The totall summe. Or No danger of damnation vnto Roman Catholiques for any errour in faith nor any hope of saluation for any sectary vvhatsoeuer that doth knovvingly oppose the doctrine of the Roman Church. This is proued by the confessions, and sayings of M. William Chillingvvorth his booke.

The sixt Conuiction. (Book 6)

1. THis Conuiction sheweth, that only Roman Catholiques haue sauing fayth, which is de∣monstrated by three Arguments. The first: Sauing fayth, is that, (d) 1.1 without which it is impossible to please God. Now fayth which pleaseth Gods must be on the one side certaine and infallible; otherwise it is not wor∣thy of God, to whose word we owe so firme beliefe; that, if an Angel from heauen should Euangelize against that we haue receaued as his word, he were not to be heard, but to be accursed. On the other side, it must be a free and voluntary assent; not enforced by the euidence of the thinge. For if the reason of belieuing be euident, and such as doth necessitate the Vnderstanding to assent, the assent is not pleasing to God; because it is not vo∣luntary obedience and submission to his word. Roman Catholiques by belieuing the Church to be infallible in all her proposals, obtaine a persuasion about Diuine mysteries firme and infallible, and yet of voluntary obedience and submission. But the Opposers of the Roman Church, not only want certainty in truth; but also know not which way to challenge infallible cer∣tainty, without euidence.

2. This may be proued by what you write, (e) 1.2 Pag. 329. lin. 31. The infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it selfe; yet is not made appeare to vs infallibly certaine, to my vnderstanding is an impossibility. What is this but to say, that fayth of a thing cannot be infalli∣bly certaine; except the thinge belieued be made so cleere and apparent, that the vnderstanding cannot choose but assent vnto it? For what appeares to vs to be infallibly certaine, is seen of vs to be infallibly cer∣taine:

What we see to be infallible certaine, we cannot choose but assent, that it is so. So that, a firme (f) 1.3 groun∣ded beliefe of the truth of thinges not appearing, without which it is impossible to please God, is by your doctrine to Protestants impossible.

3. Moreouer, that Protestants cannot haue fayth pleasing to God, that is, fayth infallibly certayne not grounded on euidence, I demonstrate in this sort. No man can be assured infallibly of the truth of things not seene, nor to him euidently certaine, but by the word of an Authour infallibly veracious in all his words, de∣liuered vnto him by a witnesse of infallible truth: For if the witnesse, or messenger of the word be fallible, let the Authour of the word be neuer so infallible, our as∣sent to the truth of the thing proposed cannot be infal∣lible. Now Protestants haue not the word of God by meanes of a witnesse and messinger infallible: For the witnesse, proposer, and messenger of the word of God is the visible Catholique Church, which Protestants hold to be fallible, full of false Traditions, not free (so you (g) 1.4 say) from errour in it selfe damnable, and in this sense (h) 1.5 Fundamentall. Wherfore it is demonstratiuely certaine, that onely Roman Catholiques (who belieue the Church to be infallible) can haue Fayth worthy of God; Fayth of voluntary submission to Gods word, that is, fayth of things to them not euidently yet infal∣libly certayne, and consequently they only please God, by their belieuing and are saued.

4. The second Argument. You say (i) 1.6 pag. 148. lin. 16. There is no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true, but onely because it is Gods word: so that you cannot be∣lieue the doctrines and myestries reuealed in Scripture to be true, more firmely and infallibly then you belieue

the Scripture to be Gods word: for we must be surer of the proofe, then of the thing proued thereby, otherwise it is no proofe, as you say pag. 37••. n. 59. But your assurance that the Scripture is the word of God, is onely human, pro∣bable, and so absolutely fallible. For you belieue the bookes which were neuer doubted of in the Church to be Gods word, and a perfect rule of fayth, onely by the tradition or testimonies of the ancient Churches (k) 1.7 pag. 63. lin. 35. But, the ioynt tradition of all the Apostolicall Churches with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same do∣ctrine, is onely a very probable argument, as you affirme (l) 1.8 pag. 361. n. 40. Ergo, your fayth, that Scripture is Gods word, & consequently of all the mysteries therin reuea∣led, is but human and probable, and therefore vnworthy of God, being not firmer then the credit we yield to euery morall honest man. For to vs his word is pro∣bable and credible, and to you the word of God is no more.

5. Protestants commonely pretend, that their fayth, that these Bookes be the word of God, resteth finally, not vpō the credit of human Tradition, but vpon the Scrip∣ture onely; which shewes it selfe with euident certitude to be diuine and supernaturall truth and so reuealed of God, (m) 1.9 Euen as light is seene by its owne brightnesse, and hony is proued to be sweet by the very tast thereof. But this point of Protestancy you reiect, as fond, vaine, ridicu∣lous, pag. 371. n. 51. and proue it to be such. Because, if the Bookes of Scripture were euidently certayne, if they did with euident certitude demonstrate themselues to be Diuine truth; then all men that haue vnderstanding and capacity to apprehend the right sense and sentence of Scripture would belieue them to be true, which ex∣perience sheweth be otherwise. If Protestants answere,

that such as haue their tast distempered, to them hony is bitter; so Infidels, through preiudice and distemper of passions, do not perceaue, and tast the Diuinity of the Doctrines of the Scripture. Against this, the reply is ready and conuincing: For they who through di∣stemper of their palate, iudge hony to be bitter, do not ap∣prehend the true tast of hony, but a tast contrary to the true tast thereof; which being in their palate, they con∣ceaue it to be in the meate. But Infidels by their vn∣derstanding do rightly apprehend, and conceaue the true senses of Scripture, and the mysteries of fayth de∣liuered therein more cleerely then many Christians of meane capacity do: and yet they do not iudge them to be Diuine truth, or truth at all. Ergo the very true sense and sentence of Scripture, doth not with euident cer∣tainty shew it selfe to be Supernaturall truth, such as could not be reuealed, but of God.

6. Finally, if the Protestants beliefe of Scripture be grounded vpon sight of the truth thereof, this their beliefe is not sauing fayth: for Fayth by which men are saued (as hath beene sayd) is that wherby they submit by voluntary obedience, their vnderstanding to Gods word; belieuing firmely and assuredly vpon the Au∣thority thereof, things in themselues incredible, and aboue the reach of human reason. But Protestants do not belieue the doctrine of Scripture because it is the word of God, but because (as they say) they see it to be Diuine truth, and consequētly the word of God. Ergo, they haue not the fayth of humble submission to Gods word, which is the onely fayth that pleaseth God, and by which men are saued.

7. The third Argument: Protestants haue not fayth of infallible adherence, that is, fayth worthy of

God, about the sense, and interpretation of Scripture. For holding the Churches interpretation to be fallible; they pretend to be sure by this rule, that what they be∣lieue, to them seemes plainely, cleerely, euidently re∣uealed, and proposed in the Scripture. But this rule of assurance is not infallible, but very fallible and deceyt∣full. For euen Protestants thēselues contend, that many texts and places of Scripture, which seeme plaine and cleere, are to be vnderstood figuratiuely against the plaine, proper, and literall sense. For example the words of our Lord about the chiefe Sacrament & mystery of fayth, THIS is My Body, This is My BLOVD, in their plaine, proper and literall sense deliuer and esta∣blish Transubstantiation (as Protestants (n) 1.10 grant.) Hence Protestants, that are resolued not to belieue a mystery so high aboue reason, & seemingly repugnant to sense, will by no meanes allow these wordes to be true in their proper and literal sense: they will not yield to the plain euidence of the Diuine text. Whereupon it is euidently consequent, that they cannot be sure, a∣bout any mystery of fayth, by vertue of the sole see∣ming euidence of the sacred Text. For instance; take the most fundamental text of Scripture, about the most fundamētal mystery of Christian Religion, to wit, the Incarnation of the Sonne of God, (o) 1.11 The Word was made flesh. How doth this text euidently conuince, that the Eternal Word, and Sonne of God was made Man truely, substantially, personally? What Protestants say of the word of Christ, This is my Body; why may not Nestorians affirme about this text, The Word was made ffesh, that it is not true in a proper, plaine, and literal sense, but metaphorically, figuratiuely, that God and Man were made one in Christ by affectual vnion, as two

great friendes are said to be one? How can Protestants be themselues assured, or how can they proue by the sole euidence of the text, that this Nestorian interpre∣tation is false? And if their beliefe of the mystery of the Incarnation be not solide and firme, grounded on a rule of interpretation infallibly certaine; how can they be saued?

8. Learned and iudicious Readers may find in your booke a world of laughter about your answering the arguments of Charity Maintayned: you do it so vn∣scholler-like, so okerly and vntowardly. Let your ans∣were to this argument serue for a patterne. Our Main∣tayner vrgeth D. Potter, that if the Church may erre in points of fayth not fundamentall, you can neuer be sure of any such point: For as you erre about some, decey∣ued by the seeming euidence of the Scripture, so you cannot be sure you do not erre about other. You ans∣were (p) 1.12 Pag. 117. n. 160. A pretty Sophisme depending v∣pon this principle, that whosoeuer possibly may erre, he can ne∣uer be certaine, that he doth not erre. A Iudge may possibly erre in iudgment: can he therefore neuer be sure he hath iud∣ged aright? A Traualler may possibly mistake his way; must I therefore be doubtfull, whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my chamber? Or can our London-Carrier haue no certainty in the middle of the day, when he is sober, and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? And a litle after nu. 161. whereas our Mayntainer argueth, that you cannot be sure it is an errour to make the Church Iudge of Contro∣uersies, because you pretend to be sure by the seeming euidence of Scripture; but this rule is not infallible, & so you cānot be sure by the warrant thereof.

The ground of this Sophisme (say you) is very like the former, viz. that we can be certaine of the falshood of no proposi¦tion,

but those only, that are damnable errours. But I pray, good Sir, giue me your opinion of these: The snow is balcke, the fire is cold, M. Knot is Arch-Bishop of Toledo, the whole is not greater then a part of the whole, that twise two make not foure, in your opinion, good Sir, are these dam∣nable heresies? Or because they are not so, haue we no certainty of the falshood of them. I beseech you, Sir, consider seriously with what strāge captions you haue gone about to delude your King and your Country: & if you be conuinced they are so, giue glory to God, and let the world know it by your deserting that Reli∣gion, which standes vpon such deceytfull foundations.

This you write, which you could neuer haue written, had you been with your London Carrier sober, and in your wits. You haue proued Gusman de Alfarache his saying, that the Fooles Hospital is of large extent, to be most true: He can range and reuell within the compasse thereof in a world of sottish extrauagances; from hoat to cold, from, snow to fire, from Oxford to London, from London to Toledo, from Toledo backe againe to King and Coun∣try, and then fetch a new carriere ouer the whole Vni∣uerse, and euery part thereof, to be sure, that no part is greater then the whole. What is impertinentcy, what is deserting the matter and argument in hand, if this be not?

Good Syr, be pleased to vnderstand, that the Con∣trouersy betwixt D. Potter and our Maintayner, is not a∣bout all Kind of propositions, nor whether, snow be blacke, or fire cold, nor about your not being Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, nor about the way from your Hall to your Chamber: but about propositions pertayning to Chri∣stian faith, not euident to sense, but only to be knowne by reuelation from heauen. Our Maintayner auoucheth,

that these Diuine truths cannot be knowne assuredly, but by the teaching of Gods Church, infallible in all her proposals. This he proueth not (as you feigne) by this principle, He that may possibly erre, can neuer be sure he doth not erre, but by this: He that may erre, and hath some times erred by following some certaine Rule, can ne∣uer be sure he doth not erre by following the same rule. If a Iudge condemne a man to death wrongfully, vpon euidence giuen against him by two witnesses, how can he be sure, that he doth not condemne another man vniustly; if he haue no greater assurance, then the de∣position of two witnesses, not knowne to be of better credit & conscience? A traueller hath been misguided out of his way, by inquiring of the first man he met, & trusting his direction; how can he be sure he is not out of his way by crediting the word of another directour equally vnknowne vnto him? This then is the Argu∣ment of Charity Maintayned, which you durst not en∣counter; but ran about the world in the wild-goose chase, to auoyd the force thereof. No man can be sure he doth not erre by following a rule which is fallible and deceitfull; But to iudge of the sense of the Scrip∣ture, by the sole seeming euidence of the text, is a rule fallible, which often fayleth, and deceaueth them who rely thereon: because many places are not taken in their plain, proper, literall sense; and many texts consi∣dered by themselues, seeme cleere and plaine, which conferred with other texts (that seeme to say the con∣trary) become darke and obscure: Therefore to dis∣cerne the true sense and meaning of Scripture by the sole seeming euidence of some text thereof, is a rule fal∣lible: & Protestāts by the sole direction therof can neuer be sure, or infallibly certain about any mystery of faith.

10. And I pray you, good Sir, leaue your wild va∣garies, come home to the litle closet of your wits, hold them close to the matter, and then tell vs: A Protestant who denyes the wordes of Christ, This is my Body, to be true in their plain, proper and literall sense; how can he be sure himselfe, or how can he assure others, that this text, The word was made flesh, is to be taken, and true in the plain, proper and literal sense? Do not tell vs, that you know the way from your Hall to your cham∣ber, that snow is white, fyre hoat, M. Knot is not Arch-Bishop of Toledo; but giue vs an assured rule whereby to know, that this text, The word was made flesh, is lite∣rally to be vnderstood in the plain substantial sense: & the text, This is my body, ought to be figuratiuely inter∣preted, so that the Body of Christ, be taken for but a peece of Bread? The meane while I conclude that Pro∣testants seing they haue not any infallible rule to assure them of the sense of Scripture; cannot firmely belieue the Mysteries reuealed therein: and so they haue, not such a persuasion of the truth of Gods word, as is wor∣thy of God, and pleasing to him: nor will they euer ob∣tayne sauing fayth, till they ioyne with Roman Catholi∣ques, to acknowledge the infallible authority of the visible Catholike Church.

Notes

• (d) 1.1

  Hebr. 11.6.
• (e) 1.2

  Cap. 6. n. 7. circa me∣dium.
• (f) 1.3

  Hebr. 11.1.6. Fides speran∣darum substan∣tia rerū, argumē∣tum non apparen∣tium.
• (g) 1.4

  Pag 279. n. 64. The vi∣sile Church is not free frō all er∣rours in it selfe damna∣ble.
• (h) 1.5

  Pag. 291 lin. 8. From such funda∣mentall errours the Church Catho∣lique is not se∣cured.
• (i) 1.6

  Cap 3. n. 36. lin. 23.
• (k) 1.7

  Cap. 2. n. 27.
• (l) 1.8

  Cap. 6. n. 40.
• (m) 1.9

  Cal∣uin. l. 1. Instit c. 7. n. 2. Quod autem rogant, vnde persua∣de bimur scriptu∣ras à Deo fluxisse: perinde est ac si quis roget, vnde dis∣cemus lucem discer∣nere à tenebris, suaue ab amaro &c.
• (n) 1.10

  B. Morton l. 2. de en∣char. ini∣tio.
• (o) 1.11

  Ioan. 1. 12.
• (p) 1.12

  Cap. 2. n. 160.