolutely, so that she cannot err in her definitions and sentences, but still proceed according to the divine law, or sacred Scripture. Besides the Church is infallible in a higher and absoluter manner than every private Christian: But every private Christian is infallible conditionally, to wit, while, he proceeds according to the true and undoubted sense of Scripture: Ergo the Conclusion of Oxford, The Church hath authority to determine Controversies of faith, was by the defendant Doctor understood of infallible authority, or else it was a mere mockery. Moreover authority to determine Controversies of faith, must be sufficient to make the determination to be an assured stay whereon Christian faith may securely rely, which before was not known to be such; otherwise there is no determination of faith, but faith about that point remains as uncertain and underermined as it was before. But a judge absolutely fallible, and only conditionally infallible, cannot determine any controversy infallibly, that Faith may determine to believe it without danger of being deceived. Again, you say pag. 337. n. 20. A questionable guide for men's direction is as good as none at all: But the Church infallible only conditionally, that is, if perchance she hit upon the true sense of Scripture, is a guide or determiner of Controversies questionable, because after such a determination, the question still remains undecided, whether that be the true sense of Scripture. Add hereunto that Protestants do not attribute so much as this conditional infallibility to the Church, that her determinations are infallible when they are according to plain and evident Scripture. For they will not believe Transubstantiation, though they grant, that the Lateran Council defining it, proceeded according to the plain and evident sense of Scripture. 
Morton of the Sacrament. lib. 2. initio.  If, saith D. Morton the words of Christ, This is my Body, be certainly true in the proper & literal sense, we must yield to Papists the whole cause, Transubstantiation, corporal, and material Presence &c So that the Church is not infallible with Protestants, if she proceed according to the plain, proper, and literal sense of Scripture, but only when she hits on those figurative, tropical, improper senses they fancy to themselves. And I pray you, give me a reason, why the Catholic Church may not condemn you, for expounding figuratively, symbolically, tropically the text of Scripture delivering Transubstantiation, according to the plain proper and literal sense; as well as she may condemn any Heretic, that should expound the place of Scripture about our Lord's Passion, and Resurrection figuratively against the plain, proper, and literal sense? Finally, whereas you say the Church is to determine Controversies, not only by the rule of plain Scripture, but also of universal Tradition, you say a truth against the whole drift of your book, that the Bible is the only rule; and against what you writ Cap. 2. n. 155. nothing but Scripture comes to us with a full stream of Tradition, and so besides Scripture there is no unwritten doctrine.  
12. A third place yet more clear for the Churches total infallibility you have cap. 2. n. 77. where you grant the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth by office. Our Saviour said to his disciples, ye 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 have been so of necessity, in vain had he put them in fear of that which follows, If the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? So the Church may be by duty the pillar & ground of Truth, of all truth not only necessary, but also profitable to Salvation; and yet she may neglect and violate this duty, and be in fact the teacher of some error? Thus you give us every where shall infatuatum, infatuated salt, salt unsavoury. You often set good salt on the table, but instantly you corrupt it, and the good season and reason thereof, by senseless contradictions, That the Church is by office the rock and pillar of all truth in matter of faith, is good salt, hath the favour and sense of divine infallible truth; but that which follows, that she may fail in this office, violate this duty, is senseless, and spoken without any salt. Do not you say, that in Religion none is fit to be judge, that is fit for the office of judge, but he that is infallible? How then can the judge in matters of Religion, endued with power to determine Controversies of faith, violate his duty, except you can conceive that he that is infallible may fail? In like manner that the Church is by office, by duty, appointed of God to be the pillar and rock of all truth both necessary and profitable to salvation, is salt, doctrine of heavenly favour, and wisdom worthy of God: But what you presently add, that in fact she may be the teacher of error, is extremely sottish. For if the Church be a sure and firm foundation of Faith, how can she be fallible and subject to error? Do not you say pag. 148. n. 36. lin. 11. An authority subject to error can be not firm or stable foundation of my belief in any thing? What is this, but that a fallible Church in something, and which the facto teacheth errors, cannot have the office of pillar and ground of any truth, much less of all truth? How often do you teach that God cannot command us to do things impossible, or command us to be, what is not in our power to be? Should God command you to be immortal, were not that command unjust? For you being by nature mortal according to the body, and not able to shake that corruption of; how can you be immortal except God take away mortality, and bestow the gift of immortality on you? Can God appoint, that glass be in office as strong and hard as marble, or that sand be as firm and stable as a rock without taking brittleness from the one and unsteadfastness from the other? I conclude with this syllogism wherein both Propositions being your own, you cannot deny the Conclusion. God hath appointed the Church to be by office the pillar and ground of all Christian truth, a firm and stable Foundation of faith in all matters of salvation: But a Church subject to error cannot be a pillar, ground, or foundation of Christian belief in any thing: Ergo, the Church is an infallible teacher of all truth, an infallible guide in fundamentals, and consequently in all her proposals.    

That Protesters against the Church of Rome, be Schismatics and Heretics, and cannot be saved without actual dereliction of their errors. CHAP. VI  
I SAID in the title Protesters, not Protestants: for though with you, Protestants and Protesters be the same, yet it is not so according to the acception of the word Protestant commonly received in England. You define Protestants to be such as Protest against the corruptions and abuses of the Church of Rome, 
Cap. 2. n. 2. Cap. 6. n. 56.  all of them agreeing in this principle, that the Bible, the Bible, and only the Bible is a perfect rule of faith and action. So that all pretended Gospelers and reformed Churches, all that infinite diversity of sects, which agree amongst themselves as King james saith, in nothing but in union against the Pope; Caluinists, Lutherans, Brownists Anabaptists, 
Against Vorstins pag. 65.  refermed Eutychians, Arians, Sabellians, Samostatenians or Socinians Tritheists, and others innumerable are by you comprehended under the name of Protestants, whom you maintain to be free from damnable error, 
Preface n. 39  and in a safe way to Saluatson.  
2. But in England (as all men know) by the name of Protestants we properly understand, that part of the pretended English Reformation, which is condistinct from Puritans, and opposite against them. Hence Protestants with us be not the whole multitude of Protesting Biblists, or of the pretended reformed Churches, but, only one branch of them, the most moderate of all, & that which doth least exorbitate from the Doctrine and Discipline of the Roman Church. Wherefore by Protesters in this discourse, we shall always understand them, & every one of them, that oppose and Protest against any doctrine proposed as matter of faith by the Catholic Roman Church, of what Sect or Religion soever they be; and that these cannot be saved by ignorance, or by repentance, without actual detestation and abandoning of their errors in particular.  
3. For though they ignorantly judge, that they have the truth on their side, yet this ignorance doth not excuse their erring, because it is not simple ignorance, but such ignorance as is ever essentially involved and contained in the crime of Heresy, to wit, the ignorance of Pride and Presumption; ignorance whereby they prefer the seeming of their fancy or judgement before Traditions, Counsels consent of Fathers, miracles, the plain proper and literal sense of Scripture which stand for the Roman Church and Religion; These I say, cannot be saved in their errors, but are Schismatics and Heretics, as I shall clearly demonstrate in this Chapter, even by your own sayings and Principles, and first,  
That they are Schismatics.  
4. To prove this we must briefly declare what Schism is. The word Schism comes originally from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies any division, cutting, breaking, renting away of any part from an entire & whole thing, as a bough from a tree, a stone from a building, any member from man's body. By Metaphor the word is applied to signify breaches and divisions in any moral Body, which is of two kinds, Political and Mystical. In Political Bodies, or Temporal States, Schism happeneth when any part of the States departeth from the Communion and fellowship of others in being subject to the supreme authority which ruleth, governeth, knitteth and keepeth the whole together, whether this authority be Monarchical, Aristocratical, or D●mocraticall. Mystical whole Bodies be only one, the holy Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, of which to be a member, as it is the sole and only state of Salvation, so to be divided from it is sinful and damnable. Schism then in this sense may be defined. A voluatary choice whereby a Christian doth divide, and cut away himself from the Communion and fellowship of other Christians, in the common knot of subjection & subordination unto the supreme Head and Authority of this Body: I say voluntary choice, for no man can be made a schismatic against his will, Schism being a sin and a most grievous sin. Every Schismatique than devideth himself from the Church by his voluntary choice; either direct, as when one doth in plain terms refuse, and detest subjection to the common Head and Pastor of the Church; or indirect when he standeth peremptory against the Church, either obstinately against her Doctrines, or contumaciously against her Commands. For such an one is hocipso cut of, and cast away out of the Church in the sight of God, and the sentence of the Church doth declare him to be such an one, and makes him known for such an one, to them of the Church. This supposed I come to prove, that they who separate or oppose against the Church of Rome are Schismatics.  

The first Conviction.  
5. YOu say Cap. 5. n. 36. initio. For men to forsake the external Communion of them with whom they agree in faith, is the most formal & proper crime of schism: very true. Thus you. But Protestants agree with the visible universal Church in all fundamental points of faith (as you pretend) and yet they have forsaken her external Communion. For cap. 5. n. 52. initio. you speak thus to your adversary: Whereas you say, that Protestants divided themselves from the external Communion of the visible Church; add, which external communion was corrupted, and we shall confess the accusation, and glory in it. And cap. 5. n. 55. As for the external Communion of the visible Church, we have 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 maul crime of Schism.  
6. This Syllogism doth consist of propositions which are formally & verbally yours, yet because you falter and halt in the assertion of them contradicting yourself, to make this demonstration convincing, I will prove both the Premises clearly by such truths as you are forced to acknowledge. The mayor Proposition, that it is formal Schism to forsake the visible Church, or her external Communion, which you grant in the words I cired, you deny cap. 5. n. 25. lin. 3. in these words to your adversary: Whereas you take for granted as an undoubied truth, that whosoever leave the external Communion of the visible Church, are Schismatical, I tell you, Sir, you presume to much upon us, and would have us grant, that which is the main point in question. Behold now that is false, which before you said was very true; Which also to be absolutely true, I prove by what you writ cap. 5. n. 45 lin. 16. A man may possibly leave some opinion or practice of a Church formerly common to himself, and others, and continue still a member of that Church: Provided, 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 departed from those things which make it so to be. This you. Now I subsume: but external Communion, that is, external Society, fellowship, and unity of the members of the Church, in their subordination to the common Head, and supreme external Authority thereof, is one of the things wherein the essence of the Church doth consist, one of the things which make it to be a Church. This is clear, because as it is of the essence of an human organical Body, not only to have a multitude of members locally laid together in one heap; but also that they be knit and compacted together in the unity of one Body by joint subordination to the head: so it is of the essence of every moral or mystical body, not only to have a multitude of members or persons, but also that the persons, members and subjects be knit together, and united in the Society of one Communion, that is, of one common union of subordination to the Head.  
7. And this Communion or common subjection must in the members of the Church be external and visible: because it is of the essence of the Church to be an external and visible Society or Body; which is proved, because you say Cap. 3. n. 78. That it is of the essence of the Church to be the rock and pillar, that is, still in fact a proposer, mantayner, and teacher of all necessary truth. But it is of the essential necessity of a teaching Church, to be visible and external, as you suppose Cap. 3. n. 39 lin. 23. A Church that were invisible, so that none could repair to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, that is a teacher of truth, yet it might be in itself infallible. Wherefore external Communion, or common Union of the members of the Church in their subjection to one common Head, or visible supreme governing Authority, is of the essence of the Church; it is one of the things which make the Church a Church. But Protesters forsook the external Communion, the common Union & knot with their fellow-members in the unity of subjection to one visible governing Church-Authority, and made to themselves new Conventicles, and Churches under new Governors, and forms of government, as is notorious. It is therefore manifest, that they forsaking the external Communion of the visible Church (because in their judgement corrupted) forsook the Church of God in one of the things wherein the essence of the Church doth consist; in one of the things which make the Church a Church; and consequently are Schismatics.   

The second Conviction.  
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, & always in fact the teacher and guide of men in all truth necessary to Salvation. Consequently it is of the essence of the Church to be able to perform this office, 
Cap. 3. n. 7●.  and to be still in act a Direstour of men to heaven But you say Pag. 163. lin. 6. That Church alone can perform the office of Guide or Director, which is of one denomination, that is, a settled certain Society of Christians, distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for their guide in Fundamentals. Ergo, it is of the essence of the visible Catholic Church of Christ to be of one denomination, adhering to one common Bishop, as to their guide in Fundamentals. This supposed: that Protestants be severed from the way of Salvation, Schismatics & aliens from the only Church that can be the guide to heaven, I shall not need to prove; you grant it 
(a) Cap. 5. n. 27. versus finem.  Pag. 264. lin. 4. Put case I should grant of mere favour, that there must be always some Church of one denomination, free from all errors in Doctrine, and that Protestants had not always 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 than this: If you will leave England, your must of necessity go to Rome. Thus you. From which saying I argue. If there must be always some Church of one denomination, free from all errors in doctrine, subject to one visible head and guide: than you must not be a Protestant if you will be saved, that is, than Protestants be not a true Church, but a Company that hath forsaken the true Church, and cannot be saved if they continue where they are. But that there always was, & always must be such a Church of Christ, such a Society of Christians, which is the ground and rock of all truth, settled and certain, and of one denomination, was in the precedent Chapter not by you granted of mere favour, but extorted from you by the evidence of truth, & undeniable texts of Scripture. Ergo, Protestants are Schismatics, & separated from the Church, the rock and ground of faith; and cannot be saved except they remove to the one Church & be built thereupon by dependence on the Rock, by subordination to the Head thereof. Now, if there must be such a Catholic Church of one denomination, whether the Roman be that Church, and not rather the Grecian or Abissine, is in the judgement even of Protestants I dare say, a ridiculous doubt and a fond fancy: but more hereof in the next Chapter.   

The third Conviction.  
9 YOu are convinced of proper and formal Schism, by the Confutation of your excuses, whereby you would clear your revolt from so heinous a crime, which you set down Cap. 5. nu. 36. I would fain know wherein, I may not without Schism, forsake the external Communion of them, with whom I agree in faith: whether I be bound, for fear of Schism, to communicate with those that believe as I do, only in lawful things, or absolutely in every thing, whether I am to join with them in superstition, and Idolatry, and not only in a common confession of faith, wherein we agree, but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it? These your questions or excuses be frivolous and idle for many reasons. First, because you suppose without proof, that the universal visible Church may be stained with superstition & Idolatry, which is the main point in question. And your supposition to be false we prove even by this argument: That Church cannot be stained with superstition and Idolatry, whose external Communion or union of the members thereof under one head, cannot be forsaken without the most proper and formal crime of Schism. But to forsake the external Communion of the visible Church, you confess to be the most formal crime of Schism. Ergo, the external Communion of the visible Church cannot be stained universally with superstition and Idolatry.  
10. Secondly, your questions are vain, because they imply contradiction & destroy each other. For how can it consist together, that you do agree in faith with the Church in fundamentals, and that yet she teach Idolatry, and urge you to abjure with her the faith wherein you, & she both agree? Thirdly, if the Church be supposed to be stained with universal error and Idolatry, it doth indeed follow, that you must not communicate with her in Idolatry, but not that you may forsake the external common Union of all the members thereof to the Head and universal Authority, which joineth them together in one Society of a Christian Church: But Protestants forsook the unity of their follow-members, refusing to communicate with them, not only in superstition, but also in the unity of subjection to the Head-authority of the whole body. They did divide themselves from that Body, erecting to themselves new Conuenticlss, new Churches, under new chosen heads, guides, & pastors. Ergo, they cannot be excused from the formal and proper crime of Schism and Rebellion against the Church.  
11. You will say: had they not forsaken that unity of subjection to the common head, they must have professed Idolatry, or else have been burnt: I answer if the supposition be true of Idolatry in the Church, they had been blessed Martyrs in choosing rather to dye, then either to commit Idolatry, or divide the Church: But because they did not so, but sought to divide the Church, to save their lives, they be now damned Schismatics. For will you dare to say, that men may commit the most formal crime of Schism and rebellion against the Church,, rather than be put to death? Then if a Prince perfecute men for Religion, they may rebel and divide his Kingdom if they be able, rather than dye for their Religion.  
12. You say Cap. 5. n. 55. in fine. No man can have cause to be a Schismaque. I assume, But to forsake the external unity of God's Church, or the fellowship of subordination to the head-authority of the whole Body is to be a most formal and proper Schismatique. Ergo, No fear of being either stained with superstition or put to death could justify your relinquishing the external Communion, or union with God's Church, nor your erecting of new Conventicles under new Superiors from being formal and proper Schism.  
13. Moreover you say, that in the days of S. Austin there 
(a) Pag. 156. lin. 50.  was universal superstition in the Church; that 
(b) pag. 155. lin. 21. Second Edit c. 3. n. 47. pag. 149. 150.  all places were full of superstitions, humane presumptions, vain worships, which were 
(c) Pag. 156. lin. 36.  urged upon others with great violence, & the stream of them was grown 
(d) Pag. 156. lin. 24.  so strong that S. Austin durst not oppose it. And yet S. Austin did not therefore forsake the Church, and his subordination to the Pastors thereof: nay he doth every where most earnestly and severely, & (as you confess) justly rebuke, and convince the Donatists of damnable sin for deviding the Church, and erecting new Conventicles, Altars, Churches under new Pastors. It is manifest therefore even by your own Principles and Professions, that Protesters cannot be excused from damnable Schism, though the visible Church had been (as in S. Augustine's time you make it) so, when Luther revolted, full of superstitions, human presumptions, and vain worships: which yet to have been, or to be in the church, you neither do, nor can prove, otherwise then by your bare word, which I hope is no rule of Faith, more than S. Cyprians, which being objected to you, you reject 
(e) Cap. ●. 43.4●.  saying angrily to your Adversary: Why in a contronersy of faith do you cite any thing which is confessed on all bands, not to be a rule of faith?   

The fourth Conviction.  
14. WE proceed to convince Protesters of Schism, even though your most false suppositions were true. Let us suppose inevitable necessity to have been urgent upon them (as you say it was) either to abandon the unity of subordination to God's Church, 
Cap. 5. n. 72.  or else against their conscience to profess her errors; I say they should in that case rather have undergone this hypocritical dissimulation, than that Schismatical separation. This I prove, because though that be true, which S. Paul teaches, That evil is not to done, that good may follow; yet that is false which you affirm. pag. 283. n. 72. We must not do evil to avoydevil. This is against the known Principle of reason that of two Evils we are to choose the less, when we cannot avoid both, because a lesser Evil, considered as necessary to avoid a greater, is endued with the quality of goodness, and is not so much evil as good. But to profess against ones conscience an error small & unfundamentall 
(f) Cap. 3 n. 10. What else do we understand by an unfundamental error, but such a one with which a man may be saved.  Which doth not overthrew Salvation, wherewith one may be saved, is a less evil than separation from the unity of God's Church, & from subordination to the authority there of, for this is most formal and proper Schism. Hence it is false (what you with 
(g) D. Potter pag. 77.  D. Potter so much aver, and lay as the fundamental stone of your building) that it is damnable sin to profess any the least venial error against ones conscience, and that it were better to departed from the Church and erect new Conventicles, as Protesters did, then hypocritically to profess, 
(h) Cap. 5. n. 59 versus finem.  that there be no Antipodes, should the Church enforce you either to profess there be none, of else forsake her Communion. This is a false and pernicous principle, and (as I said) against the light of reason and common notion written in the hearts of all men, that of two Evils we are to choose the less, if of necessity we must do the one, or the other. The light of the truth seen of every man was not hidden from you, when you were not blinded with actual reflection, that by the light thereof your separation from the Church is showed evidently to be Schismatical. For Cap. 4. n. 18. in fine, you say, I willingly confess, the judgement of a Council though not infallible, is yet so fare directive and obliging, that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it, at least not to afford it OUTWARD submission for public peace sake. Now what is outward submission to definitions which you do not receive in your heart, but outward Profession to believe what in your conscience you think to be false? If it be lawful, and men may be bound under sin, to profess outward submission unto what they judge erroneous, for public peace-sake, that is, for the avoiding of Schism; who doth not see, that the doctrine whereon the justification of your revolt from the Catholic Church resteth to be false, to wit, that it is always impious and damnable to profess outward submission to any the least error, which in conscience you think to be error.   

The fifth Conviction.  
15. TO forsake the visible Church without any cause, upon a mere fancy, is damnable sin: This you affirm a thousand times in your fifth Chapter. But Protestants abandoned the Church of Rome without any just cause: this you allow and justify seeking to answer the objection, How may a Protestant, who is at least as fallible as the Church, be sure that the Church erreth, and that he hath hit 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 embraced by him consonant to it; AT LEAST this he may know, that the doctrine which he hath CHOSEN, to him SEEMS TRUE, and the contrary which he hath forsaken SEEMS FALSE. And therefore without REMORSE of Conscience he may profess that, but this he cannot. O houw true is the Proverb, What aboundeth in the heart will out at the mouth, yea out of the quill, which is ruled by an unconsidering Writer. You harbour in your heart that Socinian impiety, that men may be saved in any Religion; but you would fain hide it, and therefore make great show 
(h) Pag. 392. fine 2. Edit. pag. 373. lin. 26.  to abhor it, as most impious and execrable doctrine by foul calumny imputed unto you. And yet in this passage you do clearly profess it, and so fully, that irreligion itself 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 judaisme or Turkism true, though he have no certain ground so to think, he may without scruple, without remorse of conscience, leave Christianity, and become a jew or Turk. Puritans, Brownists, Anabaptists Arians, Socinians, Tritheists know, that to them the Religion of the Church of England seemeth false, and the contrary which destroys Christianity true; may they with a good conscience without scruple or remorse leave the Church of England, and join themselves to their most impure Familian Conventicles & Churches?  
16. When the Maintainer of Charity lays some testimonies of Fathers in your way, you fall a singing, In nonafert animus— 
(i) Cap. 5. n. 43.  telling him, that the Fathers be not the rule of your Faith, & that their testimonies be no more pertinent than that semi-verse. Verily you could not have found a ditty more proper and fitting the tune of your soul so fertile and full of novelties. Nor is there any man living I know, that can better than yourself out of his own experience— mutatas dicere formas. What you have done yourself you allow unto others, that by your principles they may change Religions as they do their linen, and forge new forms of faith as often as they make new suits of apparel. Being questioned about the ground of their change, they may answer In nova fert animus— I know that this novel choice to me seemeth good, and that the doctrine of the Church of England to me seemeth false, & M. Chillingworths' book, which goes for current in England, assureth me, that this alone without further assurance sufficeth, that without remorse of conscience I may forsake her, and go to some other Congregation in the world which pleaseth me better, and whose Religion I know to me seemeth true.   

The sixth Conviction.  
17. COntradicting the levity of your former assertion, that a man though he do not evidently know his cause to be just may forsake the Church; if at least he know that her doctrine to him seemeth false, you writ very gravely & soberly to the contrary, saying Cap. 5. n. 53. initto. It concerns EVERY MAN who separates from any Church's communion, even as much as his salvation is worth, to look most carefully to it, that the cause of his separation be just and necessary: for unless it be necessary it can hardly be sufficient. Under the wings of this most true proposition I shrowded this assumption to be made good by your principles. But Protesters had no just or sufficient cause to rend themselves from the Roman and visible Catholic Church. This I prove for their pretence is, 
Cap. 5. n. 107. lin 3.  they were forced and necessitated to do so by the evidence of Scripture, which in formal and express terms contains many of their opinions, and is against the Roman Catholic Religion as clear as the light at noon. 
Cap. 3. n: 86.  But this to be false, and that you and they herein speak against your consciences may be made as clear as the Sun even by your own principles.  
18. For pag. 156. n. 9 you say, In all controversies where there is is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture, Reason with Reason, Authority with Authority; how this can consist with the manifest revealing of the truth of either side I cannot well understand. Now it is as manifest as the Sun, that in all controversies 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 controversies the Scripture is clear on our side taken according to the plain and evident sense of the text; that Protesters are forced like Proteus to turn themselves into all manner of figures, & hide themselves with a figurative sense, that they be not taken in manifest & confessed unbelief of God's word.  
19 This may be confirmed by the examples you bring in this your book, to show that in some points the Scripture is clear against the Church of Rome, to wit against the worship of Angels, Communion in one kind, Latin service, an infallible judge; for in this main decretory battle for the whole, it may be well supposed you would produce your best soldiers, and use your strongest weapons: yea to take away all doubt of the matter, you profess, that they are the clearest you have, nay that there cannot possibly be any plainer. These instances by you often repeated, which are the substance & pith of your Book, I will prove to be weak, vain, improbable, incredible, even by your own principles.  
20. First then, Preface n. 11. lin. 18. How (say you) is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden than the worship of Angels in the Epistle to the Colossians? Thus you, without proof. Against whom I reply, that the place is dark, obscure, doubtful, ambiguous, as none can possibly be more; which I prove. First it is ambiguous and questionable in respect of the translation, or rather without question it is falsifyed by you 
(a) Cap. 2. nu. 1. versus finem.  Pag. 52. lin. 26. where speaking to us you say: Do not impose upon men that humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemns. 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 changing, corrupting, perverting of holy Scripture in this place is as great as any could possibly be used upon a text of so few words. You turn the particle and, into of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Religion or divine and Religious worship due to God only, not so much the act as the form, you translate simply worshipping. Angelorum being the Genitive case, of the Angels, you make it the Accusative, the humility of worshipping Angels, as if the Latin text had been in humilitate colendi Angelos. And this alone were sufficient to prove the place impertinent, because the Apostle doth not reprove any kind of worship of Angels but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
(a) 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 lies open unto ambiguity of senses in regard of the particle of, which may refer Religious worship to Angels as to the objects 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 delivered unto men and revealed by Angels. Hereupon ariseth a question indecidable, in which sense S. Paul intended to speak. Many, as even Caluin 
(b) Caluin Comment in hunc locum.  granteth, understand not Religious worship offered unto Angels, sed cultum ab Angelis traditum, the form of divine worship delivered by the Angels: such was the Religion of the jews by Angels 
(c) Alij Religionem Angelorum intelligunt Religionem Iuda●cam, quae data est Moysi per Angelos. Cornel.  delivered unto Moses, 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 each kind there is a great variety of offices and degrees, and consequently great diversity of opinions amongst Fathers and Expositors, which kind of Angels are meant, as you may see in justinianus and Cornelius. Amongst the which opinions the most probable is, that by Religion of Angels in this place, the Magical 
(d) Ad magicam illam superstitionem à Simone. institutam, Paulum respexisse haud ambigan. justinianus.  adoration of devils, or bad Angels is understood, taught by Simon Magus. Now this being proved we will entreat you to call to mind what you writ Cap. 2. n. 104. lin. 8. When a place by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between diverse senses, whereof the one is true and the other false, to say, that God under pain of damnation obligeth men not to mistake, is to make God a Tyrant. Now where is your text as clear as the sun? Is it not now as dark as night, to show the worship of Angels used by the Catholic Church unlawful? May not I with good reason give you warning in the words of our Lord, Si lumen quod in te est tenebrae sunt, tenebrae tuae quantae erunt? If your text, than which none can possibly be clearer, is so dark; how dark are your other texts, which even in your own sight seem not so clear?  
23. On the other side, the text wherein the Saints of God 
(d) Gen. 18 by Abraham. Gen. 19 by Lot. Num. 22. by Baalan Ios. 5. by joshua.  adored holy Angels prostrate on the ground, yea invocated Angels, as 
(f) Gen. 48.16. Angelus qui eruit me.  jacob, The Angel that delivered me from all evil bless these two children. These texts I say are clear as none can be clearer: And Protestants not to be scorched with the heavenly heat of reverend & fervent Devotion towards the blessed Angels, which might be kindled in their hearts by the lightsome influence of God's word, pretend over the literal evidence a mystical or rather misty veil or cloth of their textobscuring interpretations, painted with unseemly 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 Saviour joan. 6. in these words according to most of their own expositions. Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood you have not life in you. Thus you, in which speech your words interfere, gall each others ankles, destroy themselves: for to say, Who can deny according to the exposition of most Catholics, that this text is understood of Sacramental eating and drinking, doth imply that many Catholics, and with them most of Protestants deny it. And consequently, Who can deny it according to most, is as wise a speech, as if you should say, It is a most undeniable, by many justly denied, truth. For do not you write, Preface n. 30. in fine. There is no more certain sign, that a Point is not evident, than that honest, and understanding, and in different men, and such as give themselves liberty of judgement after a mature deliberation, differ about it?  
25. Thirdly you urge Scripture as plain against Latin service saying Cap. 3. n. 21. & n. 71. It is a plain revelation of God, that the public Prayers and Hymns of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification: yet these revelations the Church of Rome not seeing etc. 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 use a language which the Assistants generally understand not is not for edification, which is Scripture verbatim coined and forged in your own head. I pretermit also so many clear and fully satisfying answers given by Catholics which you do not mention much less confute: I will show that you behead this your Argument with your own sword. Do not you say Cap. 3. n. 32. that the Apostles in their writings deliver some things as the dictates of human reason and prudence, and not as divine revelations, and that you see no reason why we should take them to be divine revelations? This supposed, I assume: But S. Paul delivers this order, that an unknown tongue is not best for edification and decency, as a dictate of humane reason and prudence, as is manifest by the whole tenor of his discourse: Ergo, there is no reason why we should take it as a divine revelation upon your word? We believe it indeed as the word of God, that the Apostle did judge that observance most for edification and decency in those times, when Latin & Greek were vulgar languages almost every where commonly known of all. Since his time the Latin being not known and vulgar in every Country of the Latin Church as it was before, whether in this respect the Latin ought to cease, to be the Universal language for the Liturgy of the Latin Church, is a question not decided by divine revelation, 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 dictates of human reason being variable according to the diversity of times, places, persons, customs. Add that Latin which most men of better education and quality understand, and all Churchmen understand, cannot be termed a language unknown in the Church, yea rather vulgar tongues are unknown and barbarous in the Christian Church.  
26. Fourthly against infallible judges 
(g) 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 every foot with this Scripture, Be not called Masters upon earth, for one is your Maistere Christ. The vanity of which objection I demonstrate by this Syllogis me wherein both propositions be your own, and most infallible truths: The Apostles 
(h) Cap. 2. n. 155.  were the infallible judges of Controversies about faith so long as they lived, the Masters, Doctors, Guides of the Church. But the A postles herein did not transgress the command given them by our Lord, be not called Masters on earth. Ergo, to be, and to be called judges, and Masters of the Church in the place of Christ, and subordinate unto 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 believe there is any such) to ruminate and ponder your own saying: It imports every man who separates from any Church's Communion, even as much as his Salvation is worth, to look most carefully that the case of his separation be just and necessary. The cause pretended of your separation from the Communion of the whole Catholic Church, is the evidence of Scripture against her custom. The strongest testimonies you do, or can pretend are these by me now answered, than which, you say, there cannot possibly be any plainer. Now can you think in conscience, that the former testimonies are clear, evident, necessary, such as necessitate, convince, and compel the understanding to assent? Can you presume you shall be so eloquent at the day of judgement, as to make our Lord believe you were so simple and of so little judgement, as you did really, and in conscience undoubtedly believe, that these texts were evident, necessary, formal, express, as clear as the Sun? Think of it I pray you, for by your own confession, it concerns you and every Protestant, as much as his eternal salvation is worth.   

The seaventh Conviction.  
27. YOu forsake the Roman and the Catholic external Communion, not only without just cause, but without as much as a seeming cause, even against your conscience out of hatred of known truth: What is damnable Schism if this be not? that you go against your conscience and impugn known truth, though you be very loath this mystery of your heart should be disclosed, yet such is your inconsideration as you profess it openly enough 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 have it, and so let it pass as a discourse, wherein we are wholly unconcerned. You might have met with an Adversary, that would not have suffered you to have said so 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 discover your wifull aversion from known truth. You suffered Charily maintained to speak so much truth together: 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 been unwilling it should have been true, you would not have endured it, you would have impugned it with all might and main, though it had been truth never so much? Had you said, You might have met with an Adversary that would not have suffered you to have said so much untruth together, but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose; this had been some courtesy of forbearance: but to say, that you would not suffer so much truth to be said together, but that it made not against you, this is Charity with all my heart. You will suffer us to speak truth if you are willing it should be truth; a great favour. But if you hate that truth we speak, because it presseth your pride, which will not let you stoop to submit your wit to the word of God proposed by his Church: you will rage & storm against it, deny it, impugn it, seek to darken the light thereof, to make the same hatcfull by uttering any untruth 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 heap lies together, and fill whole pages and leaves with rage and fury, without any the least lucidum interuallum. To give the reader a little taste of your bitterness, and one draught of your salt sea; you, pag. 90. thus declaim against us. 
See. edit. cap. 2. n. 101. pag. 26. lin. 26.  You who have wronged so exceedingly Christ his miracles, and his doctrine, by forging so evidently so many false miracles for the confirmation of your new doctrine; who with forging so many false Stories, and false Authors have taken a fair way to make the faith of all Stories questionable; who have brought in doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the word of Christ, which for the most part make for the honour and profit of the teachers of them; who make profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors, whose questioned doctrines none of them came from the fountain of Apostolic tradition, but have insinuated themselves into the streams by little and little, some in one age, some in another etc. and men are told they were as good believe nothing at all, as not to believe these things to have come from the Apostles, which they know to have been brought in but yesterday; whether this be not a ready way, and likely way to make men to conclude with themselves, I will believe nothing at all; and whether this conclusion be not to often made in Italy, and Spaive, and France, and England too, I leave it to the judgement of those who have wisdom and experience. Thus you. And is not this a good proof of your profession, that you will suffer no truth, if you be unwilling it should be truth, but will load it with all manner of unprooved and unprobable falsehood?  
29. As for the last point of your invective, whether there be not too many in Italy, Spain, France, and England, who because they are urged to believe more than they list, thereupon conclude to believe just nothing, at all, with firm Christian faith; you leave it to be determined by men of wisdom and experience: I think every man may resolve it by the experience which you will not let them want, to wit, that in England certainly there is one such, and that is too many by one; for you hate and abhor to believe the revealed 
(a) Pag. 330 lin. 24.  manner. of Christian mysteries, which is incomprehensible to your human and carnal reason; and in this respect also hate and abhor the Church of Rome, which will not allow Salvation without belief thereof unto any Christian, to whom it is proposed by her preaching. Yea you do both by word and deed further profess, that you will not suffer any truth which crosseth this your impious fancy; though it be truth never so much, you will deny it, impugn it, disgrace it by all kind of fictions and lies. And whereas you say, that some other answerer of your Crew would not have been so good to the maintainer of Charity: for they would not (you say) have suffered him to have 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 plainly, I do not believe you. For why should they deny known 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 known truth which you do not hate; and again, you may hate some truth (as the mystery of the B. Trinity) which they do not hate; but for malignity and wilful opposition against known truth, for not enduring it, for being rebels against the light, for being in the number of them in whom S. Paul's Prophecy is verified, That, in the later days there should arise many, who would not SUFFER or enaure wholesome doctrine, but turn away their hearing from truth, to the believing and venting of fables, tales, lies, villainous slanders: In this respect (Isay) they cannot be worse than you are, as appeareth by your profession & practise set down in this argument; from which we will pass to the next, wherein you assure Protesters of their Salvation, notwithstanding their living and dying in these kind of direful passions and preiudices, instilled by education against the truth.   

The eight Conviction.  
30. THey who against the salvation 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 judgement, are damnable Schismatics. That Protestants of your stamp be such is manifest by your words and deeds. Cap. 3. n. 63. circa finem. We Protest and proclaim the contrary, and that we have very little hope of their salvation, who either out of negligence in seeking the truth, or unwillingness to find it, live and dye in the errors and impieties of that Church. And c. 5. n. 34. in fine, you tell us, That God is infinitely just, and therefore it is to be feared, will not pardon Roman Catholics, who might easily have known the tauth, and either through pride, or obstinacy, or negligence would not. And 
(a) Cap. 7. n. 6. in fine.  Pag. 389. lin. 10. To live and dye in the Roman Church, is as dangerous as to shoot a gulf, which though some good ignorant souls may do and escape, yet it may be well feared scarce one in a hundred, but miscarries.  
31. This you make the case of poor Catholics even of good ignorant souls, if happily they err, and might have been rid of their errors, by speaking with so learned and Religious a Teacher as you M. William Chillingworth are. There is little hope of their salvation, because they were unwilling to confer with you, as supposing for certain, you could be of no credit to oppose, and accuse (as you do) the whole Christian Church of all ages as subject to universal damnable errors. On the other side, if your Protestants err, not through negligence only, but through 
(b) Cap. 3. n. 52. lin. 7. Betrayed into and kept in error by their fault, vice or passion, by pride, obstinacy, (as most men are) pag. 21. lin. 40. If any protestant or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in any error by any sin of his will, as it is to be feared many millions are.  passion, pride, obstinacy, through sin of the will, as millions of them you fear do, I pray you is there any hope they shall be saved? What hope say you? Spes est re● incertae nomen.— There is no doubt but these Protestants shall be saved. This you teach: for having pag. 136. endeavoured to excuse their contentions by laying the fault on Scriptures seeming conflicts with itself, 
(c) 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, have over even excellent understandings, we may well imagine, that many truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough, are yet to such or such a man prepossessed with contrary opinions, not revealed plainly NEITHER DOUBTI, but God who knows whereof we are made, and what passions we are subject unto, will compassionate our infirmities, and not enter into judgement with us for those things, which all things considered were unavoidable. Thus you. Who are like as like may be to that naughty Servant in the Gospel, who having obtained of his Lord remission of a debt of ten thousand talents, presently took his fellow servant by the throat and would have choked him for a debt of an hundred pence.  
32. Let us set before us two men, the one a Protester, who through the preiudices of pride and presumption on his own wit, through proud contempt of the whole Catholic Church, of general Counsels, of consent of Fathers, instilled into him by education erreth against plain Scripture: On the other a Roman Catholic, who through reverence to the authority of the present Church, to the Church of all ages, to general Counsels, to the consent of Fathers, instilled into him by education, neglects to hear your wisdom, and thereby is kept in some error against Scripture, which by hearing a man of so great learning and Religion, he might (as you think) have avoided; let any man of discretion and conscience be judge, whether the former Errand do not sin ten hundred thousand times, that is, incomparably, more than the later. And yet you leave little hope of salvation to the later Catholic ignorant good-soule, who (if he sin at all in neglecting your wisdom, persuading him to trust his own wit) sinneth only out of a too low conceit of himself, and of his own wit, and through to much respect to general Counsels and Christian consent of holy Fathers: Whereas that other Protesting proud fool, who both obstinately and erroneously resists all Christian Churches, general Counsels, and consent of Fathers, through confidence on his own wit, through contempt of all others instilled into him by education shall (you say) without doubt be saved.  
33. God (say you) is infinitely just, and therefore there is little hope of salvation for Papists if they err, though but of only negligence and unwillingness to seek the truth. But he is infinitely good, and therefore though we Protesters hold errors against plain Scripture out of passion and pride (aversions, contempt of the Church, and the Pastors thereof) instilled by education, there is no danger. God knoweth that to these passions of pride, presumption, contempt, we by education are subject, and so without doubt will compassionate our infirmities, and not enter into judgement with us for such things, which all things considered were unavoidable. Poor men blinded with self conceit, who think your will and pleasure shall at the last day be the rule and measure of divine justice; who vainly flatter yourselves, and think you may deal with God as you do with us. No, no: You will suffer us to speak much truth together, if it be to no purpose against you, or you be willing it should be truth. But the truth of Gods most just sentence you shall endure and suffer, will you, nile you, though it be most hateful to you, and terrible against you. Then you will find, that as no one sentence was oftener repeated by the judge living in this world; so none will be found more true at the last day than this, He that humbleth himself shall be exalted, and he that exalteth himself shallbe humbled. It is then manifest that with extreme malice, partiality, injustice, you separate from hope of Salvation the Catho. lique Church, from which you are separated, and so are guilty of Schism, and of most malicious and damnable Schism.    

That Protesters are Heretics. CHAP. VII.  
THIS was part of the title of the last Chapter; but because the matter is distinct, to the end that no one Chapter or matter hold us ever long, I have divided the former into two. To make the Title good, we must declare & suppose the definition and nature of Heresy. Christian faith stands upon two grounds or principles, divine Revelation, and the external Proposition thereof; For we cannot by Christian faith believe any thing which is not revealed of God, nor what is revealed of God is credible and worthy to be credited and believed of us, till the same be externally proposed to us by some credible witness. For as we could not believe the word of God, were not the Author infinitely credible and worthy of credit; so likewise our persuasion cannot rest firmly upon the proposition, that God hath revealed such things, except the Proponent be evidently credible of itself. This you affirm Pag. 62. n. 25. & pag. 69. lin. 7. 
Cap 2. n. 25 & n. 45.  That our inquisition of what is revealed of God, never ceaseth till at last we find a principle to be rested on for itself, which may be a rock and ground unto our belief. Hence there be two Adversaries of Christian faith, Ethnicisme, and Heresy: Ethnicisme opposeth and denieth expressly Christian doctrine to be divine revelation, and calleth in question the authority of God. Heresy opposeth the authority of the Christian Proponent of divine Revelations, and though he profess to believe Christian doctrines & divine revelations, yet in the question, which in particular they be, he will be his own chooser, as the word Heresy doth declare, being in english the same as Choice.  
2. Whosoever then refuseth to believe any doctrine proposed to him by the last Christian Principle and rule evidently credible of itself, such a man is an Heretic, and to be accounted as a Heathen and Publican. As whom we cannot make to see the light of the sun shining at noon day, we leave him for a blind man; whom we cannot make to apprehend the prime principles of reason evident of themselves, we leave him for a sot, and uncapable of learning: So whom we cannot win to believe, what is proposed by the last and uttermost evidence, Christian Proposition can possibly have, we leave him for wilfully blind, for one void of faith, for a heathen and publican. For what can we do to him more? If such an one be not an Heretic, that is, under the name of a Christian, a wilful obstinate opposer of divine Revelations sufficiently proposed to him, how can any man possibly be an Heretic?  
3. Some may say, if he see the doctrine to be contained in Scripture, and yet disbelieve it, then is he an Heretic. I answer, than he is not an heretic, but a Heathen, openly and formally an Infidel. For you say 
(a) Sec. edition. cap. 4. n. 4 post medium.  Pag. 194. lin. 14. To disbelieve any doctrine which one knows to be revealed in Scripture, is for a Christian not only impious, but also impossible. 
D. Field. of the Church. l. 5. c. 5.   
4. Some may also pretend, that an Heretic is one, that erreth about some truth, which doth directly and essentially concern matter of Salvation, though he join not obstinacy to his error. But this is manifestly false. An Heretic is one hateful, horrible, and detestable, but a man that erreth in matters of salvation ignorantly for want of sufficient instruction and proposition, is commiserable and to be pitied, not to be abhorred. He that being in the dark seethe not the meat that is near him, and so starueth for want of food, cannot be said to be a blind man, or a wilful staruer of himself: so the Christian who doth err about some essential points of Salvation, the necessary food of the soul, & so perisheth, because the light of credibility doth not shine upon it in respect of him, cannot be said to be an Heretic, or an Infidel, but only in this respect an unhappy wretch; though this case among Christians can hardly happen. Finally an Heretic is one that erreth through inward indisposition to believe: but the man that doth disbelieve a truth, only because he is not sufficiently in struct, may want no good disposition and readiness of mind to believe; Ergo, he cannot be an Heretic.  
5. Now this main and last principle for resolution of the Controversy, which be divine Revelations, is the Christian Catholic Church delivering perpetual Traditions from the Apostles, or, which is all one, as you confess, 
(a) Cap. 2.155.  Universal Tradition is the rule to judge all controversies by 
(b) Cap. 2 n. 28.  being a thing credible of itself, and therefore fit to be rested on. Other principles and rules though they be not evident of themselves, yet are good stays of our faith, because evidently 
(c) Cap. 2. n. 8. That Scripture cannot be proved to be a perfect rule by its own saying so but only by Tradition, which is a thing credible, of itself.  conjoined with this principle of Tradition, credible of itself, against all which your Protestants or Protesters directly oppose, and so err fundamentally, and are Heretics, as these Arguments convince.  

The first Conviction.  
6. FIrst I prove them to be Heretics against their own last Principle and rule, their rock pillar and ground, the Scripture, evident of itself and known to be the word of God by its own glorious beams & rays. Though sometimes you reject this Principle, as not only false; but also 
(a) Cap. 6. n. 55. Cap. 2. n. 47.  fond, ridiculous, unworthy to be the conceit of any wise man; yet to keep your good purpose of contradicting yourself in every thing, you approve 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 answer, The doctrine itself 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 itself, seeing the credibility or worthiness of credit Scripture hath from its own doctrine, style, & language, it hath of itself. But howsoever Scripture be not the last stay of your belief in the question, Whether it be the word of God; yet in respect of your Faith of the sense of Scripture, you make Scripture the last Principle, yea the only rule thereof, clear, manifest, evident of itself. This supposed I subsume: but Protestants disbelieve doctrines proposed clearly 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 confess pag. 137. lin. 6. and there be millions of them that are betrayed into error, not by ignorance, but by the sinful and damnable passions of their will, pag. 21. lin. 40. Ergo, Protestants err fundamentally, and are proved Heretics by their own fundamental rule and last Principle of faith: for if they be not Heretics who contradict a doctrine which is propoposed unto them by clear, plain, and evident texts of Scripture; it is not possible there should be any Heretic by their grounds.  
7. This is confirmed, because the same Protestants believe truths, proposed unto them by texts not so clear and evident, as those are the true sense whereof they disbelieve: Ergo, the cause why they do not believe other more plainly and clearly proposed Truths, is not want of credibility in the proposition, nor of faculty in their understandings, but want of disposition to believe in their wills. This you confess saying, 
Pag. 137. lin. 6.  That truths revealed in Scripture plainly enough in the mselues, be not plainly revealed to such and such men, into whom passions and preiudices against such truths have been by education instilled. Now to disbelieve truths proposed sufficiently and enough by plain texts of Scripture (that is, in your way, with the uttermost light and evidence of credibility any Christian proposition can possibly have) not to believe I say, truths so proposed through passion and prejudice, is the formal crime of Heretical obstinacy & wilful blindness.  
8. Hence we may further conclude, that disagreeing Protestants are Heretics to each other, and their dissensions Heretical on the one side, or on both. As to say of one, he wants light to see the sun shining at noon day, is to say he is stark blind; To say of one he wants wit to appehend the truths that are evident of themselves is to say, he is a fool; so to say of one that he wants disposition to believe Christian doctrine proposed by clear and manifest Scripture, is to say, he is an Infidel, and void of Faith, if doctrine proposed by clear texts of Scripture, be hoc ipso proposed to Christian believers sufficiently and enough, as Protesters teach and must teach, else no doctrine can be in their Religion proposed sufficiently and enough. What you so often 
(a) Pag. 336. n. 19 and else where a hundred times.  object that then the Dominicans should be Heretics unto jesuites, because in the opinion of jesuites their opinion is clearly repugnant to Scripture, is frivolous and vain. For to jesuits and Dominicans the sole evidence of the text of Scripture is not sufficient proposition (because many plain texts are not to be understood in the plain and literal sense), but that the proposition of Scripture be sufficient, the evidence of the text must be backed and strengthened by the Tradition, definition, or declaration of the Church: Now you and your Protesters hold the sense of Scripture, proposed by the mere in ward evidence of the text, only and alone, to be the last and uttermost evidence of credibility a Christian doctrine can have, the rock and pillar of belief: Ergo, when you accuse each other of disbelieving evident and plain Scripture, you accuse each other of the formal & proper crime of heresy so that Protesters are, according to S. Paul, delinquishers of the Church, convinced, and condemned by their own judgement.   

The second Conviction.  
10. THey that protest against the pillar, ground, rock of that Credit and Authority which doth up hold, propose, and expose all truth of Salvation unto Christian belief, and make the same worthy of all credit in respect of us, err fundamentally and are damned Heretics. This is manifest by what is proved in the Preface of this Chapter. But you protest against such a Rock, for you protest against the Catholic present Church of every age since the Apostles, 
Cap. 5. n. ●●. circa. medium. Cap. 5. n. 91. paulo post medium.  as subject to fundamental and damnable errors, and ever stained, even in the second age immediately upon the death of the Apostles, with universal errors; whose Catholic external Communion you have forsaken, because universally polluted with superstitions, as you confess, and profess to glory therein. Now, that the present Catholic universal Church in every age, is the pillar, 
(c) Cap. 5. n. 52. Cap. 3. n. 77. &. n. 78.  ground, rock, that is, teacher of all Christian truth by duty and office, and in fact always the pillar and ground, that is, the maintainer, and teacher of all necessary truth, which she could not be, unless she were infallible in all her proposals: 
(d) Pag. 108. n. 139. Cap. 2. n. 139.  these things you grant as hath been showed at large in the fift Chapter: Ergo, Protesters are guilty of Heresy, as over throwers of the rock, pillar, & last Principle of Christian faith.  
11. Moreover, you grant Tradition universal to be the last Principle of Christian faith, evident of itself and so the pillar and ground of all truth, fit to be rested on. But by making the Church fallible, and subject to error in delivering Apostolical Traditions, you destroy this Rock, and make the same no ground to be rested on in any kind of truth. For, say you, an authority subject 
(e) Cap. 3. n 36. lin. 12.  to error cannot be a firm foundation of my belief in any thing: and Cap. 5. n. 91. lin. 40. expressly to this purpose you say; If the Church were obnoxious to corruptions, as we pretend who can possibly warrant us, that part of this corruption did not get in and prevail in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age? etc. The error of the Millenaries was, you say, in the second age universal, and what was done in some was possible in others. Now seeing the authority of the Scripture, and of the four Ghospels, and our whole Christian faith depend upon the tradition of the primitive Church, you that make the authority of the primitive Church and Tradition, subject to error and fallible; how do not you err most fundamentally, destroying the last stay and only rock to be rested on by Christian belief? Tradition primitive universal being uncertain and fallible, what certainty can Christians have of the Scriptures being from God, 
(f) Pag. 63. lin. 34. Only by the testimony of the ancient Churches  the testimony of the ancient Churches, the only means of our certainty in this point being uncertain?   

The third Conviction.  
12. IF the Roman Church be the pillar, ground, rock, that is, the teacher both by duty and in deed of all Christian truth; then Protesters against the Church of Rome be Heretics as you grant, and must needs grant. But the Antecedent is true and proved evidently by what you grant, and by what hath been showed to be consequent of your grants, that there must be always a Church of one denomination, always in fact, even by essence the teacher of all fundamental truth, visibly discerned from other Christian Societies, by this note of Unity and Subordination to One. Now, if there must be always such a one Church, the Roman must of necessity be this Church. 
Supra c. 6. convict. 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 perform the office of guide and director, must be of one denomination subject to one certain Bishop, and also universal, Apostolical, one & the same every where for matters of faith: But there is no Church of one denomination in the world noted with these marks, but only the Roman: Ergo, the Roman, and only the Roman is that Church of one denomination and obedience, 
Cap. 3. n. 39 lin. 18.  wherein a known infallibility is settled, by adhering to which men are guided to believe aright in all fundamentals. The mayor proposition of this argument I prove by what you writ pag. 91. 
(a) Cap. 2. n. 101.  where you apply a testimony of S. Austin against us: Every one may see, that you so few (in comparison of all those, on whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture) so turbulent, that you damn all to the fire and to Hell, that any way differ from you etc. Lastly so new in many of your doctrines, as in the lawfulness and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramental Cup, the lawfulness & expedience of your Latin service, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, the Pope's infallibility, authority over Kings etc. So new, I say, in respect of the undoubted Books of Scripture, which containeth or rather is our Religion, and the sole and adequate object of our faith: I say, every one may see, that you so few, so turbulent, so new can produce nothing deserving authority.  
13. This whole discourse (though the last two lines only be sufficient to my purpose) I have produced at large, that the Reader might see by this pattern (for all your Book is of the same style, method, and pith) what a Kilcow-Disputant you are, that is, a cursed Cow with short horns, yea without horns at all: for your Heart is not so cursed and fierce in uttering, what you conceive to the discredit of the Roman Church; but your Understanding is as weak and faint in proving what you say. You have heaped together many doctrines of the Roman Church, which you traduce as novelties; but in all your discourse there is not any strength of Argument, to show them to be such. So we cannot say of you— Cornu ferit ille, caveto; for you strike us only with the bare forehead of impudent assertion, without proof, yea without offer or proffer of proof. Nor could you prove them, these being, for the most part, all manifest Christian truths, which you would have taken upon your bare word to be errors. For how can you prove, that Communion in one kind, for Laymen, was not practised by our Lord and Saviour, given unto the two 
(a) Luc. 24.30.31.  lay Disciples in Emmaus? Was not the Latin service every where in use, during the Primitive times, I mean 
(b) Ang. lib 2 de doctrine. Christ. c. 11.  in all Countries of Europe and Africa, which did pertain to the Latin part of the word? Was not Purgatory believed, and 
(c) Machab. l. 2. c. 12.  prayer for the relief of the dead practised by the people of God, even before the Gospel was written? Do not 
(d) Morton of the Sacrament 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 etc.  Protestants profess, that Transubstantiation is as true and ancient as the Gospel, if the words of our Lord be certainly true in the plain and proper sense? And be not his words true in that sense he spoke them, though the same be never so high, obscure, & to human understanding incomprehensible? But your discourse though always without horns of Conviction of what you object to us, you will be sure it shall never be without horns of stiff and direct Contradiction against yourself: for even this short period hath two horns of this kind. First where you say, We damn all to Hell fire that any way differ from us, whereas more than forty times in your book you say, you 
(e) pag. 404. lin. 7. We censure your errors as heavily as you do ours.  damn us to Hell as much as we do you, and that, we grant 
(f) Pag. 283. n. 74. lin. 15. You yourself affirm that ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may be saved  Salvation to Protestants as much as they do to us. Secondly you say here, that the Scripture is the sole and adequate object of your faith; but else where you say often, that it is no object of your faith at all, but only the means of believing. Cap. 2. n. 32. lin. 5. Scripture contains all material objects of faith, whereof the Scripture is NONE, but ONLY the means of conveying them to us.  
14. Now to our purpose, I take out of your dunghill this gem of clear and manifest truth, worthy of S. Austin his divine wit and faith; that the Church which preferreth authority which is evidently credible of itself, the pillar and ground of truth, must not consist of a few, but be diffused and spread over the world; nor of turbulent persons that are full of discord and contention one against another, but all agreeing in full unity about matters of faith; not a new Church founded in after times, but instituted by the blessed Apostles, adorned with an illustrious succession of known Bishops to this present: which is the very Mayor proposition of my Argument, which was, that the Church which is the pillar and ground, that is the teacher always without fail of all necessary truth, must be both of one Denomination and Catholic, that is, universally Apostolical by succession of Bishops from them, one and the same every where for matters of faith. For if it be not such, but a company of a few, in one corner of the world, divided into innumerable factions and sects, founded not by the Apostles but only yesterday, or within the memory of men, it can prefer 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 evident than the Minor of my former argument, No Church of the World, but the Roman is adorned with these glorious marks, she wing the evident credibility of that Church, in which they are. For dare you say your Protesting Church is dilated over the word? Is it not confined to one corner of Europe, and reigneth most in the climate which is most North, 
Quod latus mundi nebulae, malusque  
jupiter urget?—  Can you say that your Church is one & the same every where, and not divided into turbulent factions and iects? Do not you say 
(a) Pag. 90. lin. 12.  there is among them infinite variance, and King james 
(b) Against D. Vorstius pag. 65.  an infinite diversity of Sects agreeing in nothing but in union against the Pope? Can you say it is Apostolical, having succession from the Apostles? Do not you confess it began but yesterday by deviding themselves from the external communion of the Roman, and whole Catholic Church?  
16. On the other side, can you deny the Roman to be spread over the world, to be in Europe, Africa, Asia, America, & almost in all countries of these four quatres of the world, every where famously known; that every man that will be saved, may come to this rock & be built thereon unto everlasting salvation? For what you say cap. 6. n. 53. That the Roman Church is like the frog in the fable, who thought the ditch he lived in to be all the world, is a speech not of truth and reason, but of prejudice & passion which education hath instilled into you; the passion, I say, and custom of lying and uttering any falsehood or scornful 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 judgement with you for such passions, which custom and education have made to you unavoydahle; Which I will believe if you can make me sure, that God did not damn to Hell Nero, Domitian, and such other Monsters for their pride and contempt of God and preiudices against Religion, which by education, and custom were to them all things considered, unavoidable.  
17. The Church of Rome is also Apostolical by a notorious succession of Bishops from S. Peter, that we may with S. Austyn 
(c) Aug. in Psal. contra partem Donati.  say to you: Number the Bishops succeeding in the sea of Peter, this is the Rock the proud gates of Hell do not conquer. This Church is also the same every where in all the professors thereof for matters of Faith. This you confess pag. 129. and very wittily, and prettily contradict yourself within few lines. In that pag. 129. n. 4. you speak to us, If you say, you do agree in matters of Faith, I say this is ridiculous. For you define matters of Faith to be those things, wherein you agree; so that to say you agree in all matters of faith, is to say you agree in those things wherein you do agree. But you are all agreed that only those things wherein you agree are matters of Faith. And Protestants if they were wise would do so to. Sure I am, they have reason enough to do so, seeing all of them agree with explicit faith in all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture. Thus you. Is not this a wise discourse of a man who holds his discourse to be infallible, and 
(a) Preface n. 12. By discourse no man can possibly be lead into error.  that thereby he cannot possibly be lead into error? Protestants all of them great and little, men & women believe with explicit faith all things whatsoever are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture. Is not this ridiculous? Credat judaeus Apella, Non ego. You say it is ridiculous, that we define matters of faith to be those wherein we agree, and then say, we agree in all matters of faith. And yet presently you say, that Protestant's if they were wise would do so too, to wit, agree that those things only wherein they agree, be matters of faith, & then stop our mouths, when we reproach them with disagreements, by saying they agree in all matters of faith; because matters of faith be those only wherein they agree. Is this discourse coherent? If it be ridiculous in us to do so, how were it wisdom for Protestants to do the same? And how have they reason, & reason enough why they might do so? Though also it be false, that we define matters of faith to be those wherein we agree. We define matters of faith to be all doctrines proposed by the Church as her traditions or definitions, wherein all Catholics must agree.   

The fourth Conviction.  
18. I prove directly by the word of God the Roman Church, that is, the Church subject to S. Peter and his successor, to be the Church of one denomination, which is the pillar and ground of truth. There was always (as you have confessed by force) a Catholic visible Church by duty & in deed, the teacher of necessary truth, & that no Church is fit, or able to perform this office which is not of one denomination; Ergo this church was built dependently upon one Rock, subordinately to one visible head, by Christ jesus 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 only on S. Peter, Thou art Peter (a Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church: 
Math. 16. joan 21.  To the I will give thee keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: Dost thou love me, feed my lambs, feed my sheep. What can be more clear? Now this power of Rock to uphold, this authority of Pastor to guide, this Superiority of Head to govern the universal Church of one denomination, was to descend, and did descend to S. Peter's successors. This cannot be denied; because this Church was to be always successively in the world, Ergo the Rock sustaining it, the Pastor guiding it, the Head ruling it, was to be always successively in the world, which is to say, that S. Peter must always have a successor in the Headship of the one Church, which I further more prove in this manner.  
19 If the institution of the Apostles to be Priests by these words, do this in remembrance of, me, do import that the Apostles should have successors in their Priesthood; then this institution of S. Peter, to be the one Pastor and Guide of the Church, doth import that he should have a successor in that office of Pastor. For as Priesthood was not instituted for the Apostles sake, but for the divine worship, which was to continue in the Christian Church till the world ended: So the Pastourship of S. Peter over the one Christian Church & flock, was not instituted for S. Peter's sake, but for the good of Christians, that by adhering to one guide they might all unitedly be lead into all truth. But the Institution, Do this in remembrance of me, doth import successors in Priesthood; Ergo this Institution, feed my sheep, 
Cap. 2. n. 23.  doth import the office of Guide and Pastor, was to go to S. Peter's successors, until the consumamtion of the world. But you say pag. 62. n. 23. If our Saviour had intended, that all Controversies in Religion should be by some visible judge finally determined; who can doubt, but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter? He would have said plainly, The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all controversies. Thus you.  
20. And this is your perpetual impertinency of arguing by interrogations, supposing that to be undeniable truth, which is manifest falsehood, for which you can say nothing. This manner of arguing you use often through whole pages and leaves together, that should I transcribe the places I might set down more than half of your book. But now to your question; Who can doubt, but Christ would have said plainly the Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all Controversies? I answer, every man that hath any brains or wit in his head. For such an one cannot but see, that Christ our Lord could not have said, as you would have him to have spoken, without untruth. For though he did appoint that S. Peter and his successor should be the Guide and Pastor of his flock, yet that S. Peter or his successor should be the Bishop of Rome more than of Jerusalem, or Antioch, this he did not appoint, at the least whiles he lived on earth. Why may it not suffice you, that by clear Scripture, and by what you yourself grant, S. Peter's successor is to be for ever the guide and Pastor of the Church of one denomination, the pillar and ground of Truth? Do you doubt whether the Roman Bishop be S. Peter's successor, or no? Of this you cannot doubt, if you will not stagger at your own principle, which you deliver as undeniable Cap. 4. nu. 53. li. 20. All wise men for the assurance of truth in all matters of belief, rely upon the consent of ancient Records and universal Tradition. Now universal Tradition doth deliver by full consent, that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome is his successor. Or if you doubt of this, you may as well doubt whether ever julius Caesar was at Rome.   

The fifth Conviction.  
21. THat the Bishop of Rome is appointed of God to decide all emergent Controversies, I prove by Principles acknowledged and set down by yourself. For whereas the maintainer of Charity saith, that Protestants deprive S. Peter and his successors of the Authority which Christ our Lord conferred upon them, over his whole militant Church, which is a point confessed by Protestants to be of great Antiquity, and for which they reprove diverse of the most holy Ancient Fathers, as Brerely showeth at large; you, c. 5. n. 98. first question the worth and authority of the holy Fathers, as no certain rule of faith: then writ in this sort lin. 14. Yet this I say not, as if I did acknowledge what you pretend, that Protestants did confess 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 over it given him by the Church; but whether by divine right, and by Christ's appointment he were head of the Catholic Church. Now having perused Brerely, I cannot find any Protestant confessing any one Father to have concurred in opinion with you in this point. Thus you. From these words we have this great Truth, (which by the consent of ancient Records, & universal Tradition is most certain and undeniable) that S. Peter and his successor for the time, was ever acknowledged to be the Head of the Catholic Church, with authority over it in all Ecclesiastical causes. You add, that the point here issuable and controverted betwixt Protestants and us, is not, whether he had his authority (for hereof you seem to suppose, that Protestants make no controversy) but only whether by divine right and our Lord's appointment he were Head of the Catholic Church. Now I assume; If he were Head of the Church, he was so by divine right, & Christ's appointment, and could not be so by human institution. How prove I this? Even by your own words Pag. 60 nu. 22. For the deciding of civil controversies men may appoint themselves a judge: but in matters of Religion this office may be given to none, but whom God hath designed for it. Thus you; hence I enforce the Conclusion, by joining together in form of discourse your two Propositions: S. Peter and the Roman Bishop his Successor was ever held by the consent of Fathers the Head, the Pastor, the judge of the Catholic Militant Church: But he could not be so by the appointment of men; Ergo, he was so by divine right, and by the institution of Christ our Lord.  
22. And I wonder, what did blear your eyes in perusing Brerely, that you could not see in him so much as one Protestant confessing any one Father to have concurred in opinion with us in this point. For doth he not cite the Centurists (that is, a mess of Protestants at once) who reprehend Tertullian for agreeing herein with us, saying, 
(a) Centur. 3. c. 4. col. 84. lin. 60. edit Basileae.  Tertullian did erroneously think the Keys to have been committed to Peter alone, and the Church to be builded on him: Who charge S. Cyprian for his affirming 
(b) Centur. 3. c 4.  the Church to have been built upon Peter, and one 
(c) Col. 84. lin. 60.  Chair founded by our Lord's voice upon the rock; and that 
(d) Col. 84 lin. ●4.  there ought to be one Bishop in the Catholic Church; and for calling Peter's Chair 
(e) Col. 84 li. 19  the principal Church, from whence Priestly unity ariseth; and lastly for his teaching (say they) without any foundation of Scripture, that 
(f) Col 84. lin. 51.  the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other, the Mother and root of the Catholic 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 than once fall upon 
(g) Cap. 6. n. 30. This is falsely translated (say you) for convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knows signifies no more than to resort etc.  Cardinal Peron, & his noble Translatresse about this place, Ad quam propier potentiorem principatitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclepam, which they turn thus in English, To which Church it is necessaerie, that every Church should agree in regard of more powerful principality: you say they make bold with the Latin tongue, as though convenire did signify to agree, whereas it doth signify to resort. Hence of this sentence, ad quam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, you make this construction: To this Church, by reason of the powerful principality it hath over all the adjacent Churches, there is, and aways hath been a necessity of perpetual recourse of all the faithful round about. Thus you, showing yourself to be no better a Grammarien then you are a Christian? Who ever did deny that convenire, according to the property of the Latin tongue doth signify to agree rather than to resort? I think the Lady translatresse, and every Lady that understands English, know, that to resort, is to repair frequently to a place, which convenire doth no more signify, then to leap over a ditch.  
24. But this is your audacity to make bold with Latin, and then rail against others who translate according to the property of the Latin, whereof I can give another example. S. Austin against some abuses in his time saith, Quae in divinis libris saluberrimè praecepta sunt, minùs curantur. This (say you) I suppose I may 
(a) 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 Saviour's words, The commandments of God are laid aside. Thus you, and upon this false translation, you slander and rail at the Church in S. Augustine's time, as universally superstitious, for two pages together.  
25. Item Pag. 176. n. 76. in this place of S. Paul to Timon thy, Quomodo oporteat te in demo Dei conversari, quae est Ecclesia Dei vivi, & columna, & firmamentum Veritatis; you will have columna & firmamentum veritatis, not to be referred to the Church, with which it agreeth in case, but to Timothy which is the accusative case by subaudition of the particle As, te ut columna & firmamentum veritatis, & in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just as if one should say to you, ut 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 yourself, by this construction, quomodo oporteat te amicus veritatis subdi etc.  
26. But to return to the place of S. Irenaus, I say, that convenire doth signity to agree, not only when it is referred to a thing, by the preposition Cum, as, Conuenire cum alique, but also many times when it is referred by the preposition Ad. When Cicero saith, 
(a) Pro Sylla.  Conuenit ad eum haec contumelia, will you translate, this reproach resorteth to him, and not, agrees to him? When he saith 
(b) 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 foot, and not, agrees with the foot? when Cato and Varro say, as they do often, conveniunt hae vites ad quemuis agrum, will you translate, these vine-trees resort to any soil, and not, agree with any soil? When Plautus saith conveniebat 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 give the Lady Translatresse just cause to smile at your simplicity, as now she hath cause to admire your ignorance in Latin, yea want of judgement in playing Monus at her Translation. For every man of wit and common sense must of necessity perceive, that S. Irenaeus could not mean corporal resorting to Rome, without being ridiculous. For though we should grant that convenire may signify to resort, yet it is clear, 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 think, that S. Irenaeus would have all Churches, and all the faithful on every 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 powerful principality to the Roman Church & Bishop over all Christian Churches, by reason whereof all other are bound and obliged in duty, to come together with the Church of Rome, not by corporal repair to the City; but by consent of mind to the Roman Faith. But this more powerful Principality, this judicial Authority, and Headship, the Roman Bishop could not have by gift of men, as you confess: Ergo, he had it by divine appointment as the successor of S. Peter, in whom by the voice and word of our Lord it was instituted. So that Protesters by opposing the Church of Rome and S. Peter's successor, oppose the ground and pillar of all Christian truth, and so are Heretics.   

The sixth Conviction.  
27. THE visible Church is the judge of Controversies, and therefore infallible in all her Proposals; so that to oppose her is as much as to oppose God himself: and consequently whosoever opposeth against the Doctrine of the visible Church is an Heretic. This argument is proposed by the maintainer of Charity c. 6. n. 15. to which you answer cap. 6. n. 13. First you deny the Church to be judge of Controversies: How (say you) can she be the judge of them, if she cannot decide them? and how can she decide them, if it be a question whether she be judge of them? That which is questioned itself cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide Controversies. Secondly you say: If she were judge, it would not follow that she were infallible, for we have many judge in our Courts of judicature, yet none infallible. Thus you. How could you possibly be so oblivious, as not once to imagine, that both these answers are direct Contradictions of what you before affirmed. Cap. 2. n. 162. you say, The Church hath authority of determining Controversies of faith, according to plain and evident Scripture, and universal Tradition, and to excommunicate the man that should persist in error against her determinations. Now if she be not judge, if her authority be questioned, how can she do this? Secondly she being judge of Controversies that she must be infallible, though judges in the Courts of Civil judicature be not such, you affirm cap. 2. n. 17. We are to obey the sentence of the (civil) judge, and not resist it, but not always to believe it just: but in matters of Religion such a judge is required whom we should be bound to believe to have judged right: so that in civil Controversies every honest and understanding man is fit to be a judge, but in Religion none but he that is infallible. Thus you: whose words contain an unanswerable demonstration against yourself, that the Church being judge to determine Controversies of faith, must of necessity be infallible.  
28. Thirdly, you say, That though she were a judge 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 answer, that to oppose the Propenent of faith 
(a) Cap. 2 n. 26. That which is either evident of itself and seen by its own light or reduced unto, & settled upon the principle, that is so.  which is evidently credible of itself, or evidently reduced to such an evident credible Principle, is Heresy, & a virtual opposing of God and his Revelation. For the Proponent being a witness worthy of all credit, the disbeliever of this proposition must of necessity assent, except he be misled by Passion against the truth revealed, or by pride against the proposer thereof as I shown in the preface to the arguments of this chapter.   

The seaventh Conviction.  
29. THE Church gathered together in General Counsels, or a General Council of Christian Bishops have Power to propose & define with infallibility the Conttoversies of Religion & bind all Christians under pain of heresy to believe their definitions. But Protesters oppose General Counsels & such definitions of faith which they know and confess to have been enacted by them; contending that such Christian Assemblies, representing the whole Christian Church, are fallible, and have been many times false, as is notorious: Ergo, they contradict the infallible Proponent of Christian Faith preferring their own private fancies, and so are guilty of Heretical obstinacy and pride. The mayor Proposition of this argument is evident and undeniable by the perpetual Tradition and practice of all former Christian ages, even of the Primitive times. For though then they could not meet together all in one place; yet they did assemble generally in different places & determine the Controversies of Religion against Heresies that did arise. In proof hereof the testimony of Tertullian is clear and direct, mentioning general Counsels gathered by command no doubt of the Roman Bishop: 
De iciunijs cap. 13.  Aguntur praecepta per Graecias illas certis in locis Concilia, ex universis Ecclesiis, perquae, & altiord quaeque in common tractantur, & ipsa representatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur. Behold the notorious Antiquity of the Catholic Tradition about the venerable Authority of General Counsels to determine the highest matters of Religion, as being the representative Church or representations of the whole Christian Name. Wherefore Protesters who contemn this Tradition evidently certain or credible of itself, and oppose General Counsels, cannot be excused from damnable Heretical pride.  
30. But Tradition though never so perpetual and primitive, full and universal, will not grow in your garden, except the same be watered from your Well, with whom nothing is well, but what is your own, Thus you writ c. 2. n. 85. lin 6. This we know, that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judicial definitive obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion, but only such a Man or such a Society of men as is authorized thereto by God. And beside we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not been the pleasure of God to give to any Man, or Society of men any such authority. The truth of the first part of this saying will establish the authority of General Counsels from God, when the falsehood of the second shall be confuted by D. Potter, yea by your own contradiction thereof. D. Potter writeth pag. 165. We say that such General Counsels as are lawfully called, and proceed orderly, are great and awful representations of the Church; that, they are the highest Tribunals the Church hath on earth; that, their Authority is immediately derived, and delegated from Christ; that, no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction; that, their decrees bind all persons to external obedience, and may not be questioned but upon evident reason. Behold D. Potter cries, We (Protestants) say that General Counsels are authorized of God to pronounce a judicial definitive sentence obliging all persons: and you cry the contrary, We say, and are able to demonstrate, that God hath not given any such authority to any Society. Council, or Congregation of men. How do you not fear lest by thus contradicting your Potter, 
Isa. c. 45.  you incur the curse of the Prophet, Vaequi contradicis fictori tuo testa de Samijs terrae: Woe unto thee that darest contradict thy Potter, though thou art but 
(a) Samosatenian.  a Samian Potsherd.  
31. But I can easily make you friends with the Doctor, showing that else where you contradict yourself, and agree with him, that Counsels are authorized of God to pronounce a definitive obliging sentence, c. 4. n. 18. in fine: I willingly confess, that the judgement of a Council, though not infallible, is yet so fare directive and obliging, that without apparent reason to the Contrary, it may be sin to reject it, at least not to afford it outward submission for public peace-sake. Hence I thus argue: Christian Counsels have power to pronounce a judicial definitive obliging sentence as you confess, 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 external 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 affirm. Ergo, a Christian Council or Convocation of Bishops is authorized of God to pronounce a judicial definitive sentence obliging the whole Christian world.  
32. And whereas you say with D. Potter, that such Counsels be not infallible, and so may be questioned or rejected upon evident reasons; and that they do bind us to external obedience for peace sake, but not to an inward assent that their Decrees are true; you contradict what you writ pag. 59 n. 17. In Civil Controversies we are bound to obey the sentence of the judge, or not be resist it, but not always to believe it just: But in matters of Religion such a judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right. So that in civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a judge, but in Religion none but he that is infallible. Now seeing you say cap. 2. n. 22. That in matters of Religion the office of judge may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it, a General Council which hath the office of judge to pronounce a judicial obliging sentence in matters of Religion, must of necessity be infallible, and bind Christians not only to outward submission; but also to believe, that it hath judged right and according to the word of God: Except you will say, that God doth assign and authorise such judges as are not sit for the office, nor such as the state of Religion doth require. Besides, to say that General Counsels have authority immediately from Christ to bind all persons to external obedience, and yet that such Counsels be fallible, and false many times; what is it but to say, that Christ hath apppointed such Authority & government in his Church, by the force whereof men are bound to dissemble and play the Hypocrites in matters of Religion? For example, General Counsels have defined, That Communion in one kind is lawful & command all Christians to approve and practice it. You are persuaded in conscience, that this is unlawful, a sacrilegious maiming of the Sacrament, and yet by your doctrine, That Counsels bind at the least to outward submission and external obedience, you are bound outwardly to practise it, and to make a show as if you did judge the same lawful. It is therefore evident truth (& the contrary impious) that General Counsels apppointed of Christ, as the highest external Tribunals the Church hath on earth, and which bind all persons to external obedience, are infallible. And if they be infallible, than they who moved with conceit of their private skill in Scripture, which they pretend to have gotten by the excellency of their wit & discourse; or by singular illumination from God, reject their judgement, and openly Potest that they may err and have erred, are proved damnable Heretics.   

The eight Conviction.  
33. PRotesters are Heretics, because they condemn and contemn that Church, upon whose authority they have believed Christ, and Christian Religion. For they have received Christ and the grounds of Christianity by the preaching, 
(a) Cap. 2. n. 101.  and upon 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 firm, and infallible as their Christianity, so as they should rather not believe in Christ, then believe any thing against them by whom they believed 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 moved to believe, that Christ commanded any good thing? Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are, better declare to me what he said, whom I would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended to me by you & c? Surely, if they were not at all, and could not teach me any thing; I would more easily persuade myself, that I were not to believe in Christ, then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other, then them by whom I believed him. This is your discourse, full of impieties: because what S. Augustine saith of the whole Christian Catholic Church, you apply to the Protestant Church of England. It is false, that any true Christian believes in Christ by resting on the Authority of the Church of England; nor doth this Church, if it make Christians, propose herself, but the Holy Catholic Church, for the irrefragable witness of Christ. It is impious, that you would never have believed Christ nor Christianity, if the belief thereof had been recommended to you by us, that is, by preachers of the Roman Church, and Holy monks sent you for that office from Rome. It is Antichristian to profess, that you would more easily not believe in Christ, then learn any thing concerning him from any other, then them (the Church of England) by whom you believed him: so that if the Church of England should fall away from Christ into Infidelity, you profess aforehand, that you will fall away, and become an Infidel with her.  
34. Hence it is clear, that the saying of S. Augustine, I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me: I would more easily persuade myself, that I were not to believe Christ, then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him; this Profession I say though most evident truth, cannot without impiety be applied to any church which is not indefectible, and infallible in all her Proposals. It is evident truth, because the proof must be to us more manifest, and we surer of the truth there of then the thing proved thereby, otherwise it is no proof as you say Cap. 6 n. 59 in fine. But the only proof, the only motive and reason we have to believe Christ, that he lived on earth, and that his doctrine and Religion is contained in the Christian Scripture, is the Catholic Church and her word and Tradition, as you often grant. Therefore as S. 
Cap. 5. n. 64. lin. 8.  Augustine saith, how can we have evidence of Christ, if we have not evidence of the Church, that she cannot err 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 disbelieve Christ then the universal Church. But you Protest against the visible Catholic Church, that she is not free from damnable errors in faith and damnable corruptions in practice, that Church by whom you have believed Christ if you do truly and Christianly believe in him: How then can you be Christians, or have any grounded assurance of faith concerning him? You will say, that you have believed in Christ not by this present Catholic Church, but by the Church of all ages. This is vain, because you can have no assurance of the Church of all former ages, and of what they believed 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 expressly teach that the same was presently upon the Apostles death covered with darkness and universal Errors: how then be you not heretics and false Christians, who believe Christ and Christianity upon no other, or better ground than your own fancy?   

The ninth Conviction.  
35. PRotesters destroy by their doctrine the being & essence of the Catho. Christian Church: But the doctrine destructive of the Church or the denial of the holy Catholic Church is a damnable blasphemous heresy: Ergo, Protesters be Heretics of the worse and more damnable sort; You deny both Propositions of this Argument, yet you teach principles by which they are demonstratively cleared against you. The mayor is proved, because you often teach (and it is the main point of your Religion) that the whole Catholic 
(a) Pag. 291. lin. 9 or c. 5. n. 88 in ●edio.  Church is subject to errors, to damnable errors, yea 
(b) Cap. 5. n. 7. Cap. 3. n. 36. li. 12.  to fundamental errors in some kind: But this doctrine doth totally and essentially overthrew the being of the Church. For you grant that the Church is always by essence the Rock and ground, (c) that is, always the actual Teacher of all necessary truth, so that they who take this from her, take her essence from her, 
Cap. 5. per to ●um.  and essentially destroy her being. But he who saith that the Church is subject to errors in matter of faith maketh the Church not to be the pillar and ground of truth; for you say, An authority subject to error cannot be a firm and stable foundation, (a pillar and ground) of belief in any thing. Ergo, they that make the Church fallible and subject to some errors, in some proposals of faith, destroy her essence. Hence your distinction of a true Church, and of a pure Church free from errors, and that there was, ever shall be a true Christian Catholic Church in the world, but not a pure, unspotted Church from all errors; this distinction, I say, by you repeated many hundred of times is vain: for I have demonstrated, that impurity in matter of faith, yea possibility to be impure and erroneous in any Proposals of Faith, 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 than they could justify: but yet you do not show, nor can I discover any such vast absurdity or sacrilegious Blasphemy in this assertion. Thus you. And this fancy than did so occupy the short capacity of your brain, that the contrary declarations which you make in your Book were driven quite out of your mind. Pag. 336. lin. 25. Into such an heresy (which destroyeth essentially Christianity) if the Church should fall, it might be said more truly to perish then if it fell only into some errors of its own nature damnable; for in that state all the members of it without exception, all without mercy must perish for ever. Thus you, teaching that if the Church perish essentially and remain Christian, not in Truth, but only in name, that all the members thereof without exception, all without mercy perish with it. Can any absurdity be more vast, and full of horror than this? You teach this immanity to be consequent upon the total destruction of the Church; and yet say, that you cannot discover any such vast absurdity in that destructive doctrine. So small a matter it seems to you to grant, that all Christians since the days of the Apostles perished everlastingly.  
36. Is it not sacrilegious blasphemy to make Christ a false Prophet, who said, that the gates of Hell should never prevail against is? Which promise doth import, as you acknowledge cap. 3. n. 70, that she shall always continue a true Church, and bring forth children unto God, and send souls to Heaven. 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 Maintainer of Charity said, and none will deny that hath in him any spark of Charity towards Christ.    

The Conclusion.  
37. ANd now give me leave (Courteous Reader) to make an end. For what hath been said may more than abundantly suffice, to show the vanity of this man's enterprise, who would cut out a safe way to Salvation through the flint of Heretical obstinacy. If any think this cannot be performed against such a volume by a Treatise so small as this is, for bigness not comparable unto his; let him examine comparatively the strength, the pith the arguments of the one with the other, and I do not doubt but in this comparison the Proverb will also be found true, A Cane non magno saepe tenetur aper.  
38. The Crocodile, that vast venomous Serpent of Nilus is conquered and made away by a little fish termed Ichneumon, which watching an opportunity, and finding the Crocodile sleeping with his mouth wide open, by that overture getteth in, and there vasteth and destroyeth all his vital parts. This our Adversary hath opened his mouth, no man wider, into bold reproach and reprehension of the whole Christian Catholic Church; but he doth it always Sleepingly, with such dull inconsideration, with such manifest contradiction of himself, as he lieth open to any Adversary to enter upon him, and work his confusion, by showing the intestine dissension of his most intime, and essential doctrines one against another. I am content to venture it to the verdict of any learned and judicious Protestant, who hath attentively perused his large Volume, and this short Reply, whether I have not overthrown the grounds and foundations of his edifice, destroytd all the most intrinsical Principles that have influence of life into his discourse.  
39 His Book indeed is a vast bulk made big, not with variety of matters and proofs, but by the repetition of those principles I have proved in this Treatise to be both false, & contradicted, impugned rejected even by himself: Principles I say, by him insisted on, urged and repeated some many hundreds, some even thousands of times. For the rest it is an heap of manifest slanders, base calumniations ridiculous brags, vild, reproaches, concumelious speaches against the Church, the Pope, the jesuits, and namely the Author of Charity mainsayned, wide mistaking of the force of his Adversary's Arguments wild and exorbitant answers, his arguing upon this false supposition pitifully begged, & assumed gratis without (I will not say a Schillingworth, but) a Pennywarth of proof, that our Religion is but the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, his, the pure Word of God, the Bible, and only the Bible. These Arguments for multitude innumerable, and diffused by large extent over all the leaves, pages, and numbers of his book, make it unworthy to be read, and much more unworthy to be, for all the particulars thereof, distinctly answered, and refuted.  
40. I also would have him to know, that I keep more than an hundred of his contradictions and gross ignorances in store to bestow on him for his reward, if he shall undertake to reply. These I omitted in this Treatise, not to cloy with superfluities, the appetite of judicious Readers, who with the discovery of a few gross contradictions (such as these be wherewith I have charged him) remain satisfied, and filled with contempt of such a writer. I likewise was fearful lest by some, the censure of small discretion might belayed upon me, for spending so much time against such an unworthy writing, wherein the Author himself will not be able to show three Pages together which be coherent, and not contradictious against other parts of his Book. Finally many new contradictions and impertinences by him uttered will be laid open in the Treatise of the Totall Sum, which I intent as an Appendix unto this.   
FINIS.   

Faults escaped in the Print.  
Page. Line. Error. Correction. 15. 20. you consider you: consider 25. 10. part heart 26. 7. ara are 28. 10. of, this of this 38. 32. prached preached 45. 18. world One world: One 60. 12. as our as you Ibid. 27. thus you I thus you: I Ibid. 27. I not say I cannot say 95. 15. certain contained 98. 15 sole soul 100 26: book) but book; but Ibid. 27. itself: itself) 102. 16. tradition, for Tradition. For 103. 5. the rule the only rule 106. 5. should be so should do so 126. 8. by whom of whom 131. 27. not firm no firm 158. 20. ente enter 81. 20. Propenent Proponent.