say man must be saued if in any but if his Lordp did speake to the purpose and to what wee belieue by the Roman Catholick Church as I declared 5. ch and in the entrance to this chap. wee vnderstand all Christians throughout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Church of Rome which is the chiefe and Mother Church if he sayes This is but a part of the Church of God where is the other part I say where was it when Luther began his pretended Reformation for then there was no visible Congregation of Christians at least No Protestants nor any thing lyke them that did administer Sacraments and preach the word of God but was vnited in Faith and Communion with the Roman Church only such as were then held by Luther and now by vs schismatick as you are which then was the other part of Christ's true Church but this is not all how could he say and you belieue that the Roman Church take it either for the Dioces of Rome or as wee vnderstand it is a part of the Catholick Church if it be guilty of damnable errors can that be the true Church or any part of it that professes damnable errors against Faith S. Athanasius his Creed sayes no for it requires to haue an entyre and inuiolable Faith and you that is a Professor of Diuinity will say that a particular Person who holds damnable errors against the doctrin of the Church and obstinatly adheres to them is an heretick and no member of hers consequently you must say and your Instructor deluded you in saying the contrary that the Roman Church can be not part of the true Church if in her there was no saluationthrough damnable errors in doctrin You see Mr Sall that against the doctrin of the Church of England against your own and your Instructors concessions you haue engaged in that blasphemous assertion of not saluation in the Catholick Church to vse your own expression pag. 75. to spight the Catholick you ran beyond all measure euen of your ovvn principles as to spight the Ievv and seem a good Christian one vvould eat more Pork than his stomak can beare And to get the credit of a sound and zealous Protestant among your new Brethren you haue exceeded them in decrying the Church But the Reader will vnderstand by what I haue discoursed in this Chapter that the Catholick Church is the true Church that she cannot err in any point whateuer of Religion and consequently that saluation is to be sought in her VIII CHAPT THAT THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it That they cannot vvithout blasphemy alleadge Scripture for their Tenets That they haue not one and the same Faith vvith Catholicks that out of the Catholick Church there is no saluation Hovv far can ignorance excuse Protestants IT is the constant doctrin of the Protestant Church for I call not the Puritans and Hugonots of France Protestants whose error in this point I haue she wen in the former chap. that the Catholick Church has not erred in fundamental points of Religion because the true Church such as the Catholick was before Luther confessedly and now is in their acknowledgment cannot err in essential and fundamental articles consequently they discourse that the Protestant and Catholick Church differ only in points not fundamental and inferior truths which say they are pernicious errors but break not Vnity of Faith nor destroyes not saluation That the true Church can err and is fallible in points not fundamental and inferior truths This is faithfully the doctrin of the Protestant Church as you will find in the Authors I quoted in the former Chapt. in Stilling fleet in his book miscalled a Rational Account and in seueral others cited in the Protestant Apology tr 1. c. 6. and tract 2. c. 2. Now wee must consider what is the Protestant Church properly it belieues many Articles and as they say all fundamental Articles that the Catholick belieues so far they are not Properly Protestants but their proper Notion is to be taken from those Tenets wherin they differ so that Protestancy properly and as it is condistinct from Catholecism or Popery as you say is the doctrin wherin the Protestant Church differs from the Catholick Now I proue that the Protestant Church as it is properly the Protestant Church condistinct from the Catholick is not the Church of Christ because it does not teach the doctrin of Christ and no Church can be called of Christ further that it teacheth his doctrin and doubteless if wee did ask the Protestants and first Reformers why they did separate from the Catholick Church they would say To belieue and practise the Doctrin of Christ vvhich the Catholick denyed But I will proue that their doctrin for which they separated from vs and wherin they differ from vs is not the Doctrin of Christ The argument is in Ferio thus No fallible doctrin is the doctrin of Christ For who would be so blasphemous as to say that what Christ has taught is fallible Doctrin But Protestancy that 's to say all the Doctrin wherin Protestants differr from Catholicks and for which they separated from vs is altogether fallible Doctrin therefore Protestancy as it is properly the Doctrin of the Protestant Church is not the Doctrin of Christ That Protestancy or the Doctrin wherin wee differ is all fallible Doctrin its manifest for Protestancy or Doctrin wherin wee differ is altogether of points not fundamental wee all agree in the fundamental Articles as they vnanimously confess wee only differ in inferiour Truths wherin the Catholick Church has erred But the doctrin of points not fundamental and inferior truths is fallible Doctrin for it s their constant Doctrin also that the true Church be it the Catholick or Protestant can err and is fallible in articles not fundamental and inferiour truths therefore all your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin therefore it s not the doctrin of Christ I confess ingenuously I think this argument cannot be solidly answered For is it not certain that you differ from vs as you say only in not fundamental articles is it not also your doctrin that the true Church is fallible in articles not fundamental how can it then be denyed but that you differ from vs only in fallible doctrin the doctrin wherin you differ from vs is Protestancy and nothing els is properly Protestācy but that for which you departed from vs therfore your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin and consequently not the doctrin of Christ Hence I infer that you cannot without Blasphemy looke for your doctrin in Scripture no text or word of God can be alleadged for Protestancy nor any other warrant but your meer fancy for your protestancy is but a parcell of fallible doctrin and no fallible doctrin can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture which contains nothing but Gods infallible word Obserue how vainly the Protestants do boast their Religion and
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
in the word Faith alone 2. S. Paul in that text speaks only of the Scripture wherin Timothie was versed and which he had perused from his Youth which was only the Old Testament so that if the text proues the sufficiency of the Scripture for our instruction it proues the sufficiency of the Old Testament only 3. S. Paul in that vers ch v. 14. sayes to Timothie thou continue in those things thou hast learned and are committed to thee knovving from vvhom thou hast learned them Whence its apparent that he remitted Timothie for instruction to the Scripture and also to the doctrin deliuered to him by a liuing Oracle which was the Apostle himself Lastly the whole Canon of Scripture was not compleated when S. Paul writ that text nor in many years after and you can not pretend that euer wee had the sufficient means for our instruction in any part but in the whole and entyre Canon therefore you cannot pretend that that text doth proue the sufficiency of Scripture II. CHAPT SCRIPTVRE ALONE NOT THE Means for to instruct vs in Faith IF Scripture alone were the means appointed by God for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to belieue is it not strange that Christ should not himself haue left vs a Written word to walk by when he laid vpon vs the obligation of embracing true Religion or that he should not at least haue laid a Command vpon his Apostles of deliuering vs a written word reade the whole Canon and you shall find no such command but he left Apostles and Pastors and a command vpon them to teach and preach vnto vs and vpon vs of belieuing and obeying them which argues that the means which he designed for our instruction in Religion was not a written word but a liuing Church Necessity is laid upon me yea vvo is vnto me if I preach not the Ghospel 1. Cor. 9.16 He feared no vvo for not vvriting but for not preaching the Ghospel because he would depriue the flock of the means which God appointed for their instruction And the Channel by which Faith is conueyed vnto vs being our Eares fides ex auditu and not our Eyes it seems apparent that the means which he appointed is a liuing Oracle who speaks and not a volum which wee reade But let vs suppose that the Apostles did by special command of Christ write the Ghospel this is manifest that since the very beginning of the Church Christians did doubt which was the true Scripture written by the Apostles and which not there is not one part of all Scripture but was questioned and denied by some Christians to be Canonical Cerdon the Valentinians and Manichaeans denyed the Old Testament to be Scripture Epiph. Haer. 41. The Ebionits reiected the four great Prophets the Books of Salamon and Psalms of Dauid Epiph. Haer. 30. Marcionits reiected all the Ghospels except that of S. Luke idem Haer. 4.2 and Irer l. 1. c. 6. the Ebionits did own only that of S. Mathew They also reiected the Epistles of S. Paul Epiph. Haer. 30. And the Disciples of Cerdon would not belieue the Acts of the Apostles Tert. de Praescrip c. 51. The Lutherans this day blot out of the Canon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews as also that of Iude the second of S. Peter and second and Third of S. Iohn all which the Caluinists belieue The Church of England will not admit the Books of Machabees Esther Iudith and others which the Chatolik Church admits nor did the Ancient Fathers of the Church proue against the Marcionists and other Hereticks those Books to be Scripture by the Scripture itself but by the Church as S. Augustin l. cont Episc Man c. 5. Euangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoueret Authoritas I vvould not belieue the Ghospel to be the Ghospel if the authoriiy of the Church did not moue me to it Now I argue thus you say true Religion is knowen by Scripture alone that 's to say wee haue no assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth but by Scripture alone Therfore wee can haue no more assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth than wee haue of the Scriptur's which contains that Truth being true Scripture if therefore you be not innfallibly ascertained that this is true Scripture you cannot be infallibly ascertained that the Truths which it contains are reuealed Truths But Scripture alone giues no assurance that it is true Scripture that it is not corrupted either by the malice or ignorance of the translators or inaduertency of the Printer for there is not a text in all Scripture that mentions it therfore the Scripture alone cannot ascertain vs of the Truth of Religion And it cannot be imagined but that since the true sence of Scripture is doubtfull God has prouided vs of some means to know which is the true sence so also since that wee are obliged to belieue with diuine Faith that this Booke is Scripture it cannot be doubted I say but that God has afforded some means for to ascertain vs which is true Scripture and to confound those that deny the Scripture to be Scripture But Scripture itself alone can neuer assure vs of its being Scripture For to say that Scripture doth manifest itself to be Gods word by certain Criteria or signs found in Scripture itself as a diuine beam of light a Maiesty of style an energy of vvords wherby it does manifest it self to the humble and well intentioned harts to be Gods word these are but fond imaginations for all the Ancient Fathers of the first 402. years of the Church doubtless were as humble and as well intentioned as wee and all that tyme the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews Iude and S. Peeters second Epistle and second and Third of S. Iohn were not belieued as an article of Faith to be Scripture nay were absolutly denyed to be such by Tert. Cypr. Lactan. and others and yet they had the same Majesty of style and energy of words as now they haue and whateuer you may iudge of vs Catholiks Luther you will say was humble and well intentioned and could see no such Criteria or signs in those Epistles which Caluin belieues to be Canonical and 't is but a fond imagination to conceit any such lustre or Majesty in those Books which you belieue more than in the Books of Tobias Esther and others which you deny Consider I pray if a Pagan desirous of his saluation were placed in a vast Library could he distinguish the Scripture from other Books and know it to be the word of God only by reading it and if you did euer reade of any Kingdom couerted to Christianity by reading the Bible only without Apostolical men to expound the Christian Doctrin and by that you may gness which were the means appointed by God for our instruction if Scripture alone or a liuing Church And allowed wee be assured this Book and an other is the word of God of the Scripture wee
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
you their Doctrin it s thus they say wee are guilty of errours that their Tenets of figuratiue Presence No Purgatory c. are vndeniable plain consequences out of Scripture and therefore wee err in denying them and that wee do err blamably and willfully because they are plain vndubitable consequences out of Scripture as you say also Mr Sall and wheras wee haue the scripture and belieue it to be the word of God and haue wits to vnderstand and sufficient instruction wee cannot but be willfully ignorant which ignorance is not sufficient to excuse vs from blame for not belieuing but they say that our denying of them articles though wee be obstinat in our denyal will not damn vs if wee haue no other sin because they are not fundamental Articles of Faith our errours do not shock the essential parts of religion though it were better and more safe to belieue them yet their belief is not absolutly requisit for saluation This is the Doctrin of the Church of England they grant vs saluation not for any ignorance but because wee hold the substance and all essential points of Faith It s therefore that Bramhal Bishop of Armagh called the Articles wherin the Protestant dissent from the Catholick Church Pious opinions and concluded that both Churchs had true Faith it s therefore that Doctor Stillingfleet compares both Churchs the Catholick to a Leaky ship wherin a man may be saued but with great danger and difficulty and the Protestant to a sound ship wherin one may be saued without hazard It s therfore that King I ames in the meeting of the Protestant Clergy at Southampton pronounced this sentence vvee detest in this point the cruelty of the Puritans and iudge them deseruing of fire vvho affirm that in the Popish religion a man may not be saued reade the Doctors of your Church Luther c. 6. and c. 4. in Gen. Osiander in epitom p. 2. pag. 1073. Melancthon in Conf. Aug. art 21. printed at Geneua an 1554. zuinglius in epis dedicat of his Confession of Faith to francis the first king of france Doctor field l. 3. de Eccl. c. 9. Bunnie in tract de pacif sect 18. whitaker q. 5. c. 3. Hooker l. de Pol. Eccl. but it were tedious to name all not any of the Church of England nor of the Lutherans but confess that the Catholick Church is a sauing Church because it has not erred in any fundamental points that wee are of one and the same Faith as to the substance It s true the Rigid Puritans and the Hugonots of france do say that the Catholick Church did err in fundamental points of Faith necessary for saluation and that therefore there is no saluation in her Comnunion and the Hugonots are of this sentiment but since about the yeare 1634. for before they constantly belieued with the Church of England that the Catholick Faith was a sauing Faith witness the answer of the Hugonot Diuins to Henry the fourth of france who asking if a man could be saued in the Roman Religion they answered yea wher vpon he prudently choosed that Religion which in the iudgment of all Parties was a sauing Religion Spondanus ad an 1593. But Mr Sall does not Profess to be a Puritan nor Hugonot and how come he to vtter such an impious expression But I will proue against him and his Associats Puritans and Hugonots that there is saluation in our Religion euen in their own Principles for either the true Church can err in fundamental points destructiue of saluation or not if not then the Roman Church which in the confession of you all was the true Church before and in Luthers age did not err in any point of doctrin repugnant to saluation if it can then your Church though it should be as you pretend the true Church can err also in fundamental points and you consequently cannot know if you be in the way of saluation Secondly you confess that the Lutherans and Protestants are in a true way of saluation but if the errours of the Catholik Church were fundamental and damnable They could not be in a sure way of saluation for it is as damnable an errour to say that a man may be saued in the profession of damnable errours as to profess them for example its as damnable an errour to say that a man may be saued denying Iesus-Christ as it is to deny him vae qui dicitis bonum malum if the Catholicks therefore be in a damnable state for professing those which you call errours the Protestants and Lutherans who vnanimously say they can be saued in the actual profession of those errours must be in a damnable state You must then either absolue both or condemn both besids the Lutherans hold some Points with the Catholicks which you condemn as damnable errors in our Religion for example the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist yet you belieue the Lutherans may be saued in their Religion therefore you must grant saluation to the Catholicks And now let vs draw Mr Sall by the skirt and mind him of what he sayes pag. 24. The Arch. B. of Cashel his instructor discoursed with him and his modesty pag. 28 added great vveight to his reasons Poore soul how simply you were fooled out of your Religion as appears by this passage His Lordship acknow-ledged the Catholick Church vvas a part of the true Church but not the vvhole and Mr Sall fancyed to perceiue such an admirable charity and real desire of vnion among Christians in this noble acknovv-ledgment of his Grace in granting vs that Honorable Title that he presently yielded all respect and submission to his reasons Open your eyes Poore Man you are charm'd by your instructors modesty and cheated of your Religion by fayre words Honorable title wherin doth the Honor of that Title of Catholick consist if it does not signify a Profession leading to saluation is it because that wee belieue many articles of Christianity though wee deny some then the Title of Arrian and Pelagians is Honorable which Professions belieued diuers Tenets of Christianity Is it because that by ignorance wee may be excused and be saued but you say that only the simple sort can haue that ignorance and besids Iews and Pagans may be saued in their respectiue Professions if they can claym ignorance Thus that Honorable title which sounded so plea sant to your ears is but an empty voyce His Instructor granted the Church of Rome to be a part of the Catholick Church but not the whole and Mr Sall did see such a vein of Charity and zeale to run through these vvords that he was rauish'd was euer Poore soule so deluded why did not you ask what his Lordp meant by Roman Church if he meant the Dioces of Rome that indeed is a part of the Catholick Church but that is not the Church wee speake of that wee say is infallible and wherof vvee are Members for wee are no Members of that Church wherin wee
which is that God prohibited Images to be adored as Gods or as the representations of false Gods which are properly I dols and then enters thequestion which of both interpretations his or ours is the true one which none can decide but an infallible liuing Iudge to which wee both must be bound to submit That God did no prohibit the making of Images or the lykness of things Diuine and Human as the letter of the text sounds our aduersaries must confess for he commanded the Ark of the Testament should be made Ex. 25. the Brasen Serpent to be set vp Num. 21. which Christ sayes Io. 3. was a representation of himself That he did not prohibit all manner of worship and adoration of Images representations and lykness of things which are in heauen aboue and earth it s also manifest for he commanded the Brasen Serpent to be set vp that the people looking on it should be healed and though Mr Sall would perswade vs that no adoration was to be giuen to it yet certainly none can deny but That looking on it was with an inward reuerence and veneration as on an instrument of Gods merices to them and Adoration or vvorship consists properly in the inward affection of the mind Besides the Ark of the Testament which Caluin himself super Psal 105. confesses to be an image of God Arca erat imago Dei was still religiously worshipped by the Iews none permitted to touch it but consecrated persons carried often in Procession by Dauid Reg. 4.3 Reg. 8. and Iosue 6. adored by Iosue and the Israelits prostrated on the ground be fore it Iosue 7.6 But what the Protestants will neuer answer that the Lords supper is a representation of Christ his passion a figure of his Body and is religiously worshipped by them if they do what S. Paul requires 1. Corin. 11.28 by this wee see that the text must not be vnderstood literally prohiting all worship but prohibiting to be worshipped as Gods the world being then plunged in Idolatry some adoring the very statues and Images as Gods others adoring the statues and images as the pictures of seueral things which they belieued to be Gods as Iupiter Venus c. Azor sayes he instit Mor. to 1. l. 9. c. 6. declares it to be the constant iudgment of Diuins that the Image is to be honored vvith the same vvorship vvhervvith that is vvorshipped vvherof it is an Image Azor has no such words and you add falsly that it is our constant Tenet Our Doctrin is declared by the 7. Gen. Council which is Nicen 2. and after by Trent and others that Council decrees Images must be adored and does not determin how that adoration must be called but only excludes the Adoration of Latria which is that which wee giue to God The Diuins after this Council dispute what adoration is it that must be exhibited to them some say only a Relatiue others an Absolut Adoration some saye an Adoration of Latria improperly and for Gods sake to whome only a proper Latria is due and these that speake of this improper Latria are checkt by others because though by scholastical subtilities they may be vnderstood in a Catholick sense yet that expression sounds harsh to pious eares and generally all Diuins do censure any that should out of the school propose those subtilities to vulgar eares But what they all agree in and wee belieue that they must not be adored with that Adoration wherwhith God is adored and wee all say with Epiph. who was present at that Nicen Council Act. 6. non indignas habemus imagines honore veneratione ac salutatione debitamque adorationem illis dare debemus siue igitur obserue these words placebit adorationem siue salutationem appellare idem erit modo sciamus excludi Latriam haec enim est alia a simplici adoratione vvee iudge Images vvorthy of honor and adoration and vvee ought to exhibit it to them call that adoration as you please so it be not Latria it s all alyke vvhat you call it for Latria is different from an ordinary and simple adoration Let some particular Diuins therefore discourse as they please it s not our obligation to excuse them wee belieue with the Church an Adoration but no Latria Petauius sayes he agreat Antiquary declares that for the four first Centuries there vvas little or no vse of Images in the Oratoryes of Christians I cannot imagin to what purpose does Mr Sall bring these quotations of Petauius Azor Iacobus de Graffys if it be not to let his Auditorie or Reader know that he is versed in Authors This proues that the Primitiue Church did vse Images though not so much as now they do and Petauius giues in that very place Dogm Theol. to 5. l. 15. cap. 13. the reason why they were not more frequently vsed because the world conuerted from Paganism that belieued in stocks and stones and some of them that their Gods were Bodyes and not pure Spirits to shun the occasion of a relaps into these errours and to withdraw the people from any apprehensions of Corporality in God Images were but little vsed nay in some places where the danger was greater they were absolutly prohibited and Sanderus l. 2. de cultu imaginum c. 4. sayes this was the reason why the Council of Elibert prohibited the vse of Images S. Gregory whose words you cite would haue the people kept from an Idolatrous worship of Images and pretended no more Not only Nichephorus Calixtus but many this day of the Catholick Church do hold it absurd to paint Images of the Father son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substance and Nature nor does the Catholicks vse it as you falsly criminat them but they paint the Father in the form of an Ancient Man as he appeared to the Prophet Daniel the son in human shape and the Holy Ghost in the figure of a Doue as he appeared in the Riuer Iordan Vasquez speaks not a word of Images in the place cited by you 3. p. disp 94. but 3. p. Disp 103.5.4 he sayes Images also as well as Idols are prohibited in the first Commandment and what then Vasquez was mistaken as well as you but you far more for he sayes in that place it was not because the adoration of Images was in it self naught as you say for you say its Idolatry but because it was obnoxious in those tymes to the danger of falling into Idolatry and therefore prohibited but this danger ceasing as in the Law of Grace Images may and ought to be adored and not prohibited by that commandment if he speaks consequently or no it s not my business to examine it You say God commanded the Brasen serpent to be broken because the people worshiped it 2. Reg. 13.4 but the text will inform you well if you set preiudice asyde that they began to adore it for God as they did the molten Calf and therefore it was prohibited You say our people
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