you if such a promiss be impossible wee say the Church cannot err in her doctrin which is to be infallible Dare you deny but that the Prophets the Apostles and Euangelists were infallible in what they taught and writ dare you deny but that the Church of God is infallible in fundamental points of Religion and are you therefore guilty of Blasphemy or do you intrench on Gods prerogatiues or giue his Attributs to creatures God is infallible by Nature by his own proper perfection this is his Attribut and this cannot be giuen to any creature to be infallible by the protection of an other who defends him from falling into any errour is not Attribut of God it were a Blasphemy to say that he is infallible in that manner but the Prophets Apostles Euangelists and the Church are thus infallible by Gods special protection and the conduct of his spirit An other argument against our Tenet pag. 30. is the disagreement of our Authors in placing this infallibity some will haue it to be in the Pope alone others in him and a Council of Cardinals others in the Pope and General Council alone This dissention is to Mr Sall a concluding argument that there is no such thing as Church infallibity and thus he furnishes the Deists with a concluding argument that there is no such thing as true Religion in the world for will the Deists say with him the Authors that pretend to true Religion do not agree where it is some say its in the Iewish Church others that it is in the Protestants others in the Catholik Church others in other Congregations and will conclude in Mr Salls Dialect that there is no such thing as true Religion extant because the Pretenders to it do not agree where to find it But the poore Man ignorantly or maliciously mistakes our doctrin all Catholiks do agree in the infallibility of the Pope and General Council ioyntly this is the infallibility wee belieue as an article of Faith It s true that the Catholik Authors do dispute if the Pope alone is infallible some say he is and will haue it to be an article of Faith that he is others say that he is not but with a Council of Cardinals and Diuines others say that neither this is an article of Faith some say that a General Council legally assembled is infallible in their Decrees though not confirmed by the Pope others say not if they be not confirmed by him But all these are but school questions the Church heares them and permits them to dispute and whateuer Bellarmin or any other saies wee are not obliged to belieue it to be an article of faith whylst it is opposed by other Catholick Doctors and the Church does not determin the Controuersy but what you are to obserue is that those Doctors who defend the infalliblity of the Pope alone and those that deny it those that affirm the infallibility of the Council alone and those that contradict it they agree vnanimously in the infallibity of the Pope and Council together because that with out any controuersy the Pope and Council ioyintly represents the vniuersal Church and the vniuersal Church is infallible this is the article of Faith wee belieue And if you tell vs a Pope or a General Council has err'd you will tell vs nothing to the purpose if you do not shew that a Pope and Council together has err'd for that 's the Church hauing by the answer of these two arguments declared what infallibility the Church clayms and where wee belieue this infallibility to be let vs now proue our Tenet First it s a comfort to an vnacquainted Traueller to be guided by one whom he firmly belieues to be acquainted with the way though really your guide were not acquainted with the way if you certainly belieue he is and that he cannot stray though you do not know the way yourself you will follow him with satisfaction and without feare of being byass'd but if you do not know the way and you belieue your guide is not so well acquainted but that he may stray you will still trauell with feare of being byass'd This is the different condition of a Catholik and a Protestant the Catholick trauelling in the way to saluation which is Religion is guided by a Church which he without the least doubt belieues cannot be mistaken whether she can or not since he is absolutly perswaded she cannot he trauells with satisfaction and without feare the Protestant in this way is guided by a Church which he belieues is not so well assured of the way but that she may err ought he not therefore to walk disatisfyed and with continual feare of being mislead You answer that the Protestant is not lead by the Church but by the Scripture which is an infallible guide It s very sure the Scripture is infallible vnderstood in the true sence but you can haue no assurance that you haue the true sence of Scripture consequently you can haue no assurance that you haue an infallible guide this proposition is certain The Scripture ill interpreted does mislead this proposition is also certain you and your Church may err in the interpretation of Scripture comparing one text vvith an other Since therefore your guide in the road of Faith is the Scripture interpreted by you and your Church comparing on text with an other You are guided by a guide that may err and mislead you and as you haue no well grounded assurance that you and your Church do not err in the interpretation of Scripture cōparing one text with an other you can haue no assurance but that you are mislead But the Catholik belieuing his Church to be infallible in the interpretation of Scripture does rest his mind in the full assurance of the truth he professeth And ought not you to embrace that doctrin which giues you that satisfaction and rest of mind rather than the Protestant doctrin of fallibility which leaues you doubtfull if what you belieue be true or not Particularly when in belieuing it you hazard nothing not your saluation for all learned Protestants which wee will proue against Mr Sall do grant saluation in the express beliefe of articles of Popery you reply it s no solid comfort that the Catholik amuses himself with in belieuing his Church that guides him to be infallible if really she be not so for if it proues in effect to be otherwise he will come short of his imaginary comfort and will find that he and his Church is mistaken I answer if wee consider the testimonies of Scripture the strength of reason the consent of ages the multitude of Vniuersityes Fathers and Doctors that defend this doctrin of infallibility it is as lykely to be true as your doctrin of fallibility it s as lykely that you are mistaken in belieuing fallibility as I am in belieuing infallibility you run therefore as great a hazard of being mistaken as I do on the other syde you cannot haue that satisfaction
without feare of being mislead that rest of mind in the assurance of the truth for you may err by belieuing fallibility as I haue by belieuing infallibility my condition then is still better than yours and my doctrin to be prefered before yours Your Church as you confess may err in points of Religion whence it manifestly follows that it is not the true sence of Scripture that leads you in the road to Religion for the true sence of Scripture is absolutly infallible I ask you therefore on what do you ground your Faith You tell me that vpon the Scripture as interpreted by your Church and comparing one text with an other but it may happen that your Church may err in the interpretation that you confess for you say the true Church may err now I argue thus whoeuer may err relying vpon a Principle can neuer be sure that he does not err whylst he relyes only on that Principle this proposition is vndeniable for if he can err relying on that Principle it s because the Principle is fallible and if the Principle be fallible it alone without the help of some other can neuer giue any assurance that you do not err for example you belieue the King is in London because an honest Man tells you so that is a fallible ground which you rely on and you may err by relying on that ground and as long as you rely only on that mans testimony and haue no other you will neuer be assured of the Kings being at London You belieue the Church fallibility and on what ground do you rely on Scripture as interpreted by the Church you may err relying on this Principle as you confess therefore as long as you rely on this Principle only and haue no other you can neuer be assured that you do not err the Church of England has no other nor will admit no other Principle to ground their Faith vpon but the Scripture interpreted by her and comparing one text with an other therefore she can neuer be assured of the doctrin she belieues consequently cannot be assured of the fallibility of the true Church What will you say in this case there is a Man accused of Murther before your tribunal he does not only deny the fact but many circumstances fauours his innocency and the very Person that accuses him saies he is not sure he is the Murtherer surely you would not condemn this Man to death it being against all the maxims of iustice to punish a man that is not conuicted criminal This is the very matter in hand the true Church is accused of fallibility and falshood in her doctrin the circumstances of hauing florished for so many ages in the credit of an infallible Oracle fauors her innocency and her Accuser which is the Church of England does confess that she may err in her accusation and consequently must confess as wee proued that she cannot be sure she does not err for she grounds her accusation on the Scripture interpreted by her in which she may err and whylst she has no other Principle but that she can neuer be certain she does not err will not you then acquit the Church of whose crime her accuser is not sure as you would that Man accused of Murther Add this discourse to the former it is a Principle in all well gouerned Commonwealhs that a preacable Possessor is not to be disturbd from his possession vntill that by vnquestionable proofs he be conuicted an vniust vsurper or detainer no coniectures nor probable reasons will put him out of possession he will still with a safe conscience maintain it and the law will continue him in it vntill that by euident proofs he be conuicted The true Church was in all ages in peacable possession of this prerogatiue of infallibility neuer denyed to her but by some few condemned Heretiks what euident vnquestionable proofs can you bring to conuince her an vniust vsurper or detainer of it Reason affords you none for to say that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God is impertinent wheras she clayms no other infallibility but such as you grant to the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists but say you in a General Council which is a multitude of Men where a point of Religion is to be resolued by the maior part of Votes and where passion and interest somtymes may sway it may happen that an errour may haue more Abettors and truth be out voted This is to say that God has no Prouidence ouer his Church since he has promised the conduct of his infallible spirit to her for to lead her into all truth and keep her vnspotted from all errours let each particular of that multitude be euer so corrupt in himself God who can as easily gouern the harts of many as of one will not permit them to determin an errour nor truth to be out voted Was not the Council of the Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem a multitude Were not the first four General Concils multitudes which the Protestants confess to haue been infallible and guided by Gods spirit which was as necessary to the Councils of succeeding ages the emergent Controuersyes being no fewer in number nor less in weight Neither does Scripture afford you any match if you can these texts I am vvith you all the dayes untill the consummation of the vvorld Math. 28.20 and if the Church did teach an vntruth would Christ be with her then He vvill give you an other Paraclet the Spirit of Truth that vvill abyde vvith you for euer vvho vvill leade you into all truth Io. 14.16 vvhen the Paraclet vvill come vvhom I vvill send from my Father the Spirit of truth he vvill giue testimony of me and you vvill giue testimony Io. 15.26 the Paraclet and the Chruch are ioynt Witnesses of the truth Nor does experience fauor you all that you can shew is that some Pope did err or that some Council did err but that 's not to the purpose if you do not shew which you will neuer do thal a Pope and Council together has erred wheras therefore neither scripture Reason nor experience doth afford you any vnquestionable evident proofs that the Chruch is an vnuist vsurper or detainer of that prerogatiue of infaillibility which she has en ioyed in all ages why will you pretend to disturb her peacable possession Let vs heare what the scripture suyes Lu. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Christ spoke to his Apostles and Disciples on whom he layd the charge of teaching and preaching and who were the Church representatiue whateuer therefore wee heare from the Chruch representatiue wee heare it from Christ whateuer the Church speaks Christ speaks otherwyse wee should not heare Christ speak when wee heare the Church speake the Church therefore is the Mouth by which Christ speaks and as we cannot heare an vntruth from him as he cannot speak any so she cannot speake nor be heard to speake an vntruth this is de clared by S. Paul 1.
Thes 2.13 vvhen you receiued from vs the vvord of the hearing of God you receiued it not as the vvord of Man but as indeed it is the vvord of God And therefore sayes he 1. Thes 4. S. he that despeiseth these things despeiseth not man but God Could a man speake more pertinently to signify that the doctrin of the Church is the doctrin of God that when wee heare her we heare him and that her words are infaillible wheras they are the words of God Observe that the Council of Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem Act. 15.28 deciding the Controuersy concerning Circumcision delivers their sentence thus It seemeth good to ihe Holy Ghost and to vs. Signifying that the resolution proceeded ioyntly from both from the Holy Ghost by his inward inspiration and direction from the Council by its outward declaration can wee doubt therefore but that the resolution of Controuersyes by that Council was infallibly true and not only of that but also of all succeeding Councils wheras the Apostles pronounced their sentence in those words grounded on the words of Christ He that heareth you heareth me grounded on the words of Christ Io. 15.26 vvhen the Paraclet vviâ—l come he shall giue testimony of me and you shall give testimony in which words Christ did speak to his Church which was the witness which ioyntly with the Holy Ghost was to giue testimony of him and grounded on the Promiss of his Paraclet which was made by Christ not only to the Apostles but to his Church for euer vntill the consummation of the vvorld This is yet more cleerly proved by the following discourse Christ commands vs to heare the Church that he that despeiseth her despeiseth him Lu. 10.16 to obserue and do what those that sit on Moyses his chayre bids vs do Mat. 23.2 commands them to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans that will not obey her S. Paul commands vs Heb. 13.17 not to be carried away with various and strang Doctrins but obey the Church wherin sayes he Eph. 4. God has placed Apostles Evangelists Doctors and Pastors to teach vs out of these and the lyke texts which are frequent in scripture largue thus He that does what Christ bids him do and belieues what he bids him belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour but Christ bids vs belieue and do what the Church commands vs to belieue and do as appeares by these texts therefore he that does what the Church commands him to do and belieues what she commands vs to belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour consequently what teuer the Church teachs is no errour To conclude S. Io. 1. epis 4.6 hauing warned vs to try our Spirits if from God or Satan he gives vs a rule wherby to try them he that knovveth God heareth vs he that knovveth not God heareth vs not In this vve knovv the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of errour This is the way prescribed by S. Iohn to ascertain vs of the nature of our Spirits if our Spirit be conformable to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of Truth if it does not conform itself to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of errour but if the Spirit of the Church de fallible it can give me no assurance of my Spirit whether it be of truth or of errour for what assurance can you haue that the Cloath which you measure is of a yard in length if you be not assured that the yard wherwith you measure it is an exact yard neither therefore can you be assured that your Spirit is of truth by trying it with the Spirit of the Church if you be not assured that the Spirit of the Church is of Truth But because our Aduersaries will still reply that all this is to be vnderstood of the Apostles who were infallible whylst they liued and are now infallible in their written word I haue already shewen that the written word is not sufficient to ascertain vs of the truth or vntruth of our Spirits and will now proue in this VI. CHAPT THAT NOT ONLY THE APOSTLES and Church in their dayes but that the Church in all succeeding ages is infallible THe Church of England confesses that the Apostles and Church in their tyme nay and for some ages after if you ask how many they do not agree was infaillible this is not consequent to their Principles that say only God is infallible but howeuer it s their Doctrin as appears in Mr Salls discourse pag. 18 professing to belieue the Holy scripture the Apostles Creed and S. Athanasius his Creed parallelling this wth the other two vvith the heauenly gift of faith and if the Council of Nice which deliuered vnto vs the doctrin contained in Athanasius his Creed had not been directed by the Holy Ghost as the Writers of the scripture were it were à Blasphemy to belieue that Creed and the doctrin of the Council with the same Faith with which wee belieue the scripture Now the Protestants all agree in this that now nor in these many ages the Church is not infallible for which assertion you must expect no scripture from them nor no reason but their bare word But let vs see what reason they pretend God say they having giuen vs an infallible written word sufficient to instruct vs Church infallibility was for the future needless what school boy but sees the weakness of this reason first after the scripture was written the Church continued infallible for some ages Mr Sall must confess by what I haue now said as generally all Protestants say and as all must say otherwyse Arrius and other Heresiarks might have questioned the truth of their doctrin if they had been fallible and could not be obliged in conscience to acquiesce to their iugdment nor ought not tobe held for Hereticks nor excommunicated for not submitting to them if they were fallible as yon do not esteem yourself an Heretick for not submitting to the Catolick Church on te same account S. Gregory l. 1. c. 24. sayes of the first four Councils I do embrace and reuerence the four General Councils as the four Books of the Ghospell which had been rashly and impiously said if they had not been infallible Secondly if Church infallibility was needbess because the scripture which is infallible was written then it was also needless that the Church should be infallible in fundamental points of Religion and yet Protestants do constantly auer that the Church is still infallible in fundamental points thought he scripture be infallible also in them Thirdly the Apostles remayned still infallible after the Scripture was written and why not the Church fourthly if infallibility is needless because the Scripture is infallible wee may say also that S Iohn is not infallible in is Ghos pell at least as to those points which were al ready mentioned in Mathew Mark and Luke or that these three lost their infallibility by the writing of S. Iohns Ghos pell because one infallible Ghos
Pope is infallible when wee say the Roman Catholick Church is infallible wee mean and all our Aduersaries know that the Church of Rome and all Churchs vniuersally spread throughout the world which are vnited with her in Faith and Communion either as she is diffused or representatiue in a General Council wherin Protestants are not included though a Christian Congregation because they are deuided from her This Church is the true vniuersal Church called Roman because the chief Pastor is in Rome called Vaiuersal because her Members are spread throughout the world of the infallibility of this Church Mr Sall speaks nothing but of the Pop's infallibity which is no Article of Faith which if an error is not of the Church and therefore ought not to leaue the Church for this reason When our Aduersaries are obliged and do promise to proue our errors by plain and vndeniable Scripture from the pag. 29. to 35. and from pag. 39. to 44. where Mr Sall vnder takes to proue this error not one text of Scripture does he alleadge but three so far from being plain and vndeniable that any man of common sense will find them impertinent the first ps 11.1 verities are mâ—imed among the children of Men. And how can this proue the Church to be fallible if it does not proue that the Apostles Euangelists and Prophets are also fallible who were Children of Men and if it does not proue the Church to be fallible also in fundamental points which Mr Sall and all Protestants deny The second all Men are Lyars Fallibility signifies only a possibility of deliuering an vntruth a Lyar is he that actually deliuers an vntruth and that against his own knowledge so that the text if it proues any thing to Mr Salls purpose it proues that the Apostles Euangelists and the Church of England are a company of fourbs that against their mind and knowledg deliuered vntruths for they are all men and all men are lyards The third text is out of S. Io. 16. prouing that the Paraclet was promised to the Church only vpon condition of louing God and keeping his Commandments to which I haue giuen a full answer ch 6â— reade there to saue me and yourself the trouble of a Tatalogy Thus Mr Sall has forsaken our Church and cannot proue by plain Scripture as he is obliged her errors Two reasons he alleadgs that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God and that there must be no such thing as infallibility of the Church wheras our Authors do not agree where to place it if in the Pope alone or in the Council to which reasons I haue sufficiently answered in the beginning of the 5. ch He sayes that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3. the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth must not be vnderstood of the Dioces of Rome and he knowes well that wee do not pretend it should wee pleade for the infallibility of the vniuersal Church as wee said but now He admires that Bellar should proue the Popes infallibility be the two Hebrew words signifying Doctrin and Truth placed by Gods command in the breast plate of the High Priest and thence drawes a consequence very absurd to him that the High Priest also must haue been infallible in the old Law I will not enlarge in this point because it concerns the Popes infallibility which is no Articles of Faith and only such I intend to vindicat but I must aduertise him of his ignorance in admiring it should be pretended that the High Priests of the Ancient Law were infallible wheras though monstrous it seems to him not only Catholick but Protestant Authors do teach it one I produce Doctor Porter a great Clerk in the Protestant Church in his book called Char. Mist pag. 35. The High Friests in cases of moment had a certain Priuiledge from error if he consulted the Diuine Oracle by the iudgment of vrim or by the breast-plate of iudgment vvherin vvere vrim and Thummim vvherby he had an absolut infallible direction And immediatly following if any such promiss made by God to assist the Pope could be produced his Decison might pass iustly for Oracles vvithout examination This blasphemy sayes he of parallelling the Pope with God in the Attribut of infallibility is raysed to a higher degree by their practice of making the Pope the suprem Iudge and Arbiter of Gods Lavvs And how does he proue this calumny Bellarmin l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say that if the Pope did command vices and prohibit virtues the Church vvould be obliged to belieue vice to be good and virtue bad And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be preferred before the institution of Christ vvheras hauing confessed that our sauior did ordain the Communion vnder both kinds to the Layty and that the Apostles did practise it they commanded it should be giuen for the future but in one kind alleading for reason that the precedent Popes and Church did practise it so vvhich is to extoll the Decrees of Popes aboue them of Christ as if the Lavvs of England vvere not to be vnderstood or practifed in Ireland but accordging to the vvill and declaration of the King of France certainly the King of France vvould be deemed of more Povver in Ireland than the King of England and the People more his subiects Answer Bellarmin in that place speaks expresly of vices and virtues when there is a doubt of their being such as for example vsury is a vice of its nature bad per se malum now wee all know it to be such and restitution to be a virtue if there should arryse a doubt of vsury's being a vice and in that case the Pope should command vsury to be practised then wee should be obliged to practise vsury and Bellar. giues the reason quia tenetur Ecclesia in rebus dubys acquiescere iudicio summi Pontificis Because in dubious cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope Behold how Bellar speaks in case of doubt that vice is vice and virtue is virtue for in that case the Pope as being the chief Pastor is in possession of the obligation of being obeyed by Gods command and a doubtfull excuse cannot exempt the subiects from their apparent duty Melior est conditio possidentis The Council of Constance knew that though the Communion was instituted and practised by the Apostles in both kinds yet Christ left it arbitrary to his Church to giue it either in one or both which I will proue in the discourse of Half Communion and therefore finding that Christ himself and his Apostles somtymes gaue it in one and that the precedent Popes for iust reasons had commanded it should be receiued so issued that Decree of receuing it in one kind And it is false what you say that they alleadged no other reason for so doing but the Decrees of precedent Popes they alleadged also for reason the example of Christ and his Apostles who gaue it in one
that text signifies no such Vnity of Nature and Trinity of Persons and in your own confession Christ is One suppositum or Hypostasis his Vnity is not in Nature for he has Tvvo Natures one Human and the other Diuine but in Person why may not wee also say that the father son and spirit are One and that their vnity is not in Nature but in Person whither will the Protestant go now to proue against the Pagan this great and fundamental article He will quote out of saint Iohn an other text for to expound the former My father and I are one Io. 10.20 where it is expressed that the Father and son who are tvvo different Persons are but One in Nature But replieth the Pagan neither does that text say more but that they are One and does not express either that they are tvvo distinct Persons or one Nature And sayes the Pagan bring you as many texts as you please you will neuer bring any which expresly declares the Vnity to be in Nature and Trinity in Persons and I must not renounce reason so far as to belieue a Mistery which no human reason can vnsterstand particularly when you require of me to belieue only what the word of God expressy declares and the word of God which you alleadge does not expresly declare that Mistery nor doeth the word of God oblige me to belieue your interpretation of those texts I heare the Arrians and Sabellians who are Christians as well as you and they with their Abettors who are not fewer in number nor inferiour in learning to you say those texts which you alleadge do not at all import any Vnity in Nature or Trinity in Persons for the Sabellians say the word One in those texts signifies Vnity in Person as well as in Nature and the word Three signifies not Three distinct Persons but one and the same Person called by three different names for three seueral Offices which he does exercise Father because he is the Author of all things Son because he was born to redeem vs and Holy Ghost because he sanctifies vs euen as say they these three seueral names Immense Omnipotent and Eternal signify One and the same God who includes the perfections signified by those names Arrius and his partizans vnderstand those texts in a far different sence from you Protestant the word Three saies Arrius signifies three different Natures which Arrius proues with a text far more pertinent in appearence than that which you Protestants alleadge to proue the Vnity of Nature S. Io. 14.28 My father is greater than I which text deliuered without any restriction saies Arrius proues the son to be of a different and inferior Nature to the Father The word One saies he does not signify the Vnity of Three Persons in Nature but their Vnity by perfect conformity of VVill and Charity which exposition he proues by S. Io. 17.11 where Christ praying for his Elect asketh his Father they may be one as vvee are One but certainly the Elect cannot be One in Nature nor did he ask any such Vnity for them but that they should be One by perfect Charity and conformity of vvill therefore the Father and the Son are not otherwise One Thus the Pagan to the Protestants and adds I belieue the Scripture to be the word of God because he has reuealed it vnto me I am resolued to be a Christian but I know not which party to embrace the Protestant or the Arrian you will haue me belieue Gods Vnity in Nature and Trinity in Persons and though that Mistery surpasses human reason I am content to submit vnto it if I did find it expresly in Scripture but those texts either singlely or all together do not expresly declare it as I iudge and as the Arrians and Sabellians who are Christians as well as you iudge and on the other side you do not require of me to belieue but what is expresly contained in Scripture what shall I do in this case You say it is expresly contained in those texts but am I bound to belieue it is contained in them because you think it is the Scripture does not tell me that I am bound to belieue what you think rather than what the Arrians think is contained in it if I syde with the Arrians you say I am damned if I syde with you the Arrians say I am damned and why to syde with one rather than the other I know not for you are of equal authority as to me both learned pious wise people and well versed in Scripture You tell me the Arrians are condemned by General Councils Arrians and Sabellians also tell me you are condemned by seueral Councils in the points you hold in opposition to the Catholicks you say the Councils and Ancient Fathers who condemned you did err and were mistaken in the sence of Scripture the Arrians and Sabellians also say the Councils which condemned them did err you say the Mistery of the Trinity is vnanimously belieued by Protestants and Roman Catholiks but I ask what credit hath the Roman and Protestant Church haue you the credit of infallible Oracles by which God speakes or haue you only the credit of wise learned pious men if the first that indeed is somewhat and ends all Controuersy if only the second the Arrians Sabellians Heathen and Pagan Philosophers are as numerous as you as learned wise and as to moral honesty as good as you and they all deny that Mystery Can any man of reason say this Pagan in this occasion is obliged to side with the Protestants rather than with the Arrians they both haue Scripture they are all Christians they reade and study it they are both fallible in the interpretation of it and that either of both is effectually mistaken in this case its manifest and which of them it is this Man has no imaginable means to be assured of Now if God has appointed a liuing infallible Iudge to interpret and deliuer the true sence of Scripture this Pagan could not but be obliged to acquiesce to his interpretation whence it s is manifest that Scripture alone is not sufficient for to ascertain vs of the true sence of Scripture euen in fundamental points An other instance to proue this truth there is a point of Faith which we are obliged to belieue vnder pain of damnation which is not expressed in any text or texts compared of Scripture alone whitout an infallible interpreter I do not meane the Necessity of Infants Baptism nor the Validity of Heretiks Baptism belieued by both Churches and for which saies S. Augustin l. 1. cont cresc c. 32. there can be no example brought out holy of Scripture I proue it thus Wee Catholiks and you Protestants dispute if Purgatory be a fundamental point of Religion or not If it be it s a damnable error to say it is not both for that errors against fundamental points are damnable as you confess and for that to deny for fundamental that which is a
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
pell is sufficient at least as to the points it contains These instances shew that reason to be very friuolous and if it proued any thing at most it can proue that the Church infallibility is not necessary for our instruction but it might be-necessary for other ends of Gods prouidence who might haue left still that gift of infallibility to his Church for a mark of his loue to her wee find he did promise the conduct of his infallible Spirit to his Church wee de not find he should haue limited this grace to any tyme nay to the contrary wee find that he sayd it should be for euer all dayes to the consummation of the vvorld why should wee therfore limit that fauor vnto à tyme to conclude wee haue proued in the 2 and 3 chap. that Scripture is not sufficient to instruct vs and consequently an infallible Church is still necessary An other reason no less silly to proue that the Church after few ages became fallible for the Popes Prelats and People became very vicious and from the debauchery of manners they came by Gods iust iugdment to fall into errours in doctrin which Mr Sall pretends to proue by Scripture pag. 32. the promise made by Christ of the Paraclet for to lead the Church into all truth vvas a conditional promise as appears by Christ his vvord Io. 14.16 if you loue me keep my commandmens and I vvill ask my father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet that he may abyde vvith you for euer euen the Spirit of Truth vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue The Paraclet is promised on condition they Keepe the commandments and by the later words vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue the Paraclet is flatly denied to all those the Scripture styles by the name of vvorld that is to say the wicked and wordly men Hence sayes Mr Sall wee can be no more sure that the Pope and his Council are infallible than wee are that he liues in Gods loue and obseruance of his commandments and wheras it is manifest by our own Historyes that the Pope Pastors and flock haue fallen into many crimes it followes they haue forfeited the conduct of Gods infaillible Spirit If from the lewdness of manners wee might conclude the Churches corruption in doctrin what Ghospell could the world expect from Luther and the other pretended Reformers for whose wickdness there are as good Records as for the debauchery of Popes and Prelats the sinns of Prelats did deface the Ghospell and did the Apostasy of Luther and the Sodomy of Caluin restore it to its splendor Christ did foresee that they who should sit on the chayre of Moyses would be wicked in their lyues and yet commanded vs to obey and belieue their doctrin The conduct of Gods Spirit promised to them for to leade them into all Truth was not a personal gift giuen to them for their own sakes but for the flock for to keepe them in vnity of Faith and therefore though God does permit them to fall into wickedness of lyfe his Prouidence will not permit them to fall into errors of doctrin that the flock which it obliged to obey them may not be mislead To proue that the Promiss was only conditional you corrupt the text for as well your Bible as ours sayes thus if you loue me keepe my Commandments and there puts a punctum Then ads a distinct verse or section And I vvill ask my Father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet c. which makes an absolut sence independent of the former That this is the true interpretation of that text it appears for in seueral other texts That assistance of as Mat. 28 20 behold I am vvith you all dayes euen to the consummation of the vvorld Mat. 16. the Gates of hell shall not preuayle agaiust her Io. 16 13. vvhen the Paraclet shall come the Spirit of Truth he shall teach you-all truth And is it not strang Mr Sall should auerr the Paraclet was promised vpon condition of Gods loue and obseruance of his Commandments wheras the Church remayns still infallible infundamental points notwithstanding that it has fayled in that condition as Mr Sall and all Protestants do deknowledge But what he will neuer answer is that if that Promiss was conditional it folloues wee cannot be sure the Ghospell is infallible if wee be not sure that the Euangelists when they wrote it haue been in the loue of God and obseruance of his Commandments for if they were not they had not the Paraclet sayes Mr Sall but no text of Scripture tells vs that the Euangelists were in the state of Grace when they writ the Ghospell nor nothing else giues vs assurance of it Therefore wee are not assured the Ghospell written by the Euangelists is infallible nay which is worse in the common doctrin of Protestants wee are assured it is not infaillible for the common doctrin in their Church is that it is impossible to keepe Gods commandments the Euangelists therefore when they writ did not keep Gods Commandments consequenly they could not haue the Paraclet to lead them into truth consequenly the Ghospell is not infallible and so Mr Sall ouerthrows all-Christian Religion Let vs consider what inducements had the primitiue Christians to belieue the Apostles infallible was it not the testimony of the Apostles confirming their doctrin with many Miracles look into the Historyes of all succeding ages and you will find that the Church which affirmed herself to be infallible did confirm her doctrin with many and great Miracle as wee will euidence in the ensuing Chap. And on what do you ground your beliefe when you say the Apostles were infallible You say that vpon the Scripture but I defy you to shew any text of Scripture which declares the infallibility of the Apostles that relates not to the Church in succeeding ages as well as to them either therefore they proue the Church to be infallible in succeeding ages or they do not proue the Apostles to be infallible For example wee proue the infallibility of the Apostles by the words of Christ he that heareth you heareth me Lu. 10. whence followes that the words of the Apostles were the words of Christ But Christ himself Mat. 18. declares that text must be vnderstood of his Church whereuer it be if he vvil not heare the Church let him be to you as a Heathen and Publican We proue it out of S. Iohn 14.18 He vvill giue you an other Paraclet the spirit of truth that vvill a byde vvith you for euer but this text playnly declares that the Promiss was made also to the Church in succeeding ages by the word for euer for the Apostles were not to be for euer in their own persons but in their successors and to remoue all occasion of cauilling vpon the word for euer saying that it signifyes only the tyme of the Apostles lyues Christ declares himself in a cleerer expression Mat. 28. I am vvith you all dayes to the consummation of the
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
these are your Parents therefore you are obliged to belieue that doctrin is true in whose confirmation those Miracles were wrought You reply this makes our Faith of that doctrin but fallible Faith for if I haue no more assurance of the truth of those Tenets than I haue of the Miracles that were wrought in confirmation of them of the truth of those Miracles I only haue a moral assurance grounded vpon the testimony and iudgment of those saints which relate them all which is but fallible for it might happen they were deceiued consequently all the certainty I haue of the truth of the Tenets is but a moral and fallible certainty and so our Faith is not infallibly true I answer the motiue of my Faith and ground wher vpon it is bottom'd is only the voyce of God pronounced by the Church which deliuers that doctrin of God which Motiue and ground is infallibily true But because this Motiue is obscure and does not appeare euidently and certainly to the vnderstanding that it does exist the vnderstanding cannot assent vnto it vntill it be made more knowen and the way to make is more knowen is not to make it euident that it exists for the Motiue of Faith must be obscure and it is against the essence and nature of Faith to be euident or the Motiue of it to be euidently proposed to the vnderstanding as Mr Anderton does most solidly and learnedly demonstrat in his Treatise of a soueraign remedy against Atheism and Heresy The way therefore of making it more knowen is to make it euidently credible and lykely in the iudgment of any rational man that such a voyce of God speaking by the Church is extant and this is don by the Miracles and supernatural signs which the Church works in confirmation of her Doctrin which are vndeniable inducements to any man of reason to iudge it most credible and lykely that it is God who speaks by that Church and our vnderstanding being thus confirmed by this iudgment of credibility then follows our obligation of belieuing the Doctrin the credibility of the existence of Gods voyce by the Church and our obligation of belieuing being thus proposed by our vnderstanding The vnderstanding is still able to deny an assent to Gods voyce speaking because nothing can force the vnderstanding to an essent but the euidence of the obiect and it s not euident to the vnderstanding that God speakes but euidently credible therefore the will must enter which assisted with the preuious iudgment of the credibility of the doctrin and a pious inclination from God for to resolue commands the vnderstanding to assent to Gods voyce speaking in which command of the will determining the vndersting to Assent the Merit of Faith doth consist So that the whole and only Motiue of our assent of Faith is Gods voyce speaking by the Church the Miracles and other supernatural signs are not the Motiues of our Faith but of our Iudgement of credibility and of our obligation of belieuing a Doctrin so credibly proposed which Iudgment of credibility and obligation of belieuing need not to be absolutly and Metaphisically euident but morally euident in the highest degree of Moral euidence as it is in this case that true Miracles haue been wrought in many or most ages by the Catholick Church in confirmation of her Tenets Reade the Resolution of Faith in the 2. part of thise Treatise Your obligation of belieuing the Miracles of the Church being thus proued your obligation of belieuing her infallible in all points of Doctrin is most apparent for God whose veracity is infinit cannot speake the least vntruth nor deliuer it as his Doctrin nor giue his commission to teach it nor confirm it with the markes and scale of his Commission for that would be to owne it te be his Doctrin reuealed by him wheras therefore he has confirmed the Doctrin of the Catholick Church with so many Miracles its impossible it should contain the least vntruth And when you would be so obstinat as to doubt of all other Miracles you cannot be so blind as to doubt of the conuersion of all Nations that euer were conuerted to Christianity by the Catolick Church what Nation was there euer yet conuerted to Christianity by the Protestant Church or in what History do you read that euer you sent Preachers to conuert Pagans it was S. Austin a Massing Priest sent by Pope Gregory the Great that conuerted England to Christianity if you belieue the Chronicles of England it was S. Xauerius a Iesuit to whom Sectaries haue no relation if you will not make him Father of the Quakers that conuerted the Indies it was S. Patrick sent by Pope Celestin that conuerted Ireland they were Priest and fryars and Monks that propagated the Ghospell in whom Protestants haue no Interest but what their reuolt from the Church has giuen them in their Lands and estates what Miracles what conuersion of Nations to Christianity what succession of Pastors since Christ his tyme what General Councils that condemned Heresyes can the Protestant Church shew And is it possible that God should haue giuen those glorious Marks of a true Church to the Catholick Church if it were not the true Church and giue no visible Mark at all of a true Church to the Protestant if it were the true one both Churchs pretends to be the true and sereual other Congregations pretends to the same has God giuen no visible marks wherby to distinguish his true Church from fals ones otherwyse why should wee be obliged to belieue This to be the true Church rather than That other and can it be imagined that he should haue giuen Miracles and supernatural signs to the Catholick Church if it were the false one and giue none to any other if any other were the true Church Lastly I proue that the Roman Catolick Church is infallibly true in her Doctrin Purgatory real Presence and any Doctrin though smale and inferiour you call it The Catholick Church as you confess is infallible in fundamental points of Religion you say if you be a Protestant that the Roman Church is still a true Church because it has not erred in the fundation or essential points of Faith But if it did in any point whateuer though smale you iudge it it would etr in fundamental articles of Religion therefore it has not nor cannot err in any whateuer I proue the Minor It s a fundamental article of Faith that God is infinitly true that he cannot tell an vntruth but if the Doctrin of Purgatory were untrue the Catholick Church would teach that God deliuers an vntruth for the Church teacheth that Purgatory is a Doctrin teuealed by God if therefore Purgatory be an vntruth she teachs that God deliuered an vntruth and consequently she errs in a fundamental article of Faith Now its tyme wee examin that impious Position of our new Minister Mr Sall he follows much the tract of Luther his Grand Reformer not in that he should
of it has none can any reasonable man desire a more pregnant proof of the truth of the Catholick Church and falshood of the Reformation reade the Historyes and Fathers of all ages you shall find the Miracles wrought by her as I related in the former Chapter you say you find them related but you do not belieue them this I call and cannot be called otherwyse than obstinacy to deny what the whole Torrent of Antiquity affirms as it would be obstinacy to deny there was a Iulius Caesar in the world for which wee haue but the testimony of Historyes written by Pagans for no Christian did see him You say the Authors that relate those Miracles were Papists and therefore their testimony to be suspected I answer the Authors who write those Miracles had no pike against Protestants nor did not write out of any design against you for you were not in the world and therefore you ought not to pretend any exception against them and if but one or two did relate them your reflexion could be pardonable but to say that all the Fathers and Historians of Antiquity were knaues that spoke against their consciences many relating them to haue been wrought in their own presence or fools that did not vnderstand what miracles were is an intolerable impudence Add to the Miracles wrought by this Church in all ages the conuersion of Nations to Christianity and none by the Reformation the succession of her Bishops without interruption for so many ages no such in the Reformation Her Eminent Saints none in the Reformation her vnion in Doctrin of Faith none in the Reformation the voluntary pouerty of her Professors exchanging plentifull estates for the powerty of a religious lyfe a practise recommended by Christ and thought madness by the Reformation the multitude of Churchs built by her and demolished by the Reformation Does not all this proue our Church to be the true Church of Christ that he has qualified with such glorious Marks These makes our Church so glorious and shyne lyke the Citty on the Mountain lyke the candle in the candlestick that it is hardly possible that any man can haue on inuincible ignorance of her being the true Church and VVo be to the man that relying on the perswasion of the inuincibility of his ignorance which in effect is but obstinacy will liue out of her I conclude with that Paper that Mr Sall speakes of wherin he deliuered that a Protestant belieuing the common Principles of Christianity and lieuing acording the rules of his profession being inuincibly ignorant might be saued for which doctrin he complains to haue been censured and cryes Victory because that none of our Clergy did answer though they did censure him He misinforms his Readers it was not that doctrin which was censured and if his Paper did contain no more than it it required no answer it was his indiscretion was censured and I will be iudged by you Reader if he was not indiscreet in this point for if a Preacher were sent to conuert Pagans to Christianity would it be discretion in him to teach them Srs the Christian Religion is the best but you may be very vvell saued in that vvhich you hold if you be inuincibly ignorant The doctrin is very true but a man that goes to conuert them to Christianity from a Religion that he knows is in itself false ought not to encourage them to remayn in that Religion with the hopes of being sauedin it his obligation is to beat them out of their ignorance and not to propose it vnto them as a Medium of saluation would not they answer him well if wee can be saued through our ignorance in the Religion wee haue why do you disturb vs with any other and creat scruples in our minds This is Mr Salls case that was sent to Ireland to conuert Protestants who thought themselues perhaps to be inuincibly ignorant iudge you was it discretion to propose vnto them their inuincible ignorance as an encouragement to remayn in their errors It s not allwayes discretion to declare the truth itself when there is no obligation of declaring it as in this there could be none for the Nobility which he sayes proposed him that question were they Catholiks or Protestants if Catholicks its manifest they needed not to be instructed in that truth it s no fundamental point of Religion If Protestants they were not obliged to know it for the same reason and that the answer was an encouragment to them to remayn as they were and seek no instruction and wheras they made that question it seems they doubted if inuincible ignorance was sufficient and if that answer had not been giuen lykely the would secure their saluation by seeking instruction This is the indiscretion for which he was censured Now wee will descend to the errors which he fixs on the Church of Rome THE SECOND PART OF THE PRETENDED ERRORS of the Roman Church alleadged by Mr Sall. HAuing in the former part shewen the Necessity of an Infallible liuing Iudge and that to be the Roman Catholick Church there needed no other answer to any doubt in Religion though intricat and vnanswerable it might seem to vs but to say the Church vvhich is infallible and Gods Oracle teacheth it therefore it must be true though I do not vnderstand hovv But because our Aduersary confides much in the strength of his arguments wee will descend to examin each point in particular which he impugns and it will appeare that though wee had not the testimony of an infallible Church to rely vpon but only Reason and Scripture as interpreted by Ancient Fathers our cause is better grounded than theirs and if not better at least as well which if it appears then none but will condemn them for forsaking an old Religion and seeking to reuers it by a pretended Reformation when they can shew no better grounds for their Nouelties than wee haue for our Ancient doctrin POP'S INFALLIBILITY AND THE Resolution of Faith expounded HE forsakes the Catholick Church for her errors and which be they the first is the Popes infallibility if this be an error it s not of the Church for as I haue shewen ch 5. it s no Arcicle of Faith that the Pope is infallible if he mislyked that doctrin he might haue denied it and remain a Catholick I can not well perceiue what he thinks of the Church vniuersal whether he belieues her infallible or no for pag. 34. he grants that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3.15 The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth Must be vnderstood of the vniuersal Church but whether he grants that thence she is proued infallible or no I cannot vnderstand thence he inferrs that the Roman Church that is to say the Dioces of Rome is not infallible nor the Pillar and ground of Truth but alas he might haue spared himself that labor for wee do not belieue that the Dioces of Rome is an infallible Church nor that the
irksom to our natural inclinations miracles wrought by her in all ages the constancy of her Martyrs euen in the youngest age and weaker sex Her vnity in doctrin against the persecutions of so many Tyrants and Heresiarks that almost all ages opposed it these marks which are proper only to her and that no other congregation can claim makes it euidently credible that if God speaks to vs by the mouth of any it must be by hers The lyke and no other had the Primitiue Church to iudge of the Apostles that God spoke by them and such as in the Apostles tymes did not belieue them hauing so great inducements to iudge them men of God were condemned for obstinat people and consequently who will not iudge the same of this Church ought also to be held for obstinat notwithstanding any pretence of ignorance they may alleadge Hauing these inducements to prepare our vnderstandings for Faith it follows that what euer this Church proposes vnto vs to be a Truth reuealed by God wee are obliged to belieue her and embrace her doctrin vpon her testimony wheras it appears by those inducements so credible that God speaks by her as he did by the Apostles Now I resolue my Faith thus you ask why I belieue the Trinity I answer because God has reuealed it You ask why I belieue that God reuealed it I answer because the Church by which God speaks tell vs so You ask why I belieue that God speakes by the Church heere is the difficulty I must not answer because the Scripture sayes it for I belieue Scripture only vpon the testimony of the infallible Church and to proue again the infallibility of this by the Scripture would be a circle neither must I answer that I belieue God to speake by the Church because she works miracles for if the miracles be absolutly euident they can be no Motiue of Faith which is of its own nature obscure and if they be but morally euident miracles they cannot be the Motiue because the motiue of Faith must be infallible and because the Motiue of an Act of Faith must be Gods word and miracles are not Gods word but signs and Marks of his word Wee must therefore answer to that question again because the Church by vvhich God speakes saies that God speakes by her and I am obliged to belieue he speaks by her because he does credit her vvith so many miracles and supernatural Marks vvhich makes it euidently credible that he does speake by her Where you distinguish the Motiue of your Act of Faith from the Motiue of your obligation of belieuing and your iudgment of credibility the Motiue that you giue for your Act of Faith is only the word or voyce of God by the Church and nothing els but the word of God can be the Motiue of Faith the Motiue you giue for your obligation of belieuing and iudgment of credibility are the external inducements of miracles and supernatural signs You reply To belieue that God speaks by the Church because the Church by which God speaks sayes so is to belieue that God speaks because Gods speaks by the Church which is idem per idem to belieue a thing for itself and an obscure thing for a thing equally obscure which is vnreasonable wheras an obscure vnknowen thing cānot be belieued but for somthing that is more cleer and knowen I answer what is belieued is that God speaks by the Church which is obscure and vnknowen to our reason The Motiue why wee belieue it is the voyce of God by the Church euidently proposed to our vnderstanding by the external Motiues of credibility to be credibly his voyce so that the same thing which of itself and considered without the external Motiues of credibility is obscure and vnknowen acompanied with the motiues of credibility is more cleer and knowen and moues me to belieue but so that the Motiues of credibility are not the Motiue nor any part of the Motiue why I belieue the testimony of the Church to be the voyce of God but are the Motiues why our vnderstanding euidently knows it to be very credible and iudges it very iust and reasonable that wee should belieue it to be the voyce of God And that this is the way of Resoluing Diuine Faith it s proued for wee haue the same Faith that the Primitiue Church of Ierusalem Antioch and Damasco had and consequently wee must haue the same Motiue of Faith When the Apostles preached to them they belieued the Trinity not for Scripture for but little or nothing was then written of the new Testament but because God told them by the Apostles that it was a reuealed Truth And if you did ask them whey they belieued that God did speake by the Apostles they would answer because the Apostles who were Gods Messengers told them so and they could not but be obliged to belieue it because of their miracles and supernatural signs Thus wee say of the Church Now the Church being belieued infallibly true wee belieue the Scripture to be the word of God vpon her testimony and the Scripture being belieued Gods word then wee draw out of the Scripture new proofs and Motiues of belieuing the Church to be infallible because the Scripture which is the word of God sayes it But the chief and last Motiue whervpon our Faith must rest is the word of God speaking to vs by the Church the Church I say by which God actually in this present age speaks vnto vs for wee do not belieue because God did speak in the 1.2 and third age by the Church for that is Tradition and Tradition nor Scripture is not the Motiue but the Rule of our Faith the Rule by which the Church is guided to know which and what is the word of God the Motiue of our Faith is because God speaks now by his Church as he did in those first ages for which wee haue euident arguments of credibility as the first ages had Pop's supremacy What is belieued as an Article of Faith by the Church is the spiritual supremacy of the Pope his supream Power either Direct or indirect in temporal affaires ouer Princes is no Articles of Faith but a question disputed in the schools and neither Partie that denies or affirms is condemned of Heresy by the Church if Mr Sall mislyked the Doctrin he might haue disclaimed it and remain a Catholick as many other Catholicks do He speaks of the sufferances of the Irish vpon the account of this Doctrin a meer fiction as wittily as maliciously inuented to make the Pope odious to the People That the Irish should haue suffered for that cause is false but it s very true that they suffered for not swearing the contrary Doctrin That the Pope has no such Povver which no man can sweare wheras he is not certain of it and wheras it is a question disputed in the schools if he has or not that Power how can any man in conscience sweare either part to be
true but what Mr Sall might well condole is the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the oath of supremacy that the King of England is head of the Church and let him consider if it be not cruelty against soules to oblige them to sweare a thing that not only Catholicks but all sectaries out of England denies nay Caluin in cap. 6. Amos Prophetae sayes Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae fuerunt homines inconsiderati erant enim Blasphemi cum eum vocarent summum Caput Ecclesiae And the very Protestant Doctors themselues not agreeing in what sence and how far is it true that the King is supream Head of the Church the poore People must be forced to sweare it Then say you the Council of Lateran erred in assuming that Power when it decreed Princes who did not purge their Territories from Heresies should be depriued of their Lands You abuse the Council neither it nor any other Council did no assume that Povver as you say but finding that is was that the probable and perhaps as they supposed the most probable opinion of Diuins that the Church had that power grounded their fact vpon that opinion and issued their Decree of that punishment against such Princes And the Catholicks who deny any such Power in the Church do not nor any man cannot say the Council erred formally that 's to say blameably in that Decree because it was grounded vpon a probable opinion and it is not requisit in any Tribunal for the iustice of a Decree or sentence that it be grounded vpon infallible grounds And the Catholicks who deny that power do say that Decree was Materially erroneous because the opinion vpon which the Council was grounded was false whence you can only gather that the Council may err Materially only in matters of fact such as that was but in Doctrina fidei morum in Doctrin of Faith and Manners it cannot err neither formally nor Materially because it is assisted in that Doctrin constantly by Gods infallible Spirit Transubstantiation How strangly Mr Sall is blinded in calling vs Idolaters for belieuing Christs real personal Presence in the Sacrament and pag. 116. sayes wee will be damned for this and orher Tenets if ignorance does not excuse vs and yet the Lutherans who are the Elder Brethren of the pretended Reformation whom Protestants do embrace and receiue to their Communion belieue that real personal Presence of Christ as well as wee are they Idolaters also and will they be damn'd if ignorance does not excuse them or will it be pardonable in them and damnable in vs He sayes wee haue no pertinent text of scripture for it pag. 21. and 28. but I defy him with all his Diuinity to answer me to these two following syllogism grounded vpon most cleer texts first Luk. 22.19 eate this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you The text declares he gaue them somwhat what to eat wee say it was his Real Body and proue it He gaue to them that which he gaue for them the text sayes it eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you But what he gaue for them was not a figure but his real and true Body therefore what he gaue to them was not a figure but his true and Real Body it will be no answer to say that he gaue to them figuratiuely what he gaue for them really for the text makes no distinction betwixt what he gaue to them and what he gaue for them and if you presume to say that what he gaue to them was but a figuratiue why may not wee as well say that what he gaue for them was but a figure and so fetch from Hell again the Heresy of Marcion that what suffered for vs was but a Phantastical Body For to leade you the second syllogism obserue that when the Multitude Io. 6. said This saying is hard hovv can this man giue vs his flesh to eate Christ called them Vnbelieuers There be som of you vvho do not belieue nay sayes they are damnable vnbelieuers v. 54 He that vvill not eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood shall not haue lyfe in him Obserue secondly that what the Iews though hard and impossible was that Christ should giue them to eate his true and real flesh for no man could apprehend any difficulty in that Christ should giue the figure of his Body wheras they did eat yearly the Paschal Lamb which they belieued to be the figure of the Messias Christ promised what they iudged hard and impossible what they iudged hard and impossible was not that he should giue a figure of his flesh but his true and real flesh therefore what Christ promised was not a figure but his real and true flesh and Mr Sall himself pag. 63. does acknowledge that the Iews did vnderstand Christ to haue spoken of his true and real flesh The Ievvs vnderstood him to haue spoken of a corporal and fleshy eating as the Papists do Now answer me I pray to this syllogism A damnable vnbelieuer is he who denies a Truth sufficiently proposed to him to be reuealed by God The Iewes in this occasion were damnable vnbelieuers and what they denied was a fleshy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it therefore Christ in this occasion did sufficiently propose vnto them a fleashy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it Pag. 63. he rayses an argument vpon this text for the figuratiue presence for sayes he the Ievvs vnderstood him to speake of a corporal and fleshy eating of his Body as Papists do and so represented difficulties that reason dictated against the lyke expressions as vvee did in the beginning of this discourse but he did correct their vnderstanding by his subsequent vvords v. 63. it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the vvords that I speak are spirit and lyfe by vvhich he dravveth them from the apprehension of a corporal eating to that of a spiritual feeding consequently Christ did meane a figuratiue spiritual eating of his flesh thus Mr Sall. By this you acknowledge that the Iews did not apprehend or think of any figuratiue eating consequently they could not either belieue it or deny it for how can a man deny that which neuer fell into his apprehensions tell vs therefore what is that which they denyed and denyed damnably they could not deny but that which they apprehended was spoken and what they apprehended as you confess was a corporal fleshy eating That therefore they must haue denyed therefore they were called vnbelieuers but how were they damnably vnbelieuers if Christ did not sufficiently and credibly propose vnto them a corporal and fleshly eating For none is bound to belieue if the reuealed Truth be not sufficiently and credibly proposed to him either therefore Christ his words My flesh is truly meat my Blood is truly drink did sufficiently and credibly propose a corporal eating of his real flesh or they ought not
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
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.
ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen and vvhat soeuer ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen which words are also expressed Mat. 16.19 sins therefore may be bound or vnbound on earth by the Apostles and successors and the text marks obserue well that their binding or vnbinding on earth by them must precede to their hinding and vnbinding in Heauen whence the necessity of Confession of sins to the Priests is absolutly concluded But let vs see wherin are wee guilty of cruelty in the practise of Confession First saies Mr Sall in obliging to the minut expression of the most loathsom circumstances of secret thoughts and deeds vvhich renders it the most heaure of Christian duties The man would haue a pretty sweet manner of Confession to declare what each one is pleased and no more How the Protestants did hither to accuse vs that wee did facilitat sin and gaue and easy way for forgiuing it by granting the Priest power of forgiuing and now Mr Sall accuses vs that wee require too much by this wee may see which of vs Protestants or Catholicks does encourage most to sin by an easy forgiuing it for the Protestant for to be reconciled from sin requires no more but a Lord haue mercy vpon me for I am as sinner and that betwixt him and God the Catholick requires the declaring of each particular sin and circumstance to a Priest with an act of sorrow for hauing sinned a firm purpose of a mendment the fullfilling the Pennance that the Priest shall enioyne and the restitution of what he has taken from his neighbor this indeed is seuere but no cruelty its needfull and conuenient Conuenient because that seuerity iustly deserued by sin is a bridle which keeps vs within compass and makes vs feare sin and experience teaches that though some who confess do perseuere in their wickedness yet generally such as make a good Confession are reclaim'd and those that frequent this Sacrament are the most reformed in their lyues Needfull because that the Iudicature of consciences and power of binding and vnbinding being giuen to the Priest how can he exercyse that Iudicature or know when or what to bind if the Penitent does not declare the state of his conscience no more than a iudge in a secural tribunal can giue sentence if he knows not the fact and circumstances of it the fore said S. August hom 49. Nemo dicat occulte ago paenitentiam in corde meo ago coram Deo ago ergo sine causa dictum est quae solueritis super terram c. Let none say I make pennance priuatly in my hart in the sight of God in vain then vvas it said vvhatsoeuer ye shall vnbind c. And S. August also lib. de vera falsa poenitentia Consideret qualitatem criminis in loco tempore perseuerantia varietate personarum Let him consider the quality of the sin reflecting on the place tyme continuance and diversitie of Persons You see Mr Sall what a Confession S. Augustin requires of the sin of it's circumstances Which yet he more expresly declares l. 2. de Visit Infirmorum c. 5. Astantem coram te Sacerdotem Angelum Dei existima aperi ei penenetralium tuorum abditissima latibula nihil obscurum dicens culpam nullis ambagibus inuoluens designanda sunt in quibus peccasti loca tempora cum quibus personis c. Haec autem omnia si taceantur aut dicta callide pallientur animam iugulant Looke on the Priest as on Gods Angel disclose to him the most hidhen secrets of your hart not speaking obscurely nor telling your fault vvith vvheeling and vvinding expressions declare the place tyme and persons vvith vvhom these if silenc'd or craftily palliated kill the soule Seueral other Fathers of the Church speake no less pertinently to this purpose but S. Augustin suffices for all The second thing wherin he accuses vs of cruelty in the exercyse of this Sacrament is the reseruation of cases not to be absolued but by certain Persons Which is so farr from being cruelty that it appears to be most iust either because that euery priest is not so learned as to be able to manage the consciences of all people and therefore are iustly denied the exercyse of that power or because that som sins are so horrid that to withdraw men from them it 's very iust to restrain the power of forgiuing them that by that restriction and difficulty men may be freighten'd The Third thing wherin he accuses vs of cruelty in this Sacrament is that som Pastors make their flock belieue they cannot confess but to their own Curats and extort by sordid auarice monies from them for the Absolution To this Mâ— Sall himself answers wheras quoth he this is the fault of som corrupt members and he will not cast the dirt of the feet of the Church vpon her face and confess the Church to be so much an enemy to this practice that there are Decrees of Councils and Pop's against it Mr Sall if you did know that the Church is not guilty of this crime but som corrupt members why did you therefore forsake the Church but detest that abominable practice because he sayes he did endeauour to reform the abuse and the persons guilty were so haughty and head-strong that he could not preuayle so that if he cannot reform what abuses he finds in som members of the Protestant Church he must also forsake her and he must be of no congregation but of that which has no corrupt members CONCLVSION Against the Third Point of Mr Salls discourse MOnstruous errors you say obliged you to a separation from the Catholick Church the vain pretext of hereticks of all ages whose Names she has crushed to infamy still Triumphant against the Gates of Hell and I must belieue they were errors that obliged you but imaginary only in her and real in yourself we haue asserted her vnspotted and what renders you eternally criminal is that you know in your own conscience they were no errors of the Church which you stile by that name I say you know it well in your own conscience for you that was so many years a Catholick and a Professor as you say in Scholastical and Moral Diuinity in Controuersies and what not You could not but know that the Pop's supremacy in temporal affaires ouer Princes was no article of our Faith but a School-question denied by many Catholicks you knew also the Pop's infallibility was but and opinion of som diuins and that what wee belieue as an article of Faith is not the infallibility of the Pope alone of which only you speake but of the Church Vniuersal as it is diffused or representatiue in the Pope and Council together was it not then knowen malice and preiudice that made you recken as errors of the Church these points which are not Church Doctrin was it not wicked and damnable in you to separat from her for errors if they
THE VNERRING AND VNERRABLE CHVRCH OR An ansvver to a Sermon preached by Mr Andrevv Sall formerly a Iesuit and novv a Minister of the Protestant Church VVritten by I. S. and DEDICATED TO HIS EXCELLENCY The most honorable Arthur Earl of Essex Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Anno 1675. TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE MOST HONORABLE ARTHVR EARL OF ESSEX VISCOVNT MALDEN Baron Capel of Hadham Lord Lieutenant General and General Gouernor of his Maiesties Kingdom of Ireland Lord Lieutenant of the County of Hertford and one of the Lords of his Maiesties most honorable Priuy Council MY LORD I present vnto your Exllency a vindication of both Churchs vvhich a viper has endeauoured to byte that the Catholick has bred in her bosom to follovv the Truth if vve belieue him he forsooke all that vvas Deare vnto him he might haue vsed that phrase of S. Peter since that vvhat he had to forsake vvas but Netlyke but iustly may vvee think he expected from Your Excellency as S. Peter had from Christ a return of a Seat not such as Peter obtained but as the children of Zebedee did pretend But your Excellency vvhose Decrees are liuing Ecchos of the Royal sentiments vvill adiudge him rather a Chalice to drink than a Seat to exalt him a Chalice I say such as the Royal Piety of King Iames prescribed to those of his blasphemous opinion in the meeting of his Clergy at Southampton VVee detest in this point the cruelty of the Puritans and iudge them vvorthy of fyre vvho affirm that in the Popish Religion a man may not be saued My Lord all sober men of both Religions desire the execution of this sentence against this impious assertion pronounced in your Excellencies hearing and giuen vnto you in print to profane both your eares and eyes vvith a repeated blasphemy by a late Reuolted from our Church and that not only for a reuenge of the iniury don to your Excellency in particular in adiudging your Noble Ancestors vvho allmost all dyed in that Profession vnto Hell nor for condemning his ovvn to the like misery if for being of the simple sort he vvill not plead for their saluation but for the iniury don to Christian Piety to vvhich that Position is contrary in the iudgment of all learned Protestants But vvhat makes this execrable Position vnpardonable in our Aduersary is that his ovvn vvords accuse him to speake against his conscience pag. 116. he saies Their Tenets are inconsistent vvith saluation though ignorance may haply excuse many of the simple sort but not such as knovv or vvith due care and enquiry may knovv their error By this he exclues all VVyse men of our Profession from saluation and affords it only to the simple sort or those vvho haue an inuincible ignorance That heerin he speakes against his conscience its most apparent for in his discourse he often styles Thomas Aquinas a Saint the first Reformers and Passionat Sectaries degraded the Saints of their Canonization but Mr Sall as yet retains the respect due to their glorious memory VVhateuer he might say of others he knovvs vvell that S. Thomas Aquinas vvas of the Roman Religion a fryer of S. Dominicks Orders None of the simple sort or that could be inuincibly ignorant being vvell vers'd in Scripture and an Eminent Master in most sciences He belieued professed and taught our Tenets of Real Presence Purgatory c. He vvas then in Mr Salls iudgment a Saint reigning in Heauen and at the same tyme is condemned by him to hell because he belieued and professed Tenets inconsistents vvith saluation is not this to speake against his conscience He had vvit My Lord to vnderstand he could not iustify his separation from our Church if in our Church there vvas not somvvhat inconsistent vvith saluation for to separat from the true Church vnder pretence of her being guilty of som errors and of reforming her by purging her from those errors if the errors be not quite damnable and inconsistent vvith saluation is so far from being lavvfull that such Reformers cannot be excused from Schism All things should be endured saies S. Denis of Alexan. apud Euseb Hist Eecl l. 6. c. 25. rather than to consent to the diuision of the Church of God and saies Iren. l. 4. cont Heret c. 62. No so important Reformation can be made as the Euil of Schism is pernicious for if those Errors be consistent vvith saluation then they are no necessary cause obliging to a separation the separation from the true Church is Schismatical and damnable vvhen there is no need or necessary cause for separating consequently to separat from the true Church for Errors vvhich are consistent vvith saluation is a most damnable Schism Mr Sall felt perhaps the force of this consideration and to iustify his separation from the Church vttered that horrid blasphemy of errors in her inconsistent vvith saluation May it please Your Excellency to consider vvhat an iniury he does to your cause in seeking to iustify it by an assertion so contrary to your Church and so odious to your Excellencies Piety That there is no saluation in the Catholik Church That her errors are inconsistent vvith saluation It 's far from your Excellencies Piety to belieue that S. Thomas Aquinas admired by the VVord for his learning and sanctity vvas condemn'd to Hell and yet he belieued and taught the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament it 's therefore no error inconsistent vvith saluation Your Excellencie vvill not belieue that S. Augustin is in Hell vvho professed and taught the Tenet of Purgatorie as appears in his Ench. c. 119. lib. 9. Conf. c. 13. and lib. de Haeres c. 53. vvhere he condemns Aetius as an Heretick for denying sacrifice should be offered for the dead Purgatory therefore is no Error inconsistent vvith saluation Your Excellencie vvill not patiently heare any man to say that S. Hierom is eternally damn'd and yet he thaught the veneration and vse of the sign of the Cross Epist ad Dem. and the veneration of Relicks of Saints lib. cont Vigil S. Chrysostom praied and exhorted to pray to Saints Hom. 43. in Gen. Hom. 5. 8. in Mat. and must vvee say that Chrysostom is damn'd to Hell These are the Errors vvhich Mr Sall affirms to be inconsistent vvith Saluation These are the Tenets in vvhose Profession he sayes no VVyse and Learned Man can be saued impiously condemning to Hell the forementioned Saints vvhich the Christian VVorld reueres for the Pillars of the Chnrch and not only them but all VVyse men Seculars and Ecclesiastick of all precedent ages to Luther if inuincible ignorance did not excuse them vvhich they could not pretend nor can vvee imagin they could haue being the most learned Doctors of Gods Church If this Treatise did contain nothing else but a check of this rash and impious assertion it vvould not be vngratefull to your Excellencie but had I left any thing vnexamined of vvhat he treats in his discourse he vvould
a greater credit for him to haue been in that imployement than to haue been cast out of it before the yeares end when others continued it for three years at least and commonly for 6. or eight years As for other things that might be said I will take no notice of them And euen from this moderat reprehension of his vanity I would haue willingly abstained did he not oblige me to it For I appeale to the Protestant Reader whether it be not fit that when he pretends by fictitious Titles to gain credit to his cause and to his arguments with the vulgar People I should open their eyes to see that he is not what he sayes he is The Priests and Leuits sent by the Iews to the great Baptist to know what he was 10.1 made him two very different questions VVhat are you VVhat do yo say of yourself Knowing that often tyms there is a vast difference betwixt vvhat a man really is and vvhat hè sayes he is And this neuer appeared more apparently than in the great difference that is betwixt what Mr Sall is and what he sayes he is And it is very important for the truth of the cause which I defend that the Reader take notice of this difference for wyse men dot not so much consider the quality of the person that speakes as what he speakes and value not an argument for his sake who proposes it but for its own merit But Men of vulgar capacity who do not vnderstand the strength or weakness of an argument value it not for what it is in itself but for the learning and credit of the Person that proposes it whence it is that men of common vnderstanding who know not the weakness of Mr Salls arguments will not withstanding belieue them to be very pregnant because they are of a man of that vogue and credit which he most vniustly vsurpes of a great Diuine a Venerable Rector and Professor of Diuinity so that the most dangerous weapon wherewith he attacks vs is his credit and Authority which belongs not to him If he were content to fight vs with his arguments wee would be content with a bare answer for vpon the learned men they would neuer make any impression nor vpon the vnlearned who to value an argument only looks on the Proponent but when he comes to fight vs in the shape of a very learned Diuine and a great Master in Sciences wee must vnmask his ignorance and vanity least his arguments which in themselues haue no force assisted with that vsurped credit and authority may work on the Spirits of ignorant People Perhaps this Treatise may seeme larger than might be thought necessary for an answer to Mr Salls discourse I confess it is and were I to consider only what his discourse deserues it required no answer for it contains nothing but what has been said twenty tymes and answered so many more though this being the first Essay of this great Diuine in fauor of Protestancy its strang if he were so learned as he would haue vs belieue him to be but that it should be an exquisit peece yet I haue thought fit to answer it and do intend not only an answer to him which could haue been don in fewer lynes but an exact discussion of the Points he toucheth and particularly of that prime and great Controuersy of which depends the resolution of all others The infallibility of a liuing Iudge of Controuersies which is the Church Therefore for a full satisfaction of those that desire to know and embrace truth I diuide this Treatise into two Parts in the first I will proue the Necessity of a liuing infallible Iudge of Controuersies and proue it to be the Roman Catholik Church In the second I will examin those pretēded Errors which he fastens on our Church and will endeauor to leaue nothing vnanswered that he obiects against vs though I may prepone or postpone his arguments as the Methode of my discourse requires If my labor Proue to your spiritual aduantage I am sufficiently rewarded if not I shall not want a reward from him that erowns good desires fare well Your friend in Christ Iesus I. S. THE FIRST PART PROVING the necessity of an infallible liuing Iudge I. CHAPTER BVT ONLY ONE TRVE RELIGION The need full Means afforded by God to come to the knovv legde of it THAT God is to be adored it 's the voice of Nature pronounced by all Nations Reason proues it for were you yourself the chiefest in Power the highest in Dignity the Richest and most adorned in virtues in the Common wealth you would expect an Homage and it could not be denied vnto you by your Inferiors Confess then that a far greater is due from you to God whose Power is supereminent his Wisdom transcendent his Goodness vnlimited his Perfections innumerable But it is not arbitrary to Man to adore God with what manner of Worship his fancy suggests vnto him or his priuat spirit inclins him vnto God as he requires a Worship at our hands so he has himself reuealed what manner of Worship he requires Perdiscamus sayes S. Chrysost hom 51. in Mat. Christum ex sua voluntate honorare nam qui honoratur eo maxime honore laetatur quem ipse vult non quem nos optamus What sacrifices Rites and Ceremonies God would be adored with in the old law he declared it to his People by Moyses Leuit. from the first to the 7. chap. and declared that he would not be otherwise worshipped Leuit 10. In the law of Grace his son Incarnated abolished that Ceremonial law and reuealed to Mankind a new manner of diuine worship a new Sacrifice Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies by which he will be worshipped and by no other in so much that by S. Paul Gal. 1.9 he commands that if an Angel from heauen should recommend vnto vs an other manner of diuine worship wee should not heed him This worship of God reuealed by him to Man is true Religion worship him euer so much if you do not adore him as he has reuealed he would be worshipped you haue not true Religion That there is a true Religion extant it 's doubtless both for that wee pretend each of vs his own Religion to be the true one and that God has laid a command vpon vs and wee are obliged to worship him in spirit and Truth this is Religion which command and obligation supposes the Existence of a Religion That among all those Religions wherwith the world abounds there is but one true Religion whateuer and whereuer it be it s also manifest for true Religion is that manner of diuine worship which God has reuealed but God has not reuealed those seueral manners of diuine worship which do oppose and contradict one another if it be he that reuealed wee should worship him by denying the Messias as the Iewdoes certainly it must not be he that reuealed wee must worship him by belieuing in the Messias as the Christians
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
fundamental Truth reuealed by God is to diminish of the word of God by which you deserue to be blotted out of the Book of life Apoc. 22. If it be not a fundamental point it is a damnable error to say it is for that would be to add to the word of God which also deserues to be blotted out of the Book of life consequently in this our contest wee are indispensably obliged to belieue either that it is or that it is not nor can wee suspend our Iudgment but must resolue absolutly on either side but no text or texts of Scripture do declare if it be or be not a fundamental article of Faith if not expounded by some infallible interpreter therefore Scripture alone is not sufficient for to assure vs what wee are obliged to belieue III. CHAPT THE SAME ASSERTION proued LOoke back to the Infancy of the Church for the first eight or tenn years there was not a word of the New Testament written and the last part whateuer that part was wherin the Doctors do not agree was not written in 40. years after Christ his Ascension part of the Scripture after it was written did perish for example an Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians mentioned 1. Cor. 5.9 by which wee vnderstand that he writ three epistles to them whereof two only are extant also part of the old Testament was lost as appears Chron. 9.12 and 29. Nay this very Scripâ—ure that now is extant and owned by vs all to be Canonical for the first 402. was not a good part of it owned to be such for the Fathers of the Church disputed and many denyed S. Pauls epistle to the Hebr. Iudes epist second of saint Peter second and Third of saint Iohn to be Canonical consequently they could not be the Test of Faith because they were not belieued to be Scripture all this tyme as there was an obligation vpon Christians to belieue so they had the sufficient means for to know what they were obliged to belieue which was not Scripture because either it was not written or if written it was not all as now it is belieued to be Scripture therefore God must haue appointed some other means besids Scripture for to instruct vs in Religion And if you insist that the Scripture as now it is extant is the needfull and sufficient means for our instruction I infer therefore wee had not the needfull and sufficient means vntill all this Scripture now extant was written consequently the Church was for many years without the sufficient means for instruction I infer again therefore vntill the last text of Scripture was written wee had not the sufficient means and wheras you are bound to proue by a cleer text that Scripture alone is the sufficient means it must be with the last text of all scripture you must proue it for then and no sooner was the scripture the sufficient means when the whole Canon was completed and the last text was written and this is impossible to be proued also it follows that you must not pretend to proue the sufficiency of scripture by any text of the new or old Testament written before the last text wheras the whole Canon was not completed when those texts were written and consequently they could not proue the sufficiency of scripture which in your acknowledgment did not begin to be the sufficient means vntill the Canon was finisht Moreouer if the scripture as now it is extant be the needfull and sufficient means then the Lutherans whom you receiue to your Communion and embrace as Brethren haue not the sufficient means for diuine Faith and consequently nor Faith itself wheras they deny many parts of Scripture to be Canonical which you belieue But what most cleerly proues that Scripture as now it is extant is not the sufficient and needfull means is this discourse first its not the needfull means for if a very considerable part of this Scripture did perish wee would still haue the sufficient means in what would remain of Scripture to instruct vs in what wee are bound to belieue for what wee are bound to belieue vnder pain of damnation are only the essential and fundamental points of Religion whoeuer belieues them though he denies other points not fundamental and inferior Truths in the doctrin of Protestants belieues what is sufficient for his saluation but there are many chapters or at least half chapters or at least many verses of Scripture which do not in the least mention any essential and fundamental point of Religion therefore all those chapters and verses are not needfull for to know what wee are bound to belieue and if they did all perish wee would in what remained haue the sufficient means Now that Scripture as now it is extant is not the sufficient means I proue it for if any part of Scripture be the sufficient means it must be that part which contains the fundamental and essential articles of Religion and wheras you do not know nor could any of your Doctors euer yet though often desired by vs giue a Catalogue of those which you call fundamental points which they be and how are they distinguisht from not fundamental points its impossible that you can tell which part of Scripture is that which contains the the fundamental points of Religion and consequently you cannot tell which part of scripture in the sufficient for our instruction That the Church was the means appointed by God for our instruction before the scripture was written the Protestant do not nor cannot deny and if they will not wauer in their Principles they must confess it continued so vntill the whole Canon was finisht which was not vntill many years after Christ his Ascension But say they scripture being written which doubteless God gaue vnto vs for no other end than to be our guide and rule of Faith the Church surceased from that office and is not to be regarded further than as she agrees with that written word so that after scripture was receiued for Gods written Oracle the Church was casheered out of those glorious offices which formerly she enioyed because as our Aduersaries pretend there was no need of any other infallible Oracle but the scripture which in the iudgment of all is such If this discourse be good it proues also that the Apostles ceased to be our instructors and infallible Oracles after the scripture was written and that the Church ceased to be infallible in fundamental points because the scripture is an infallible oracle contains all points and one infallible Oracle is sufficient yet our Aduersaries confess that the Apostles remained still infallible and the Church in fundamental points And wheras all scripture was not written at once but successiuly by parts the Church was not deuested of teaching vs but by degrees as the parts of scripture were written which paradox though ridiculous follows out of the former discourse But what if part or all the scripture did perish which is not impossible both because that
some part of it has perisht already and that there is nor in all scripture any promiss of its perpetuity as there is of the perpetuity of the Church then I hope the scripture would return to her ancient prerogatiue of being the needfull means appointed for our instruction this extrauagant position you are bound to affirm and you can shew no scripture for it and yet you can belieue nothing but what is in scripture I should think this a good discourse the Church was once our guide and means appointed to ascertain vs of the truths when the scripture that now is extant was not written But the scripture now owned for such does not say the Church was deuested of that Prerogatiue therefore I am still obliged to belieue she enioyeth it for the obligation that once was and it not proued to be abolished remains still in force there was an obligation of belieuing the Church to be Gods infallible Oracle nothing appears that taketh away that obligation therefore it s still in force To conclude the Necessity of an interpreter besides Scripture for to instruct vs what wee are to belieue is proued not only because Christ did place Apostles Euangelist Doctors and Pastors in his Church Eph. 4.11 for this end as the Apostle distinctly faies for to keep vs in Vnity of Faith to instruct vs that vvee may be no more Children vvauering to and fro and carried avvay vvith euery vvind of doctrin but also by the practice of the Catholik and Protestant Churchs who giue such vast reuenews to Ecclesiastical persons for teaching the flock and expounding the Mysteries of Faith if scripture were so cleer in the necessary points what needed any more but to giue each one a Bible and imploy the Rents of the Clergy in some other vse what needed so many authentick Christian doctrins published by both Churchs for to declare the Mysteries of Religion what needed so many Volums and Commentarîes of the Fathers vpon the scripture if it alone is cleer full and plain in what wee are bound to belieue IV. CHAPTER A TRVE CHVRCH ESTABLISHED by Christ to decide Controuersies and deliuer the true Doctrin vvhich vvee are bound to belieue NO Protestant at least of our tymes will deny the existence of a true Church it being an article of the Apostles Creed I belieue the holy Catholik Church The true Notion of it wee haue from S. Paul Rom. 12.4 by a comparison of it with a Natural Body as this hath seueral members each one wherof hath its proper function so wee all as so many different members which exercise diverse functions concurr to constitute one Body in Christ In the natural Body there is a head which is the seat of the Iudgment which gouerns there are eyes to see ears to heare a mouth to speake hands to work and feet to walk thus in the Church Christ's mystical Body there must be a head to gouern which is the suprem Pastor there must be eyes to pry and examin the truth and these are the Doctors there must be hands to deliuer the word of God and a mouth to speake and these are the Preachers Pastors and Curats there must be eares to heare and feet to walk which are the flock Hence wee gather the true Notion of the Church of God to be a visible society of true belieuers under one suprem Pastor where the Faith of Christ is taught and belieued The Church therefore is constituted of two parts the One whose obligation is to teach and rule the flock the other whose obligation is to obey and belieue what the Church by her Pastors and Doctors does teach and command and wheras the Church was still extant or the article of our Creed was some tyme false it follows there were still extant Pastors and Doctors who did teach the true Faith of Christ and a flock that belieued it As to the obligation of the Church to instruct and gouern vs these texts of scripture euince it Necessity is laid vpon me for to preach and vvo be to me if I preach not 1. Cor. 9.16 Attend to yourselues and to the vvhole flock vvherin the H. G. has placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God Act. 20.23 Which obligation was layd an the Apostles and their successors when Christ commanded them to teach all Nations to preach the Ghospel vnto all creatures which obligation S. Paul doth in seueral places of his Epistles declare but particularly Eph. 4.11 He placed in his Church som Apostles and som Prophets others som Euangelists others som Pastors and Doctors and declares to what end did Christ prouide his Church of them for the consummation of Saints into the vvork of the Ministery that vvee may meet in the vnity of Faith that vvee be no more children vvauering to and fro and carried avvay vvith euery vvind of Doctrin Whence two consequences follow the first that if you be tossed in your mind and doubtfull what to belieue if tvvo Sacraments or seauen if real Presence or figuratiue you are not to be carried away with euery wind of Doctrin but go the Church which God has furnished with Doctors Apstoles and Pastors for to instruct you the second consequence that Christ Faith being but One and wee obliged to liue in the Vnity of that Faith the Apostle tells vs in this text that the means which he has appointed for to keepe vs in Vnity of Faith are the Apostles Euangelists Doctors and Pastors of the Church that the Church by them may lead vs to the professiion of one Faith The other part which cōstitutes the Church is the flock whose obligation is to obey and belieue what she by her Doctors and Pastors does teach and command vs this obligation is manifestly proued Mat. 23.2 all that they vvho sit on the chayr of Moyses vvill say vnto you that obserue and do Lu. 10.16 Christ commands that he who will not heare the Church is to be esteemed a Heathen and a Publican and adds that he vvho despeiseth her despeiseth him that is to say he that despeiseth her Doctrin which S. Paul expounds 1. Thes 4.8 when after giuing them instructions he saies He that despeiseth these things despeiseth not man but God and 2. Thes 3.14 he that obeyeth not our vvord do not acompagny him that he may be confounded These cleer and manifest texts proue the obligation of the flock to belieue and obey the Doctrin and commands which the Church by her Pastors and Doctors layeth vpon them Whence it appears that the Church is the Oracle and Mistress which Christ has appointed on earth for to instruct and gouern vs. This discourse that the Church is constituted of two parts the one whose obligation is to teach and gouern the otherwhose obligation is to learn belieue and obey is cleerly shewen in the 1. Cor. 3. where the Apostle compares the Pastors and Prelats to Husband men who soweth the seed and to Masterbuilders that make a house and compares the
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
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
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
the blind see the lame vvalk though they see they are called blind because they were blind and are restored to their sight And S. Io. 2.9 sayes vvhen the Ruler of the feast had tasted the vvater that vvas made vvine The liquor that the Ruler of the feast tasted was true wine yet the text calls it vvater because from water it was conuerted into wine So the bread which by the words of the consecration is conuerted into Christ his Body retains the name of bread because it was once bread because it has still the appearance of bread and because wee should vnderstand that true bread and wyne and nothing but bread and wyne is requisit for the due administration of that Sacrament as for the Baptism true natural water is necessary And that you may not be startled at S. Pauls calling it so often bread obserue you the rule I haue giuen and you will easily perceiue that the word bread so often vsed after the consecration signifyes not true and real bread but beares only a mystical or figuratiue signification for you will find that the Predicats that are said of that bread after its consecration cannot in any wyse be verified of true substantial bread and consequently that the word bread after the consecration cannot signify real but figuratiue bread for example Christ sayes of that bread that S. Paul speakes of the bread that I shall giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld what was giuen for the lyfe of the world was not true bread but true flesh consequently when that flesh is called bread the word bread must not signify real bread Christ sayes of that bread this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you This Predicat vvhich is giuen for you cannot be verified of bread in its true and proper signification consequently the word bread after the consecration signifyes but figuratiue bread the appearance of bread But sayes Mr Sall wee all agree in calling the Eucharist a Sacrament a Sacrament is but a sign of a sacred thing why should not wee agree also in calling the Sacrament of Christ his body the sign of Christ his Body and heere he brings a rapsody of texts of S. Augustin S. Denis and others to proue that it is but a type a Symbol a figure and remembrance of Christ his Body which labor he might haue well spared for wee do freely grant that the Eurachist is a sign type remembrance and Symbol of Christ his body offered for vs on the Cross the Eucharist is a commemoration and representation of that bloody sacrifice but it is also Christ his true Body the vnbloody oblation of his Body in the Eucharist is a figure and representation of the bloody oblation of the same body on the Cross as a King that would act a Part in a tragedy of his own victoryes he would be the thing represented and the representation He alleadges the words of some Fathers of the Church that expresly say the Symbols in the Sacrament are not changed in their Nature but do abyde in their proper substance figure and form nay more distinctly they say that the Nature and substance of bread and vvyne remaine after the consecration thus speaks Saint Chrysost if you belieue Mr Sall in an epistle he writ ad Caesarium but if you belieue Bellarmin S. Chrysost neuer writ any such epistle also Gelasius a Pope sayes Mr Sall though Bellarmin sayes he was no Pope but som Monk and Theodoret dial 2. c. 24. And is it not a pretty thing that the Protestants would perswade vs that these Fathers and others did belieue only a figuratiue Presence and yet from the very first begining of their pretended Reformation they constantly auerr that all the Fathers fell into the errours of Purgatory real Presence Adoration of Saints c. whoeuer will read those Fathers will find the real Presence most cleerly asserted in seueral places of their works especially in S. Chrysost and for one or two obscure passages or expressions that our Aduersaryes meet with they must be for a figuratiue Presence Bellarmin and our Catholick Authors giue a Catholick sence to those words the Protestants giue an other the Fathers do not liue to speake for themselues and declare what sense they intended is it not necessary therefore that wee should haue an infallible liuing iudge who may deliuer vnto vs what wee must belieue in this Mystery This aduertisment I must giue my Reader that the Fathers in all ages of the Church some spoke nothing at all of the Mysteryes now controuerted and belieued by vs others spoke of them but briefly and obscurely others wrote in some places of their works plainly and distinctly but in other places in expressions subiect to misconstruction The reason was that the Fathers of each age professedly writ or altogether or for the most part of their works of those points of doctrin which were opposed by the Hereticks of those tymes and those they deliuered in their proper Notions expresly and carefully shunning any dubious words but of other Mysteryes and Articles of Faith that were vnanimously belieued no contradiction of Hereticks requiring an exact discussion of them either they omitted to speake of them or writing of them they were not so carefull in speaking with cleer expressions because they had no occasion of fearing a misconstruction of their words particularly when in other places of their works they had deliuered themselues in plain terms Hence it is that wee must not be startled if wee do not find any mention of Indulgences Purgatory or real Presence in some Fathers or if wee meet some words in some Fathers which may be wrested against our Tenets as in this of the real Presence which vntill about the yeare 800. had not any opposition among Christians then it was apposed by Iohn Scotus not the Franciscan fryer and by the Arch Bishop of Sens in France but this storm was soon and easily calm'd about the yeare 1100. Berengarius raysed much dust against this Mystery and drew many Abettors to his faction then the Catholick writters did declare the Mystery and defend it and Berengarius was condemned by fiue Councils successiuly assembled against him and his Partizans the Fathers who writ since that tyme speake so manifestly in fauor of the real Presence that you will hardly find any expression in their works wherat your vnderstanding may stumble It s most false what Mr Sall imputes to Scotus Ocham and other more modern Catholicks that the doctrin of Transubstantiation it not contained in the Canon nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council they expresly teach especialy Scotus in 4. dist 11. q 3. that the doctrin was belieued before the Council continually in the Church but more explicitly declared by the Council who for that end introduced the word Transubstantiation which expresses better the doctrin belieued as the Council of Nice introduced the word Consubstantial to signify the equality of the son with the Father
nay Scotus in that place brings for example the Creed of the Nicen Council which sayes he was no new doctrin of the Council but a more explicit declaration of the sence formerly belieued by the Church so the Decree of the Lateran Council was but an explicit declaration of the sence that was held by the Church in all ages in this point of the real Presence Suarez indeed tells vs that Caietan but speaks nothing of Bassoly so much you add of your own spoke rashly of this Mystery but tells vs also that his expressions were censured by the Church and all that Mr Sall can proue by this is that Caietan did err and what then But fayes he Bellarmin and the Roman writers do agree that in that text this Cup is the nevv Testament of my blood the word Cup is taken by a Trope not for the material Cup but for the thing it contains and why will wee not also admit a Trope in the words relating to the bread consecrated Mr Sall playes the Catholick vndoubtedly vnder the mask of Protestancy for this argument proues manifestly our Doctrin wee confess that in the text alleadged the word Cup must be taken by a Trope for what it contains not for the material Cup so wee desire him that in this text the bread vvhich I vvil giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld the word bread may be taken by a Trope not for the material bread but for what it contains which wee proue to be in the Cup the true blood of Christ because of it and not of the material Cup it can be verifyed that it was shed for vs in the bread the true flesh of Christ for of it and not of the material bread that Predicat can be verifyed giuen for the lyfe of the vvorld He concludes with a discourse which shocks the Hierarchy of the Church of England Mr Anderton has lately proued in his iudicious Treatyse stiled a Soueriagn Remedy against Atheism and Heresy the Nullity of the Protestant Clergy and Mr Sall not sufficiently as yet engaged in the defence of that cause as wee may iudge by his so weake opposition of our Tenets and defence of theirs that he has not as yet got so great aduantages by his Reuolt as he expected that should edge his wit to plead with more vigor I know not with what design strengthens this Assertion with his following argument against our Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament How can you sayes he giue Diuin Adolration to the wafer wheras in your own Principles you cannot be sure that Christ is there present for in your Principles That depends of the intention of the Priest who consecrats and of his true ordination this depends of the intention and due ordinatiō of the Bishop that ordained him and this Bishop depends of the true ordination of others that consecrated him and so vpwards of endless requisits impossible to be knowen certainly consequently you cannot certainly know that Christ is present in that wafer how then are you so desperat as to adore it Answer its question less on both sydes yours and ours that som things are essentially requisit for the validity of a Sacrament the defect of which or any one thing of them nullifyes the Sacrament as for the validity of Baptism water is essentially necessary and the form of words I baptize you in the name of the Father son and Holy Ghost This you belieue as well as wee now who doubts but that it depends of the free will of the Minister to vitiat the form for since that the validity of the Baptismdoes not require that he vters the form in aloud voyce he may pretend to speak the form and vtter som what els in lieu of it or if he should pronounce some words of it with an audible voyce he may with an vnder voyce omit some word or add som word that would destroy the form this may happen through malice or ignorance and wee cannot possibly be certain that it does not or has not happened and consequently wee can haue no assurance if Mr Salls discourse be good of the truth of any mans Baptism The ordination of your Ministers depends essentially in your Principles also as well as in ours of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop for if he be no true Bishop he can giue no orders and of the exact form or words essentially requisit for a due ordination the Iurisdiction of the Bishop depends of the due ordination of the Consecrators for he must be consecrated by the imposition of hands of true Bishops and the vttering of the form of Consecration the due ordination of the Consecrators depends of the like requisits in those from whom they receiued their Caracter now since that the defect either of the true form of the Consecration or of the true Ordination of the Consecrators nullifies your Hierarchy and that there is no possible means for vs to know certainly that neither of those two was wanting in any one of the whole trayn of your Ordainers for if it was wanting in any all the Ordinations deriued from him are Null what assurance haue you or can you haue of the truth of your Hierarchy and but that you are all buth meer laymen without any authority or iurisdiction for preaching or administring Sacraments Thus Mr Sall obliges his Church in opening a way to question the Iurisdiction of the Clergy let him make his peace as he can with his Church and Clergy wee will answer his obiection thus Wee can without hazard of Idolatry and ought in conscience to adore the wafer consecrated though wee be not infallibly assured of the Priests intention for our obligation of adoring is grounded on and guided by that General Principle of Faith which is infallibly true that Christ is really present in the wafer duely consecrated this General Principle applied to this particular case of this vvafer consecrated by this Priest obliges me to adore this wafer though that application of the said general Principle be not infallibily sure or I am not infallibly ascertained that it is applyed in this particular case it is sufficient for my obligation of adoring that I am morally assured that it is applyed As in this case this General Principle of Nature Parents are to be honored by their children is infallibly true and iust and grounds an obligation in all children to honor their Parents in virtue of this general Principle applyed this particular Man and woman that are your Parents you are obliged to honor them but are you infallibly assured that these are your Parents not at all are not you not withstanding obliged to honor them is it rashness or folly in you to honor them for though the general Principle that Parents must be honored be infallibly true and iust yet you are not infallibly assured that this general Principle is duely applyed to these in particular but for your obligation that is not requisit its sufficient that you are morally
assured this is our case in the adoration of the Host And hence wee cannot but condemn your intollerable rashness in saying that it s an intollerable boldness to auer that there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host as there is for the adoration of Christs Diuinity for if you vnderstand our Doctrin which is that there is as much reason for adoring an Host truly consecrated as there is for adoring the Diuinity of Christ it is most manifestly true wheras Faith teacheth vs that the Host truly consecrated is God and man Iesus Christ really present If you do not vnderstand our doctrin its intollerablerashness in you to censure what you do not vnderstand Half Communion We will declare our Tenet by a comparison of the Communion with the Sacrament of Baptism both are commanded by Christ if one be not born again by vvater and the Spirit he shall not enter into the King dom of Heauen Io. c. 6. and in the same chap. if you do not eate the sllesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you In the Sacrament of Baptism you must distinguish the substance and essence of it from the circumstances and manner of receiuing it The substance and essence of it consists in being regenerated by water for that is required by Christ expresly in the text the manner how this regeneration is made is by one total immersion of the Body in water or by three distinct immersions or without any total immersion but by sprinkling some principal part of the Body with water what concerns the essence of this Sacrament to be by vvater is indispensably requisit cannot be altered what concerns the manner of receiuing it Christ left that arbitrary to the Church and did not oblige either to one total immersion nor to three nor to sprinkling but to either of the three wayes Hence it is that though Christ did baptize the Apostles with a total immersion of their Bodyes as Ancient Authors do auerr if by three or one immersion wee know not though this manner of Baptizing by a total immersion was practised by the first age and some ages of the Church and that wee do not reade that Baptism should haue been administred in those ages by a sprinkling of the Body with water yet the Church in succeeding ages for iust reasons requiring it has seueral tymes altered this manner some tyme they ordained that Baptism should be giuen with three total immersions in hatred of the Heresy of them that denyed three persons in God and to signify that there was in God but vnity as well in Person as in Nature would not baptize but with one immersion Some tyme the Church commanded Baptism to be giuen with one immersion in opposition of Hereticks that would not baptize but with three to signify that the three Persons were of different Natures Thus you will find that in the 50. Canon of the Apostles three immersions are commanded in the 4. Council of Toledo but One S. Gregory writing to S. Leander sayes it may be administred either of both wayes and lastly the Church in consideration that many Infants especially in the Northren Kingdoms through the Coldness of the Climat dyed by the total immersion of their Bodyes commanded the Sacrament should be administred with the sprinkling of some principal part of the Body with water and this manner is vsed also by the Protestants who do not rebuke the Church for omitting the triple immersion practised by the Apostles Thus in the Eucharist wee must distinguish the essence of it from the circumstances That consists in eating and drinking the Body and blood either vnder Accidents of bread alone or wine alone or bread and wine together this is indispensably requisit to neither in particular did Christ oblige vs but left it arbitrary to the Church to determin as tymes and iust occasions required and that Christ did not oblige vs to any of those different manners in particular but left it arbitrary to the Church first the text it self declares it for when he gaue the Cup he did not absolutly command the vse of it saying Do this in commemoration of me but Do this as often as you shall drink in commemoration of me which is not a command of Drinking but when wee shall drink to do it in commemoration of him Secondly wee haue a positiue example of Christ himself that once gaue the Communion in the accidents of bread alone to his disciples in the way towards Emaus wee haue no positiue example in Scripture that Christ should baptize som tymes by sprinkling the Body with water sometymes by one total immersion and yet wee confess that Baptism may be administred any of these three wayes as the Church shall ordain wee haue no positiue example that Christ should haue giuen the Eucharist sometymes in Leuen sometymes in Azim bread and yet the Church may giue it in either and hauing a positiue example that he gaue the Sacrament once in bread and wyne and once at least in bread alone why cannot wee conclude that the Church may do so also Christ gaue the Sacrament at night is it therefore it cannot be giuen in the morning Christ gaue it after the corporal repast is it therefore it cannot be receiued fasting Christ washed his Apostles feet when he gaue it is it therefore needfull to wash the receiuers feet That non obstante of the Council of Constance that so much surprises poore Mr Sall as if the Council had been presumptious in prohibiting the vse of the Chalice hauing confessed that Christ and the Apostles gaue it to the faithfull argues nothing of presumption for as the Council knew that Christ and the Apostles gaue the Cup to the Layty so it knew also that sometymes they gaue only the Bread and therby did vnderstand that it was left in the power of the Church to giue the Sacrament in either of both kinds Vpon this ground did the Council of Constance and does the Church now prohibit the Chalice iust reasons mouing them to it First that if the Cup should be giuen that would hinder the frequent Communion to which the Church doth exhort vs much for wherethe wine is scant and deere and the Communicants thousands in number the expences would be great secondly People would conceiue a horror against the Communion if they were obliged to drink out of the same Cup with sickly Persons perhaps with contagious diseases Thirdly the Communion would be morally impossible to many that can not endure the tast of wyne Fourthly the danger of the effusion of some drops in a great multitude of Communicants these and many other reasons haue moued the Church to command the vse of the bread alone Heere indeed comes very pertinently Mr Salls argument against the real Presence The Communion vnder both kinds is not needfull neither for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament nor for the effects which by it
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