must haue appointed some suprem Autority to declare vnto vs what sence is that which he will haue vs all belieue to which all dissenting Parties must assent and submit their iudgment for it were vnbecoming the goodness of God to oblige man vnder pain of damnation to belieue one sence and no other of all the different sences the letter of Scripture admits and not to afford som assured means and publick Authority for no priuat authority will suffice to propose vnto vs what sence it that Nor will it be possible to keep vs in Vnity of Faith without this suprem Authority for it s not possible to haue Vnity of Faith if wee do not all hold one and the same senee of Scripture nor it is possible that wee all hold the same sence if there be not a publick Authority for to propose vnto vs what sence is it that wee must hold to whose iudgment wee must be all bound to acquiesce for if it be lawfull for euery man to reiect that Authority and hold that sence of Scripture which he iudges the best it will be lawfull for euery man to liue in a different Religion from that of others and so there will neuer be any Vnity of Faith and Religion Now that the suprem Authority appointed by Christ for to decide our Controuersies and deliuer vnto vs the true sence of Scripture is the Church establisht by Christ it s proued by the texts of Scripture alleadged in the beginning of this Chap. its proued also by the practise of all ages for when in the Apostles dayes there arose a controuersy about the Circumcision of the Gentils som affirmed they ought not only be baptised but also circumcised others denyed the Necessity of Circumcision both Parties alleadged Scripture but neither was appayed and how was the controuersy decided and the true sence of Scripture alleadged by both proposed by the Church conuened in a Council at Ierusalem Act. 15. the one Party was condemned for Hereticks if they did not submit and acquiesce to the Doctrin proposed by the Church About the yeare 324. arose a dispute betwit Arrius that was a member of the Catholick Church and others also Catholicks concerning the Diuinity of Christ each of the disputants alleadged seueral texts of Scripture and pretended his own to be the true sence who decided this Controuersy was it the Scripture alone without a publick authority to propose the sence of it No but the Church gathered in the Nicen Council to whose decisions all Christians were bound to acquiesce and condemned as Hereticks that would not About the yeare 378. arose a dispute between Macedonius and other Catholicks concerning the Diuity of the H. G. which he denied both Parties cited many texts of Scripture but the dispute was not ended vntill the Church gathered in a Council at Constantinople examined that question and texts produced by both Contestants and concluded against Macedonius after which Decision it was not lawfull to doubt of the Diuinity of the H. G. To be brief look into all ages that euer any question arose concerning Religion the final decision was alluayes deuolued to the Church who deliuered the true sence of Scripture quoted by the Disputants and esteemed an Heretick that did not submit This shews that the world did euer yet belieue the suprem authority of deciding controuersies and deliuering the true sense of Scripture was still in the Church But the wery Protestants themiselues who decry the Church and will haue no other Iugde of Controuersies but Scripture do confess that betwixt two Parties prouing their differents Assertions of Religion out of Scripture the Church hath the suprem authority of deciding and deliuering the true sence of Scripture to which both Parties are obliged in conscience to acquiesce read Doctor Porter in his Treatise of Char. Mist pag. 195. and Chilling-worth in his Book of the Protestant Religion a safe vvay of saluation pag. 206. and B. Lawd cited by Doctor Porter they teach that the Decrees of General Council bind all Persons oblige in conscience til euideuce of Scripture or a demonstration maks their error appeare that they are not to be controlled by priuat spirits nor cannot de renuersed but by an equal authority of an other General Council But because Protestants easily contradict one an other and others will say these are but opinions of priuat Doctors and not the Doctrin of the Protestant Church I will proue that what euer their Doctrin be their practice proues that they belieue the supreme authority of deciding Controuersies betwitxt two Parties disputing out of Scripture to be only in the Church the proof Arminius a Minister of Amsterdam and Professor of Diuinity at Leyden broached new Doctrin touching points of Predestination Grace and Liberty quite contrary to the Doctrin of Caluin receiued in the Churchs of Holland By his wit and credit he got many Proselyts that in a short tyme his Doctrin made great progress throughout all the States Gomarus nothing inferior to him in wit and reputation an ancient Professor of Diuinity at Groeningue opposed this nouelty and with all the ancient Ministers stood for the Doctrin of Caluin Printed Pamphlets were publisht Texts of Scripture quoted but neither did yield to the other each drew Abettors to their opinions and the Prouinces were deuided into two factions of Armenians and Gomarists The Churchs of Hollands petitioned to the States General for a National Synod to determin the Controuersy but Armenius strengthned with the protection of Barneuelt A duocat General of the States obtained that in lieu of a Synod the matter should be discussed in a conference of Diuins the States deputed som persons of quality for to heare the Disptutans Arminius presented himself with four Diuines and Gomarus with as many Arminius his fiue articles were scan'd texts of Scripture searched for and carefully examined reasons proposed by both Parties with all ardor nothing omitted that wit or industruy could giue and after a tedious and eager dispute the question remained vndecided the Parties receded each proclaming the victory Armenius dyed soon after but his schollers took vp the cudgle and gain'd so much ground vpon the Gomarists that all the three Prouinces of Holland Vtrecht and Ouerissel embraced their fiue Articles and pretended a petition to the States General for a toleration in the profession of that Doctrin which they offered to defend with the pure word of God adding it did not appertain to a National Synod but to the Diuins of each particular Prouince to take cognisance of the affairs of Religion in that Prouince and therefore they protested against any National Synod The Gomarists on the other syde cryed out for a Synod the controuersy did not only trouble the peace of the Prouinces but made a great Ecco in the neigh bouring Reformed Churchs The King of England by his Embassador Sr Dudley Carleton represented to the States that the only means for to allay those disputes was a National Synod to whom
it belonged to iudge which of the Doctrins controuerted was the most conformable to the word of God and if both could be toletated in the Church and therefore demanded a Synod Zeland and the other Prouinces demanded the same as also the Protestant Princes of Germany the Commonwealth of Geneua and generally all the Reformed Churchs All this passage is faithfully extracted ex Act. Synodi Dordrectani Typis Isaaci Ioannis Canicy printed at Dordtecht an Dom. 1620. Heervpon the States General issued their circular letters to all the Prouinces requiring that each should send six of their best Diuines to Dordrecht were the Synod was open'd the 13. December an 1618. The King of England the Electors of Palatin Branderbourg and Lansgraue of Hesse the Valons the Cantons of Surich Berne Basle and Schaffouse the Commonwealths of Geneua Breme and Embidem sent their Diuins of most credit and learning to this Synod so that wee may call it more than a National Synod and a Representatiue of all the Reformed Churchs And though the Ministers of France were not permitted to go thither they sent their iudgment of the question debated in writing The Arminians protested against the Synod as being a Partie concerned and consequently not a competent Iudge being composed of Persons confessedly of the doctrin of the Gomarists was it not thus that the Reformers protested against the Council of Trent The deputies of te extern Churches deliuered in writing their opinions of this protestation Those of England that it was against the practice of the primitiue Church of the Councils of Nice Constantinople Chalcedo and Ephese whose members were confessedly of the Catholick Church opposed by Arius Nestorius Macedonius and Eutyches that not withstanding they were competent iudges against whom no protestation was admitted but all Parties were obliged to submit The Diuins of Palatin that to determin a controuersy in Religion the Parties must not go to the Turks or Pagans or to indifferent Persons that profess no Religion but must be said by the Pastors and Prelats of that Church wherof they are members and wherin the question is debated The Diuins of Geneua that both Parties were by the sentence of Christ bound to submit to the Synod or to be esteemed Heathens and Publicans All the rest of the Diuins concluded the same whervpon the Synod condemned that protestation and declared it self to be the lawfull and soueraign Iudge in that cause Vel abycere debent omnem protestationem aduersus Synodum subjicere sua dogmata illius judicio vel certe si manent in protestatione immoti eo ipso se declarant vnioni Ecclesiarum reformatarum renunciare Or they must set by all Protestations against the Synod and submit their doctrin to its iudgment or if they persist in their protestation therby they declare themselues to renounce the communion of reformed Churches Is not this to declare them Schismaticks that will not submit to the Church The Armeniens were then summoned to waue the Protestation and giue in writing their fiue articles which they did they were examined by the Synod and condemned as erroneous and contrary to the word of God and all those that would sustain them incapacitated for to beare any charge or exercise any Ecclesiasticall function Sess 138. The Armeniens did not submit to this iudgment alleadging the Synod as all others was fallible and did err in this point and therefore could not be obliged in conscience to submit and perhaps some Protestants will syde with them saying that a Councill can not oblige mens consciences and that their Decrees can reach no further than to what concerns the Politick gouernment of the flock but this Synod which indeed was more than a National one of the Reformed Churchs and assisted by the deputyes of the Church of England declares an obligation in conscience of acquiescing to its decisions not only by the words now alleaged but by the Sess 42. Si conscientiae suae quam debent oationem habent ad obtemperandum supremarum Potestatum mandatis hujusque Synodi ordini iudicio acquiescendum tenentur If they haue any regard for their Conscience behold their Decrees reach to the Consciences they are bound to obey the commands of the heigher Povvers and acquiesce to the iudgment of this Synod And immediatly after this Synod when the Arminiens insisted in their reason for not submitting because the Synod vvas fallible the States consulted their National Synod then assembled at Delpht what ought to be don This answered that notwithstanding the Synod was fallible they were obliged in conscience to belieue the sence of Scripture proposed by it and giues for reason that wheras many pious and learned Doctors from all Churchs did meet together in the feare of the Lord to declare by the word of God what ought to be belieued omnino credendum est it must be vndoubtedly belieued that Christ according his promiss was present to that meeting and gouern'd it by the Holy Ghost Iudic. Syn. Desph Sess 26. Syn. Dord And if the Decrees of Councils reach not to oblige Consciences then Arrius must not be iudged an Heretick though condemned by the Council of Nice nor can Mr Sall belieue S. Athanasius his Creed with the heauenly gift of Faith wherwhith he belieues the Scripture as he acknowledges pag. 18. Now whateuer any particular Doctor or Doctors of the Church of England say what Pagan would enquire into the Mysteries of Christian Religion with a desire of being instructed would reade this Synod of Dordrecht and Delpht and also the Councils of Nice and all other General Councils of the Catholick Church and would not vnderstanding that it is the Doctrin and practice of both Church the Reformed and Catholick that the Councils haue the suprem Authority of deciding Controuersies and deliuering the true sence of Scripture that none can protest against the authority of Councils legally assembled and that both Parties contesting about any point of Religion is to be said by the Church wherof they are Members and whoeuer will not submit renounces the vnion of the Church and becoms schismatick Hence it follows Mr Sall that wheras there was no Christian Church visible when your first Reformers opposed the Catholick Tenets but the Roman Catholick Church They were obliged to be iudged by her andsubmit their doctrin to her iudgment they being Members of that Church that in declining her Authority in the Council of Trent and protesting against her as being a Partie and fallible they became Schismaticks And if the Reformation in its of spring was schismatical doubtless in their continuation it must be so for tyme giues no prescription to an errour nor haue you more right to continue in that separation from vs than your first Reformers had to begin it And as the Arrians are still Hereticks though separated from vs these 1300 years and still obliged to teturn so are you Now let vs heare Mr Sall what means did he vse to vnderstand
forgiuen him but he that vvill speake against the H. G. it shall not be forgiuen him either in this vvorld nor in future I argue thus the text denies to a blasphemy against the H. G. what it grants to a blasphemy against the son of Man But what it denies to That is remission in this lyfe and the other therefore what it grants to This is remission in this lyfe and the other The text sayes again in this place Euery sin and blasphemy shall be forgiuen to men but a blasphemy against the H. G. Is it nor an euident sequele out this text that as a blasphemy against the Spirit is vnpardonable so all other sins are pardonable but a blasphemy against the Spirit is vnpardonable in this world and in the future therefore other sins are pardonable in both You will reply that this argument proues too much for it proues that as a blasphemy against the H.G. is vnpardonable in the other lyfe not only as to the punishment due to the sin but also as to the guilt or fault so other sins are pardonable in the other lyfe not only as to the punishment due to sin which is what wee pretend but also as to the fault or guilt of sin which is more than wee pretend for wee teach that Mortal sins are not forgiuen as to the guilt or fault in the other world therefore this argument proues too much Answer that a sin may be said vnpardonable its requisit that Nothing of it be pardonable for as the schoole Maxim sayes Negatio totum destruit wheras therefore the text imports that a blasphemy against the H. G. is vnpardonable in this lyfe and the future it follows that nothing either the guilt or fault of it or the punishment due to it be pardoned either in this lyfe or the future But that a sin may be said pardonable it suffices that some part of it at least may be pardoned wheras therefore our argument proues that sins are pardonable in the other lyfe its requisit that some part of it be pardoned or pardonable in the other lyfe either the guilt of sin or the punishment due to it Not the guilt or fault as wee belieue and proue by many euident arguments therefore the punishment due to it He tells vs the doctrin of Purgatory makes men negligent of true repentance and satisfaction for their sins in this lyfe for the hopes it giues of the Remission of them in Pugatory But this is incredible that men being instructed of the bitterness of the torments of Purgatory far exceeding all that can be suffered in this world should be encouraged to omit the smale pennance and pains of this lyfe for to fusser the far greater and more excessiue pains of Purgatory It giues quoth he occasion to pittifull abuses of Simony in the valuation of Masses of cruelty and iniustice and what is there in the world so sacred and Holy but the malice of man may abuse is it therefore all sacred things must be renounced and abolisht wee condemn the abuses as well as you but wee must not therefore condemn the Doctrin but correct the malice of man that abuses it From this of Purgatory he descends to exclaim against Indulgences which he pretends to be groundless because Suarez l. de Defen fid c. 15. sayes that Indulgences is a remission of the pains of Purgatory and most falsly auers that Suarez doubts if this power be in the Church wheras in that place he affirms it is vndoubtedly certain the Church has it and grounds this certainty on the infinitness of Christs Merits which euen our Aduersaries grant and on the power giuen to the Church Mat. 18.18 of binding and vnbinding which power sayes he cannot be doubted but it extends to the Remission of the pains of Purgatory for which in that place he brings no other proof but the constant practice of the Church which he sayes is an vnquestionable proof and remits the more ample proof of this doctrin to To. 4. in 3. p. disp 48. Mr Sall iudges the doctrin not sufficiently proued because Suarez alleadges in this place no other warrant but the ancient custom of the Church which Suarez and wee hold to be an vndoubted proof This proof and no other does S Augustin bring to proue Infants Baptism serm 4. de verbis Apost c. 18. This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strenght against this inuincible vvall vvhosoeuer rusheth shall be crushed in peeces By the same he proues the validity of Hereticks Baptism l. 1. contr Crescon c. 32. and 33. for which he sayes No examples is brought out of Canonical Scripture but that vvhich recommends vnto vs the Authority of the Church vvho teacheth it S. Chrysost vpon the words of S. Pauls 2. Thes 2. Stand and hold the Traditions c. Hom. 4. speaks thus Let vs account the Tradition of the Church vvorthy of belief it is a Tradition seeke no more And again S. August Epist 118. If the Church through out the vvhole vvorld practise a thing to dispute vvhether such a thing can be don is a most insolent madness I conclude then that Suarez sufficiently proued the truth of the doctrin of Indulgences hauing grounded it on the constant practise and custom of the Vniuersal Church You say the doctrin of Indulgence is not so Ancient and that the first who began to giue these Grants was Gregory the seauenth to the Emperour Henry the fourth to encourage him and the Christians to warr against the Sarazens as Baronius relates an Dom 1084. if all this were true it s older notwithstanding than Protestancy by many hundred years But if you haue no more skill in Diuinity or Moral Theology your Treatise shews well what you know in Controuersy than you seeme to haue in History you are but a fresh water scholler That Indulgence you speake of nor no other to any such purpose was not granted by Gregory the seauenth but by Vrban the second nor to Henry the fourth who made no warr against the Sarazens but to Henry the Third not in the yeare 1084 but 1095. Neither is this the first grant of Indulgences which you could meet if you had read the Histories Baronius related by you tells vs that Indulgences were granted by Leo the third the yeare 847. and by Iohn the Eight the yeare 878. Nor is it a good argument vve do not read that Indulgences vvere giuen before therefore the Povver of granting Indulgences vvas not in the Church before You add that priuat Bishops granted Indulgences for gathering of Monies to build Churches that is very true but if Nostre-Dame of Paris was built vpon that account is not so certain by that you may see Indulgences are not so slightly granted as your Ministers do perswade their flock but on Condition that the Receiuers endeauor to put them selues in the state of Grace by true repentance of their sins and that they exercyse some pious works of fasting Prayers
do consequently both those Religions of Iudaism and Christianity must not be true Religions If it be he that commanded wee should worship him by belieuing the real Presence of Christ his Body in the Eucharist certainly it s not he that commanded wee should worship him by denying the real presence for that would be to contradict himself therefore of all those Religions which clash one with an other only one must be the true Religion This is further proued No Religion wherin God is duely worshipped and a man may be saued can iustly be called an accursed heretical and damnable Religion this Position is euident consequently it appears how vniustly Protestants call the Catholik Religion Idolatrous and superistitious it being by their own acknowledgment as wee will proue against Mr Sall a religion wherin wee may be saued and consequently wherin God is duely worshipped But S. Paul in express tearms does anathematise accurse and condemn all and each Religion euen those that are Christian Religions besids that one which he and his fellow Apostles did teach if vvee Gal. 1.9 or an Angel from Heauen should Euangelize vnto you othervvyse than as vvee haue don let him be accursed pursuant to which doctrin Hymenaeus Philetus and others declining som what the doctrin of the Apostles in the Article of the Resurrection of the Body not absolutly denying it but saying it was already past 1. Tim. 1.20 and 2. Tim. 2.18 they still remayned within the verge of Christianity but because by their error in that Article only they were of a different Religion from that of S. Paul he delivers them to Satan calls them creeping Cankers and subuertors of the Faith which would haue been a manifest iniustice in him if they stiil remayned in a true Religion where God was duely worshipped it follows therfore that no other euen Christian Religion is a true Religion but that one which S. Paul professed and from which they departed And if any Christian Religion with a good Moral lyfe were sufficient for saluation the Prelats and Pastors of the Church in all ages are to be laught at for their continual care of keeping their flock in vnity of Faith and doctrin wheras any Religion was sufficient with a good Moral lyfe the General Councils were most rash and impious in condemming Arrius Nestorius and other heretiks wheras they still remained Christians and the lyues of many of them were most iust and vpright as S. Augustin testifies of the Pelagians Let the Libertins then of our age be vndeceiued who to secure their interest and ambition are ready to embrace any Religion that is the most preualent in the state for all though Christians Religions but that one which S. Paul professed all but that whose vnity the Prelats and Concils did endeauor to preserue are accursed heretical and impious Now since of all Religions that only is the true which God has revealed vnto vs and that no other worship will please him doubtless he has afforded vs the needfull and sufficient means to know what Religion it is and to distinguish it from other pretended Religions which he has not reuealed Without Faith and Religion it is impossible to be saued God therfore who desires our saluation and commands vs vnder pain of damnation to haue true Faith must haue prouided vs of the means necessary to attain to true Faith Let vs examin what Faith is It 's an Assent giuen to an object for the testimony of him that proposes it it is therefore grounded on the Authority of the Proponent and can haue no more assurance of the Truth than the testimony on which it is grounded as for example Human Faith wherwith I belieue what a Man of credit and knowen honesty tells me can haue no more certainty than the credit and honesty of that Man has and wheras Men let them be few or many in Number vsing only natural means may deceiue or be deceiued either in the testimony they giue or in the grounds of their Assertion be it the euidence of their senses which are subiect to fallacy or the euidence of their Natural reason for som times reasons that seeme to vs euident are but sophistries it is manifest that human Faith which relyes only on the testimony of men is fallible for though it may happen that de facto it is true and that there may be moral certainty of its being true yet absolutly it might be otherwyse and so the Faith grounded vpon it is still fallible But diuine Faith That Assent which Gods requires of vs to reuealed Truths must be an infallible Faith which not only is true but cannot be otherwise than true it must be a firm Assent in the highest degree of certainty excluding all doubts and feare of being mistaken and wheras Faith has no other assurance of the Truth than the Authority of the Proponent it follows that diuine Faith must rely vpon a most infallible vndoubted Authority which can not deceiue or be deceiued Hence it follows that no euidence of senses for our sensations are deceitfull can be a sufficient ground for diuine Faith nor no natural reason for if it be probable or only morally euident it may be false or falsified if absolutly euident it can be no ground of Faith because Faith being an argument of things not appearing as S. Paul saies it surpasses natural reason and because that if it be euident it forces the vnderstanding to an Assent and so leaues no place for the merit of Faith which consists in belieuing what the vnderstanding may deny because of the difficultie it finds in assenting to an obscure obiect which the vvill assisted with the pious inclination ouercomes and thereby merits No Histories nor doctrin of Fathers no testimony or authority of any fallible Church or congregation is sufficient because diuine Faith being infallibly certain must be grounded vpon an infallible Authority Lastly it follows that only the infallible written word of God or the authority of an infallible Church must be it which proposes vnto vs the reuealed Truths and on which wee must bottom our Faith Let vs heare what Mr Sall saies as to this particular he was once of opinion that Scripture alone was not the means appointed by God for proposing vnto vs the reuealed Truths their sence not being obuious euen to learned men and consequently not the means suitable to vulgar capacityes who being as well as the learned obliged to belieue the means for attaining to the knowledge of Religion must be suitable to their capacity as well as to that of the learned and Scripture through the difficulty of it surpasses both therefore it became the Goodness and Wisdom of God to appoint a visible Iudge assisted with his infallible spirit that in case of doubt should determin our controuersies and declare vnto vs what we ought to belieue But saies he pag. 27. the Archbishop of Cashell obiecting that vve ought to be very vvary in censuring the VVisdom of God if
this or that vvas not don in the gouernment of the vvorld vvhich seemeth to vs good to be don the Modesty of the Proponent added such vveight to this aduertisment that it touched me to the quick and reflecting on this point in my solitudes I savv saies he vvee might as vvell say that it belongeth to the goodness of God not to permit that his holy lavves should be transgressed by vile creatures nor that the Pastors of souls especially the Pope should scandalize their flock and as vvee do not iudge it a failure in his goodness to permit sins so vvee ought not vvauer in our opinion of his goodness and VVisdom if he has not appointed a visible Iudge for our direction hauing giuen us the holy Scriptures vvhich a bound vvith all light and heauenly doctrin to such as are not vvillfully obstinat Briefly Sr heere are three different opinions of Christ's presence in the Sacrament Catholik Lutheran and Protestant of the three quite opposit one to the other God has reuealed but one as I for merly discoursed and obliges me vnder pain of damnation to belieue that sence and no other I say under pain of damnation for said he if you vvill not eate the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Io. 6. must I not expect of Gods goodness that he will afford vnto me what is absolutly need full to acquit this obligation he absolutly requires of me to belieue that sence and no other of those three which he reuealed must I not then expect of his goodness some means to ascertain me which of those three different opinion is that which he reuealed would it be consistent with his goodness to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to flye to the Moon and afford me no wings which wee suppose are indispensably need full for to acquit that obligation The Assent which he requires at my hands is not a probable and dubious one but an Assent which renders me assured in the highest degree of certainty of the Truth I profess such and no other is diuine Faith such an Assent is impossible if there be not an infallible Authority on which it is grounded which you Protestants cannot deny for it s therefore you reiect Tradition and will admit no other Test of Faith but the written word of God because Faith must be grounded vpon an infallible Authority you say and Tradition is fallible and nothing infallible but Gods written word if Scripture were not written by the Apostles could not you say without any iniury to God that it became his wisdom to afford you some other infallible Authority wheras without such an authority it 's impossible to haue the Assent of Faith which he requires and was it not therfore that he gaue to his Apostles who preached to the primitiue Christians the credit of infallible Oracles because then there was no Scripture written nor any other Authority wherupon to bottom their Faith but the testimony of the Apostles Since therfore wee do manifestly proue that Scripture alone is not sufficient to determin Controuersies and instruct vs what wee are bound to belieue let not your instructors Modesty take it ill that wee say it becomes the goodness of God to appoint a liuing infallible Iudge on whose testimony and authority wee may rely and ground our Faith Vvee say with St Augustin l. de vtil cred ad Honorat Si Prouidentia Dei non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Si autem praesidet non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam esse qua velut gradu certo attolamur ad Deum If Gods Prouidence gouerns not the vvorld vvee need not be sollicitous of Religion but if Prouidence rules all it cannot be doubted but that God has appointed an authority by vvhich as by a certain assured vvay vvee may be lead to God Vvee must therefore grant such an Authority which is not Scripture as wee will proue or deny Prouidence Your instance is very weake and vn becoming so great a diuine as you profess to be Gods goodness cannot be questioned for permitting sins and the scandals of Popes nay it 's becoming his goodness to permit them for hauing created Man with perfect liberty for to work well or ill it becomes his goodness to giue him all that is needfull for the exercyse of that liberty and Man could not exercyse it if wee did not pretend to some extraordinary miraculous Prouidence for which wee haue no ground in Scripture nor reason and to which his goodness cannot oblige him if he did not permit him to sin and to question God why his goodness doth permit sin is to ask why he created Man with perfect liberty which if you do I answer because he gaue him liberty that he might vse it well and if he vses it ill it s his own fault VVee ought not say you to vvauer in our opinion of Gods goodness for not appointing a Liuing infallible Iudge vvheras he has afforded us the Scriptures vvhich abound vvith all heauenly light to them that are not vvillfully obstinat and this you proue 2. Tim. 3.16 Holy Scriptures are able to make us vvyse vnto saluation that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good vvorks But I infer to the contrary wheras the Scriptures though replenished they be with heauenly light are not sufficient for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to belieue wee might wauer in our opinion of Gods goodness if he did not appoint an infallible liuing Iudge for to instruct vs and that the Scriptures are not sufficient for the instruction of them that are not vvillfully blind Mr Sall himself proues it for pag. 17. he tells vs that doubting of the Tenets of our Religion his wit not content with an ipse dixit lyke Pythagoras his scholler demanded Reason for what he belieued he betooke himself to the frequent reading of Scripture but Sr if you be not content with an ipse dixit you are as vnfit for Christ's schoole as for that of Pythagoras and if your wit demands reason for what you belieue Scripture is no place to seeke for it which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit After reading the Scriptures he was so far from being sufficiently instructed that he confesses they made him doubt whence it appears that Scripture alone is not sufficient euen to those that are not vvillfully blind he was no such for he did read with a real desire of being instructed The text of S. Paul sayes that Scripture is able to make us vvyse to salvation but does noy say that Scripture alone is able if you will haue text to be for your purpose you must follow the example of Luther who to proue his error of iustification by Faith only corrupted the text of S. Paul Rom. 2.8 vvee account a man to be iustified by Faith vvithout the vvorks of the lavv and foisted
the true sence of Scripture to satisfy his doubts in Religion and to know what he ought to belieue and wee will find he did not vse the means which Christ appointed for our instruction pag. 17. you tell vs Mr Sall that you discouered the Roman Church to be guilty of idolatry couelty and impiety your wit say you demanded you a reason for what you belieued and if it demanded and euidently coâ—â—cluding reason it ourlasht wheras the Mysteries of Religion are of things not appearing as S. Paul saies surpassing reason you frequently perused the Scripture the Councils Fathers and Histories and all made you doubt of the Truth of our Tenets the consequence therefore is vndenyable that Scripture alone is so far from being cleer and easy in points of Religion that it alone nor with the assistance of Historyes Councils and Fathers is not sufficient euen to so great a wit as you pretend to be in no wayes obstinat vvillfully but desirous to know and embrace the truth is not I say sufficient to assure you what is an errour or not consequently somwhat else is wanting to know what wee ought to belieue Pag. 37. you tell vs that you vvent to the Church of England vvhose Eminent Persons by vvord and vvritting did assert do not you see that besides the Scripture wee want a liuing Church to inform ys what wee out to belieue that the fumme of our Faith is the vvord of God contained in Canonical Scripture and the plain vndubitable consequences out of it But Mr Sall you might haue belyed them all by your own experience who read Scriptuse assisted with your eminent with forsooth and knowleg in sciences assisted by the Fathers Historyes and Councils and yet as you tell vs all made you doubt pag. 18. but could not assure you of the truth or vntruth of our errours consequently somthing else is requisit for to know assuredly what is Truth and what not But Mr Sall before that the Cchurch of England by her Eminent Persons did tell you the Scripture alone and its vndubitable consequences is the intyre summe of Faith did you know that to be be true did you vnderstand it to be true by the Scripture when you frequently read it and by Councils and Fathers if you did to what purpose do you speake vnto vs of the Church of England what need had you to go to her You ought to haue sought and found the resolution of your doubts in the Scripture alone and its vndubitable consequences if you did not then you belieue the Scripture and its indubitable consequences to be the summe of our Faith vpon the testimony of the Church of England and her Eminent Persons which being fallible as you and she confess all your Faith is built on a fallible bottom Moreouer Mr Sall the Church of England informed that the Scripture alone and its indubitable consequences are the whole summe of diuine Faith but did the Church of England tell you who is he that must draw those indubitable consequences Must those consequences be drawen by a publick Authority establisht by Christ or is it sufficient that the consequences seem vndubitable to you or me or any priuat person If the second then all sectaries in the world haue a true rule of Faith which is their own reason that dictats what they belieue to be an vndenyable consequence of Scripture and none can blame them for they regulat their Faith by the rule that Christ has appointed if the first then the Church of England should haue informed you what suprem Authority is that which must draw those consequences and aproue or reproue those which to priuat persons seem to be vndeniably deduced out of Scripture But this which your instructors omitted has been shewen vnto you in this Chapter not only by Scripture and reason but by the practise of your Reformed Churchs represented in the Synod of Dordrecht that when two Contestants draw contradictory consequences out of Scripture each one pretending his own to be vndubitably deduc'd out of the Text the Church wherof the Parties are Members has the suprem Authority to resolue which is the true consequence that the Parties are bound in conscience to submit to her iudgment and to be held for Schismatiks if they do not and wheras your first Reformers drew consequences which seemed to them to follow vndubitably from Scripture and their Aduersaryes iudged the contrary to be vndubitable true your Reformers were bound to submit to the Catholik Church wherof theyr were Members and learne of her which were the true consequences and were Schismatick for not doing so and as their errour descended to you and your liuing Brethren the obligation also of being instructed by the Catholik Church and acquiescing to her iudgment descends vnto you And thus Mr Sall you miserably mistooke the means which Christ appointed for to instruct vs in Religion V. CHAPTER THE CHVRCH ESTABLISHED FOR our instruction is infallible THough I reserue a chapter a part for Mr Salls arguments against this Tenet yet I must heere toucth two of them which shew that he is either ignorant or malicious in mistaking our doctrin by the answer to which I will declare what wee belieue in this particular He impugns our doctrin from the pag. 29. to 35. and from the pag. 39. to 44. pag. 39. he argues that Infallibility is an Attribut proper to Gods essence which can no more be communicated to any Creature than the Deyty itself it s a Blasphemy saies he to attribute to any creature that which is proper to God alone consequenty the Church of Rome is guilty of Blasphemy in teaching the Pope or Council is infallible I cannot belieue but that you are sufficienty sensible of the weakness of this argument which from the very beginning of your pretended Reformation is so common that any Collier will answer it especially that it and all the arguments you bring in your whole discourse are exactly set down in Bellarmin whence you haue borrowed them and most euidently answered and if you had any ingenuity you ought not to trouble your Auditory with such third bare tryfles but tell them also what wee answer and retort it if you could Can you that pretends to the credit of a Professor of Diuinity ignore that a man who is by his own Nature Mortal might by Gods Protection who promises him he shall neuer dye be immortal and why will you deny but that Man who by Nature is subiect to errour may by Gods special protection promising him that he shall neuer err be kept from falling into any errour or mistake This is what wee belieue that the Church which is by Nature as being a congregation of Men fallible may be mistaken and though ignorance or malice teach an vntruth but that God has promised to assist her continually with his spirit for to leade her into all Truth and neuer to permit her to teach or belieue any errour by virtue of wich promiss iudge
vvorld giuing vs to vnd erstand that the Paraclet was not sent to his Apostles alone but to their successors to the words end Wee proue it by the text of S. Io. 16.26 vvhen the Paraclet vvill come vvhom I vvill send from my Father the spirit of Truth vvho proceedeth from the Father he vvill giue testimony of me and you vvill giue testimony But there is nothing more cleer than that the whole Chapter speakes all a long of the Church reade y pray the text consequently that text is to be vnderstood of the Church as well as of the Apostles Wee proue it because the Apostles were the fundation S. Paul Eph. 2.20 whervpon the Church was built But S. Paul calls the the Church also the Pillar and foundation of Truth 1. Tim. 3. Wee proue it because S. Paul commands vs in seueral places to belieue his doctrin for that his vvord is not the vvord of Man but indeed of God and consequently infallible 1. Thes 2. buâ— Christ also Mat. 23 commands vs to obey and belieue the Church in succeeding ages on the chayr of Moyses haue sate the scribes and Pharisees vvhateuer they bid you do obserue and do obliging vs to obey and belieue not only Moyses but those that succeede in his chayr Thus not a text shall you meet for the infallibility of the Apostles but proues lykwise that of the Church Doubtless you will not deny but that Christ his Command of teaching all Nations preaching the Ghospell that the Bishops should rule the Church was layd not only on the Apostles but on their successors for future ages other wyse the Prelats and Pastors of future and this our age would not be obliged to teach preach and rule vs. You will not deny also but that Christ his command of hearing the Church vnder payn of being esteemed Heathens and Publicans of obeying them that sit on Moyses his chayr of being subiect to our Prelats was layd on the flock of all succeeding ages as well as on that of the Apostles dayes it follows therefore that the Pastors of our age are as much obliged to teach vs as the Apostles were to preach to them of their age and that wee are as much obliged to obey and belieue the Church in our age as the flock was in the Apostles tyme to belieue and obey them who can doubt them but that as the Authority iurisdiction and obligation of teaching descended to succeeding ages the infallibility also giuen to the Apostles for to acquit that obligation did descend it being giuen by God for the loue and gouernment of the flock that they should not be mis lead And heere enters the argument that I proposed in the former Chapter Whoeuer does as Christ bids him do and belieues as Christ bids him belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour but Christ bids vs do and belieue as the Church in succeeding ages bids vs do and belieue therefore wee cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour consequently they cannot mislead vs. But saies our Aduersary the Paraclet was to remayn with the Church vntill all truth was taught necessary for saluation but it cannot be doubted but that the Paraclet taught the Apostles all truth and they deliuered those Truths in their written word Therefore after that word was deliuered to vs the Paraclet was to remayne no longer This obiection well vnderstood will giue light to our doctrin and manifestly confirm its truth Christ saies Io. 15.15 that he taught his Apostles all whateuer he had heard from his Father it 's manifest therefore he taught them all truths necessary for saluation this was before his Passion and yet after his Resurrection S. Luke c. 24. tells vs that ie his iourny to Emaus with the two Disciples he interpreted the passages of Scripture to them which signifyes that through inaduertency or forgetfullness wee may come to doubt euen of what truths were already taught nay he saies Io. 16.12 that he had as yet things to deeclare to them and that the Holy spirit when he came would teach them all truth Behold how Christ hauing sayd he taught all things yet he sayes that he had many things to open to them which they could not then learne vntill the Paraclet came This might seeme a contradiction but is none for when he sayd that he taught them all he had heard from his Father that is to be vnderstood that he taught and deliuered to them the General Principles and Truths of Faith wherin all truths of Religion were contained and what he had yet to say to them were the consequences and particular Truths of Faith contained in those general Principles which the Paraclet would disclose to them it s therfore that the Holy Ghost is called by the Fathers Basil 5. cont Eunom and Mar. vict 3. contra Arium the Interpreter and Voyce of the Son because the interpreter sayes nothing of his own but deliuers in expresser terms what the Author has already sayd and the text cleerly sayes the Paraclet taught nothing of the new but what he had heard Non enim loquetur à semetipso sed quaecunque audierit loquetur because he did but expound in particular what Christ had taught in general Principles and opened to the Apostles the consequences that were contained in them Now its manifest out of the text that the Paraclet when he descended did not of a sudain open to the Apostles all the Truths and consequences included in those General Principles deliuered by Christ or if he did that he did not so cleerly as that they should haue vnderstood all for after that descent wee read Act. â—0 that Peter doubted if the Ghospell ougth to be preached to the Gentiles and he was instructed by a heauenly vision it ought also Act. 15. it was doubted if besids Baptism the Faith full were to be circumcided But wee do freely grant that the Apostles had at length a full and perfect knowledge of all truths of our Faith and all the consequences included in those general Principles deliuered to them by Christ consequently there is no Truth of Faith which now is belieued by us or shall be belieued by future Ages but the Apostles did distinctly and particularly know for as Tertul. sayes l. de praeser c. 22. quis integrae mentis credcre potest aliquid eos ignorasse quos Magistros Dominus dedit vvhat man of a sound vvit can belieue that they vvere ignorant of any thing vvhom the Lord gaue vs for Masters wee confess also that the Apostles did teach and deliuer all those truths to their disciples either by their written word or by word of Mouth to be handed to Posterity by Tradition whence S. Paul 2. Thes 2. commands hold the Traditions vvhich ye haue learned vvheter by Epistles or by vvord of Mouth some of these truths in succeding ages either through forgetfullness or through inaduertency of their Disciples and their successors who minded chiefly those Articles that were opposed by
Hereticks and laboured in declaring them and neglected the others came to be only confusedly knowen and not so exactly as they were deliuered by the Apostles and this occasions and has in all ages occasioned disputes in Religion When therefore the Church in Ceneral Councils declares an Article of Faith it does not as our Aduersaryes calumny vs coyn a new Article it ads nothing to what the Apostles deliuered but it declares to the Disputants in Religion what was antiently taught and belieued by the Apostles and was forgotten or misvnderstood by others Doubts in Religion are but Doubts of what the Apostles did teach some say onething others an other what wee pretend is that wheras these doubts haue been in all ages and euer will be there has been and euer will be an infallible Church to ascertain vs which is the true Doctrin for though the Apostles knew all Truths and taught them either by vvord of Mouth or in vvriting what Doctrin they deliuered verbally or by vvord of Mouth is doubted of by Posterity if This or That be of Apostolicall Tradition alsoe the vvritten vvord is questioned if This or That Part of Scripture be truely Canonical what wee pretend is that as though Christ taught all Truths to his Apostles yet he sent an infallible interpreter the Paraclet after his Ascension to assist and direct them in case of any Doubts arising of those Truths to declare vnto them the true sence of the Truths which he taught them That as though the Paraclet taught all Truths to the Apostles yet he still remayned with them to direct them if any doubts should occurr against those Truths and as though the Apostles taught to their Disciples all those Truths yet the Protestants themselues confess it was needfull they should haue left an infallible vvritten vvord to inform and ascertain vs what Doctrin the Apostles did teach so wee pretend that though the Apostles haue taught verbally and by their vvritten vvord all Truths of Religion yet since that wee see T is douted what the Apostles did teach verbally and which is their vvritten Doctrin it was absolutly needfull there should be left to vs after their departure an infallible Guide and Instructor for to ascertain vs which is the Doctrin and vvritten vvord of the Apostles and the true sence of that vvritten vvord which infallible Guide and instructor wee say is the Church constantly assisted by Gods infallible Spirit So long therefore shall the Church be assisted with that Spirit to direct vs as there shall be doubts against Religion which will be for euer VII CHAPTER THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLICK Church is the true Church appointed to teach vs Infallible in all Points of Religion BY the Roman Catholick Church wee do not vndestand the Dioces of Rome as Mr Sall willfully mistakes but the whole Congregation of Faith full spred troughhout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Pope as their Head and because he resides in Rome this Congregation takes the de nomination of Roman as though an Army be quartered twenty myles round the Camp takes its denomination from the head-quarter where the General lodges This Church wee say is the Church which Christ established to teach vs what Truths he reuealed for that Church established by Christ which florished in the Apostles tyme is it now extant or not if not wee all labour in vayn in prouing each of vs that his won Church is the true and Primitiue Church if it be it must be infallible as that was but no other Church but the Roman Church pretends to be infallible nay they lowdly disclaym infallibility therefore no other is the true Church but the Roman Catholick Yow say the True Church is infallible in Fundamental Points that Your Church is so far infallible and no other Church can iustly claym to any more consequently that yours is the true Church But I reply the Scripture sayes the Church is infallible and you now in some measure do consess it the Scripture does not limit that infallibility to points fundamental nay sayes the Paraclet shall leade her to all Truth by what Authority do you make that restriction the Apostles and Church in their tyme was infallible in all Points Fundamental and not Fundamental they taught as well the chiefe and prime Articles of Faith as the inferiour Truths they writ the new Testament which contains both kind of Articles Fundamental and not Fundamental and which is infallibly true in whateuer it contains and they were no less infallible in what they taught verbally then in what they vvrit wheras S. Paul commands vs to hold fast the Traditions receiued from them whether by vvritten Epistles or by speech 2. Thes 2. Now I ask were the Apostles infallible in the Points not fundamental and inferiour Truths that they taught or not if not Scripture is not infallible in those points nor could S. Paul say when he preached points not fundamental that their vvord vvas indeed the vvord not of men but of God for the word that is not infallibly true is not Gods word If they were infallible then the Church in the Apostles tyme was infallible in all points fundamental and not either that Church therefore is not now extant and so wee labour in vayn in pretending it is or there is a Church now extant infallible in all doctrin of Religion fundamental and not which can be ne other but the Roman Church wheras Protestants and all other sectaryes-owns themselues to be fallible You answer again it s the same Church as to the substance and essence of a Church which requires only to be infallible in fundamental points as yours is but I will proue that it is as repugnant to the essence of the true Church to be fallible or fals in smale articles of Faith as in great ones I say in smale articles of Faith for to teach a doctrin to be an article of Faith is to teach it is reuealed by God but it is impossible the true Church should teach any doctrin smale or great to be a reuealed Truth which is an vntruth and not really reuealed by God because the Church is commissioned by God to teach vs his doctrin what he has reuealed and for that purpose has giuen her the Mark and Seale of his Commission which are Miracles wherby to confirm their doctrin by which God moues men to embrace and belieue the Church which teacheth No proof more certain and strong of the true Faith Church and Religion than Miracles wrought in confirmation of it when Moyses Ex. 4.1 said They vvill not belieue me nor heare my voyce God gaue him the gift of Miracles as a mark and sign that he was sent by him When Elias raysed the dead Child to lyfe 3. Reg. 17.24 the Mother cryed out novv in this I haue knovven thou art a man of God and the vvord of our Lord in they mouth is true Christ being asked if he was the Messias proued himself to be such by the
Miracles he wrought Mat. 11.3 The blind see the lame vvalk the Leapers are made cleane the deafe heare and the dead ryse again S. Paul 2. Cor. 12.12 calls the Miracles which he wrought the signs of his Apostle ship and S. Mar. last ch saies that the Apostles preaching euery where wrought Miracles in confirmation of their doctrin Christ to proue against the Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 9.6 that he had power of forgining sins which they denied cured the sick Man of the Palsie That you may knovv that the son of Man hath povver of forgining sins saith he to the sick of the Palsie Aryse take up thy bed and go to thy house Therefore if the Catholik Church does work Miracles in proof of the doctrin she teaches t is an vnquestionable truth that she is the true Church as Nicodemus concluded Io. 3.2 No man could do those things if God vvere not vvith him and that no man can deny or doubt her doctrin to be from God wherefore Christ Mat. 11.21 pronounced VVo against Corozain and Betsaida because they did not beliue his doctrin to be diuine which they did see confirmed with so many Miracles you say they were no true Miracles but Sorceries and Enchantments or that the Authors were mistaken in iudging them to be Miracles which were but Natural effects of natural causes But I answer that nothing can be said against those Miracles wrought by the Professors of our Religion and related by S. Augustin S. Bernard and other Saints of the Church which may not be also obiected against the Miracles of our B. Sauiour and Apostles Could not the inhabitants of Corozain and Bethsaida say that the Miracles which Christ alleadged were but Sorceries or effects of natural causes did not the Scribs and Pharisees say it to conclude if thy were true Miracles T is euident the doctrin in whose confirmation they were wrought is diuine and all things considered you will find its rashness to deny that they were true Miracles if you read carefully this Chap. Now it is impossible that God who is infinitly True and to whose infinit Veracity it is as repugnant to speake a smale vntruth as a great one should confirm any vntruth euerso smale with a Miracle consequently a Church that would deliuer a mixt doctrin of some great Truths and some smale vntruths it is impossible that God should work Miracles by that Church in confirmation of her doctrin for that would be to own that doctrin for his own and owne smale vntruths to be reuealed by him wheras he giues his commission and his seale and Marks of his authority for to teach them And as it is not credible that the King of England should giue his commission vnder the broad seale of England to any man to induce his subiect into a Rebellion so it s less imaginable that God should giue his commission with his broad seale which are Miracles and supernatural signs to teach an vntruth euer so smale his infinit veracity being so auerse to all vntruth By no other means did he confirm the doctrin of the Trinity to be his doctrin by no other signs did he moue men to belieue than by working Miracles by the Church that taught it if therefore he works miracles by the Church that teachs Purgatory real Presēce and others which you call inferiour points and smale errours he confirms that doctrin to be his and so approues and ownes smale vntruths to be reuealed by him Therefore S. Paul when he preached as well great as inferiour Truths or articles could cōfidently say that his words were indeed the words of God because God did cōfirm his doctrin by Miracles and supernatural signs particularly Mr Sall auerring that the doctrin of Purgatory and real Presence are damnable errours if ignorance doth not excuse the Professors certainly God would not giue the Marks of his Commission which are Miracles to teach them It remayns that wee proue God has wroutght Miracles by the Roman Catholik Church euen in those ages wherin the Protestants affirm that she was plung'd in errours and in confirmation of those Tenets which they say are errors Secondly that wee are bound to belieue them to haue been true Miracles thirdly that the doctrin in whose confirmation they were wrought must be true reuealed doctrin As to the first wee speake not of forged Miracles which haue been and are still condemn'd by the Church and their Authors punisht as impostors wee speake of vncontrolled Miracles wrought in the presence of the very Authors and Authors of an vnspotted credit Holyness and learning euen in the opinion of our Aduersaries who relate them in their works left to Posterity S. Augustin l. 22. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. relates that in his own tyme many miracles were wrought and som in his own presence by the Sacraments of the Church by the intercession of Saints and their Relicks especially of saint Stephen of saint Geruase and Protase when he being then in the towne their Bodies were by a heauenly reuelation discouered to saint Ambroise at Milan by the sign of the Holy Cross by the sacrifice of Mass and Earth of Christ's sepulcher and mentions in particular besids others that a woman called Palladia was sudainly cured by praying to S. Stephen Ad sanctum Martyrem orare perrexerat quae mox vt cancellos attigit sana surrexit S. Bernard in saint Malachy's lyfe relates many Miracles wrought by this Saint and that he himself after the Saint expired took his hand and layd it vpon the withered and vseless hand of a boy then present who was presently restored to perfect health The Miracles wrought by S. Bernard himself in confirmation of the Catholick doctrin of Transubstantion and Inuocation of Saints opposed in his tyme by the Henricians and VValdenses are recorded by God fred in vita S. Bern. l. 3. c. 5. and particularly that stupendious Miracle of Sarlatum a village neer Toulouse when the Saint blessing som loaues of bread he said to the multitude that were present In this you shall knovv that these things meaning those Tenets opposed by thē foresaid Hereticks are true and those false vvhich the Heretiks endeuour to persvvade you that vvhosoeuer of your diseased persons shall tast of these loaues they shall be healed and the Bishop of Chartres his freind then present adding that the promise was conditional prouided they did eat of that bread with Faith the Saint replyed that he did speak vvithout any such restriction that his meaning vvas that vvhosoeuer did tast of them loaues should bo cured of his sickness And effectualy as many sick persons as did eat of the loaues were cured and this Miracle being publisht such a multitude flockt to meet the Saint from all parts that he was forct to decline the common road No less authentick is that passage of S. Damascen related by Iohn Hierosolymitanus in the lyfe of Damascenus his own scholler and priuy to all his lyfe Leo Isauraus thar
Alms deeds and such others as they who giue the Indulgence require and that the Alms which are enioyned in such cases though by the malice of some they may be turned to sinister vses are designed for pious vses You mention some words of the 92. Canon of the Council of Lateran vnder Innocent the Third and that Council has but 70. Canon in all nor does the Council speake any thing in any Canon of Indulgences it s no new practice of your fraternity to coyn new Canons and texts as you want them You cite S. Thom. and S. Bonauen who relate some were of opinion that Indulgences were but a pious fraud of the Church to draw men to charitable Acts its true those saints relate that opinion but relate not who were the Authors of it but only that some did say so and they condemn it as impious and iniurious to the Church S. Bon. in 4. dist 20. q. 6. sed hoc est Ecclesiae derogare dicendo eam sub specie mentiri quod abhorret mens recta Thus you only proue by this argument that there were some impious people that accusâ—d the Church of being a cheat And do not you do the lyke wee embrace most willingly the aduertisment of Bellar de amiss Gratiae l. 6. which you relate but nothing to your purpose that in things depending of the freewill of God wee must affirm nothing but what he has reuealed in his Holy Scripture but you are mistaken in asserting that God has not reuealed the Doctrin of Indulgence in the Scripture for that text Mat. 18.18 vvhateuer ye shall vnbind on earth shall be vnbinded in Heauen signifyes the Power of vnbinding from the pains of Purgatory you say it does not and you cite Durandus and Maior who say it does not and that Indulgences are not found expresly in Scripture but I say that though they be not expresly found in scripture they are implicitly found there and you confess in the beginning of your discourse that wee are bound to belieue not only what is contained in Scripture but the vndeniable consequences out of it out of that text the Power of vntying from the pains due to sin is an vndeninable consequence the Church declares it and interprets the text so to whose Authority Dur. and Maior must yeild And though there were no text in Scripture that either explicitly or implicitly did import Indulgences in particular yet by Scripture it self wee are bound to belieue it it being the Doctrin of the Church as S. August said of Hereticks Baptism l. 1. cont Crescon c. 32. and 33. oBserue his words which comes very appositly to our present subiect Although verily there be brought no example for this Point he means the validity of Heretick Baptism for which he sayes there is no text in Scripture yet euen in this Point the truth of the same Scripture is held by vs vvhile vvee do that vvhich the Authority of Scripture doth recommend vnto vs that so because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs vvho soeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the Church CoÌ„cerning it vvhich vvithout ambiguity the Holy Scripture doth recommend vnto vs. By which sentence of S. Augustin you find that wee follow Scripture whylst wee follow the Doctrin of the Church which the Scripture commands vs to heare and obey You will perhaps infer out of this discourse a consequence which may seem to you absurd thus therefore wee are bound to belieue as an Article of Faith what Doctrin the Church proposeth to vs though that point in particular be not contained either explicitly or implicitly in any text of Scripture only vpon the testimony of the Church This consequence is true and the reason is that the Church being Gods infallible Oracle caÌ„not propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but only that Doctrin which truly is reuealed by God God reuealed all Truths of Religion to the Apostles as wee haue discoursed in the 6. Chap. the Apostles deliuered all those truths to the Church to be handed from age to age to Posterity the Apostles did not deliuer all those Truths in writing as wee haue discoursed in the 2. and 3. ch but part in writing and this is Scripture part by vnwritten Tradition and this is the Depositum that S. Paul speaks of to Timothie the Church is the keeper of this Depositum and as by the Scripture wee know what written Truths the Apostles deliuered so by the Church wee know assuredly what vnwritten Truths they deliuered Now wee say that the Church cannot propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but what was deliuered by the Apostles who doubtless knew and taught to their Disciples all truths of Religion to the Church for wee do not say nor belieue that the Church can coyn new Articles of Faith but only deliuer the Old that through carelessness came to be confusedly knowen and almost forgotten wee do not pretend that the Church has new reuelations of new Doctrin which God did not deliuer to his Apostles but that she has the assistance of Gods Spirit to know certainly and find out the truths that were formerly reuealed and taught by the Apostles not only in writing but by word of mouth what truths therefore the Church proposes vnto vs wee are obliged to belieue them as reuealed truths though they be not in Scripture particularly mentioned for if they be not there they were taught verbally by the Apostles they are of Apostolical tradition and if the tradition be obscure or doubtfull the declaration of the Church renders it certain Thus it matters not that Indulgence is not expressed nay nor implicitly contained in Scripture if it be not it must of necessity haue been taught verbally by the Apostles since that the Church proposeth this Doctrin as a reuealed Truth and no truth is a reuealed truth but has been reuealed to them and by them deliuered vnto their Disciples Publick Prayer in an vnknovven Language Ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam your own position is the strongest argument I can alleadge for Publick seruice in an vn knowen language you say thus the purpose of Nature by speaking is to communicat the sense of him that speaketh to the hearer but hovv can that be if the hearer perceiueth not the meaning of the vvords he speaketh Therefore wee must speake in a knowen language I ask to whom do wee speake in the Liturgy or Publick seruice of the Church Sure it s not to the congregation but God it s to him wee direct our Prayers for to prayse him and implore his Mercy The Hearer is God properly and not the Cougregation and therefore where there is no Congregation present the Psalms are sung in the Oyre and Publick seruice don if therefore wee communicat our fence when wee say Mass or publick seruice to God who is the hearer wee satisfy the purpose that Nature intends by speaking and wheras God vnderstands our fence in
do not they reape any benefit by your publick Prayers because they cannot vnderstand what is said And if a Hugonot of France came to Dublin who did not vnderstand your language would not you admit him to your Communion and publick seruice by this you see its lawfull of its self to make publick Prayer in an vnkwnowen language You will say and I belieue the Protestant Church will pretend no more that it is not so conuenient for the edification of the people but more needfull it should be in the language that is commonly vsed To this I answer that the Publick Prayer of the Church may be in any language which is thought the most conuenient for the glory of God and spiritual profit of the flock but I say also that it is not you or I or this or that kingdom or Prouince must be the iudge to determin in which language is it most conuenient it should be God has giuen vs a Church who will gouern vs it s to her it belongs to iudge what Rites Ceremonies and manner of Diuin worship wee must practise and as the particular subiects of each Kingdom cannot question the Customs Lawes or Decrees of the Gouernment so the Christian Kingdoms and Prouinces must not question nor iudge of the conueniency of what Rites or practice the Church does establish let vs suppose that in relation to this kingdom of Ireland it might be thought and realy may be som what more aduantagious for the flock to haue the Publick seruice in English or Irish is it therefore it must be lawfull for this kingdom without the approbation of the Church or suprem Pastor of it to vsurp that practice no but you are to represent that conueniency to the Church and acquiesce to her resolution But say you why would the Church of Rome stick on so inconsiderable a thing as that but rather than to be a cause of Schism or separation grant the publick seruice may be in vulgar language and I ask also why would not you or this Prouince or that rather becontent to want that particular comfort which you propose to yourself in doing this or that which is not conformable to the approued practice of the Church rather than to run in desobedience against the Church whose command and Authority is a sufficient warrant for you to allay what scruples your reason may suggest against it The Church ought not to condescend with you and dispense with you in the obseruance of the publick practice and Ceremonies though they be but bcclesiastical and human institutions for if it shoud grant you lycence to say Mass in English why should it not grant France leaue to Communicat in both kinds if France did ask it and if Spaine did ask to Christean with three immersions of the Body and not otherwyse why should not the Church grant it and if Germany did ask the validity of Clandestin Marriages why should it be denyed and so each Kingdom desiring their respectiue priuiledge the vniformity in Diuin seruice Administration of Sacraments and Ecclesiastical Rites so much commended in the Church would be quite ouerthrowen It s the Church therefore must iudge and determin in what language is it most conuenient to worship God by Publick Prayers and wee are to acquiesee to the Decree and commands of the Church And therfore Luther who vnder pretence of greater conueniency and spiritual comfort of the congregation condemned Publick seruice in vulgar languages against the practice of the Church schismatically separated himself from her in which separation you continue by adhering to his Doctrin The Church established Publick seruice in the Latin language behold why because it is the common language of the Church as in respect of England English is the common language and spanish in respect of spaine so in relation to the Church spred throughout all Nations the Latin is the most vniuersal and common Therefore it was conuenient the Publick Prayer of the Church which is said in all parts should be in the publick and most vniuersall language which is the Latin And as each kingdom has a language proper to it self so the Church which is the kingdom of Christ has its proper language which is Latin which is so vniuersally knowen Secondly for to preserue vniformity in the manner of Diuin worship if the Mass had been in English three hundred yeare agon how different would the Mass be now from what it was then the language being wholy an other from what then is was doubtless it would haue caused great alteration in the publick seruice Thirdly if the Mass were not in Latin or som language vniuersally knowen throughout the world but in the particular language of each kingdom when Priests would come from their own Countries to ours in Pilgrimage or for other occasion they would not be premitted or not without great difficultie to say Mass and so would be depriued of that spiritual Comfort Scripture prohibited I pray Sr what do your People learn in their houses by reading the Bible is it not Rebellion against their Church and contempt of all Spiritual Authority each one obstinatly adhering to that sense of the text which he iudgeth the best and thus your Church is deuided into a numberless number of sects this is smale encouragement for vs to permit to our common people the vse of the Bible iudging it better to knovv to sobriety as S. Paul counsels than by pretending to know more than behoueth to run into those inconueniencies wherin you haue fallen You accuse the Catholick Church for exposing Images to the adoration of the flock for the danger of falling into Idolatry and this is the reason that Caluin also giues you haue liued many years in Spain where Images are in great veneration you haue been much acquainted with the Inquisition as you would haue vs belieue you know the seuerity of that Tribunal against Hereticks Iewes and Idolaters how many haue you seen in spain that by adoring Images came to fall into Idolatry doubtless had there been any the Inquisition would haue taken holt of him for though the Inquisition permits Images it would neuer leaue Idolatry occasioned by the adoration of Images vnpunished And not one I dare say did you euer see or heare of to haue been punished on this account Now consider how many haue fallen into Heresies and errours quite opposit euen to your Church by the liberty granted for reading of Scripture hence has proceeding all the Sects that are in our kingdoms and elswhere Does not this demonstrat that there is far greater danger of Heresy in the vsual reading of the Bible than of Idolatry in adoring of Images ought not you rather therefore to decry the liberty of reading the Bible than the adoration of Images But reply you this proues that euen the Priests and fryers ought to be kept from reading it for it s they that haue abused it and broached all heresies and things must not be prohibited that are
in themselues good because they are abused but the Abusers must be punished And this good consideration Mr Sall will not perswade you to admit the vse of Images wee grant Mr Sall that principle to be good that things in themselues commendable must not be probited because they are abused when the vse of then is absoluty needfull or conuenient and the abuses are not very frequent and pernicious as in this case of reading the Bible it s not needfull nor can it be proued to be very profitable for the common people on the other syde the abuses are most apparent frequent and pernicious for thence comes all these sects and heresies therefore it ought to be prohibited but Mr Sall you must mind what I aduertised you in my discourse of Prayers in an vnknowēn language that it is not you or I nor any other but the Church that must iudge of the conueniency or inconueniency the aduantage or desaduantage of reading of Scripture she must declare that and acording what she iudges who is constantly directed by Gods infallible Spirit in the gouernment of the flock must permit or prohibit it This your Church will not say that the vulgar people are bound in conscience to read the Scripture for many cannot reade any thing others do not read all Scripture nor do they think that they sin by not reading others do neuer read any thing of it what you can iustly pretend is that it is conuenient and profitable and therefore ought to be permitted and heere returns what I discoursed of Praying in an vnknowen tongue Let any vnpreiudic'd man iudge if it does not belong to the Church to determin what is conuenient or most conuenient since that God has giuen a Church to gouern vs Let any man iudge if a particular man that against the establisht authority vnder which he liues and is bound to obey should rise against that authority and make himself iudge of what is conuenient or inconuenient for the gouernment and vnder pretence of a greater conueniency that appears to him should alter the established practices of the Commonwealth should not such a man I say be esteemed a seditious Reuolter and be punished what therefore shall wee say of Luther he liued vnder the authority of the Catholick Church he was a priuat person he found the vse of the Bible prohibited and publik seruice in Latin he did not pretend that it was absolutly necessary for saluation to pray in knowen languages nor to reade the Bible but iudged it to be most conuenient and therefore condemned the Church for prohibiting it is not this man to be esteemed a schismatick that opposes himself to the publick authority and makes himself iudge of the practices established by it and must not wee rang you with him that persists in the same rebellion Priests and fryers haue abused Scripture it s very true but for one that has thousands haue not and for one of the vulgar that has not many haue besids priests and fryers being the Pastors of the Church are obliged to reade and when a Priest or fryer abuses the Scripture its easy to punish him but when a multitude of popular people abuses it the remedy is not so neer at hand He quotes vpon Mr Stillingfleets word a Council of Bishops at Bononia that prohibited the Scripture giuing for reason that it discouers the corruptious of the Catholick Doctrin but this Council must be of the same coyn of the 92 Canon of the Council of Lateran which wee mentioned aboue no such Canon of Lateran or Council of Bononia is or was extant but in Mr Stillingfleet and Salls imagination I conclude with these two Assertions first its needfull that the Pastors Prelats and Doctors of the Church do reade the Scripture and that the flock receiue from them the sence of it and the Doctrin contained in it It s for this end that God placed in his Church some Prophet some Apostles some Euangelists Doctors and Pastors to keepe vs in Vnity of Faith by teaching what wee ought to belieue S. Paul Eph. 4. Act. 20.18 he commands the Pastors to watch ouer the flock in which the H. G. hath placed them to gouern the Church It s therefore Christ laid his command on the Apostles and their successors to teach all Nations to preach the Ghospell and therefore sayes S. Basil q. 25. Superiorum est ista scire c. it s the obligation of the Superiors to say the Pastors to knovv and learn these thing vvhich they may teach to others but of the others not to konovv more than behoueth them to knovv And Leo Pope writing to the Patriarck of Alexandria epist 62. and epist 82. ad Iul. You must haue care that none vvho is not a Priest of the Lord may presume to vsurp the authority of teaching or preaching vvhether he be a Monk or a layman though a learned man And S. Aug. l. 1. de moribus Eccl. c. 1. vvhat man of iudgment doth not vnderstand that the exposition of Scripture is to be asked of them vvho by their profession are their Doctors And if to proceed wysely wee must consult the Lawyers for the true meaning of the Law and that each Commonwealth hath men whose profession it is to study it and deliuer the true sence of it to those that are not Lawyers by Profession how much more it is needfull that there be Doctors in the Church whose obligation is to study the Scripture and find out by the Fathers and Interpreters the true sence of it and teach it to the people This and no more doth the authorities of Fathers produced by Mr Sall proue the reading of Scripture is recommended vnto vs sayes he by S. Basil S. Chrysost and S. Augustin it s very true but to whom to the learned men of the Church whose obligation it is to teach the Doctrin it contains and to the Layty no further than to hold that sence of them which the Pastors deliuer to be the sence of the Church The second Assertion that it is not conuenient nor lawfull for the Layty to reade them further than with a total submission of their Iudgment to the sence giuen to them by the Church This is manifestly proued by the multitude of sects wherin to the world is deuided through the liberty assumed of reading the Scriptures and vnderstanding them as the Readers think best Secondly by the obscurity of Scripture which wee haue demonstrated in the 2 and 3. ch S. Peter sayes Mr Sall 2. Epist 1.19 exhorts vs to read vvee haue also a sure vvord of of Prophecy vvherunto ye do vvell to take heed c. but S. Peter by that sure vvord of Prophecy means not only the written word of God but also the vnwritten word which is the Tradition by which the Church deliuers to vs the true sense of the written vvord which he bids vs to take heed of S. Paul recommends vnto vs the reading of Scripture Rom. 15. and 2.