do consequently both those Religions of Iudaism and Christianity must not be true Religions If it be he that commanded wee should worship him by belieuing the real Presence of Christ his Body in the Eucharist certainly it s not he that commanded wee should worship him by denying the real presence for that would be to contradict himself therefore of all those Religions which clash one with an other only one must be the true Religion This is further proued No Religion wherin God is duely worshipped and a man may be saued can iustly be called an accursed heretical and damnable Religion this Position is euident consequently it appears how vniustly Protestants call the Catholik Religion Idolatrous and superistitious it being by their own acknowledgment as wee will proue against Mr Sall a religion wherin wee may be saued and consequently wherin God is duely worshipped But S. Paul in express tearms does anathematise accurse and condemn all and each Religion euen those that are Christian Religions besids that one which he and his fellow Apostles did teach if vvee Gal. 1.9 or an Angel from Heauen should Euangelize vnto you othervvyse than as vvee haue don let him be accursed pursuant to which doctrin Hymenaeus Philetus and others declining som what the doctrin of the Apostles in the Article of the Resurrection of the Body not absolutly denying it but saying it was already past 1. Tim. 1.20 and 2. Tim. 2.18 they still remayned within the verge of Christianity but because by their error in that Article only they were of a different Religion from that of S. Paul he delivers them to Satan calls them creeping Cankers and subuertors of the Faith which would haue been a manifest iniustice in him if they stiil remayned in a true Religion where God was duely worshipped it follows therfore that no other euen Christian Religion is a true Religion but that one which S. Paul professed and from which they departed And if any Christian Religion with a good Moral lyfe were sufficient for saluation the Prelats and Pastors of the Church in all ages are to be laught at for their continual care of keeping their flock in vnity of Faith and doctrin wheras any Religion was sufficient with a good Moral lyfe the General Councils were most rash and impious in condemming Arrius Nestorius and other heretiks wheras they still remained Christians and the lyues of many of them were most iust and vpright as S. Augustin testifies of the Pelagians Let the Libertins then of our age be vndeceiued who to secure their interest and ambition are ready to embrace any Religion that is the most preualent in the state for all though Christians Religions but that one which S. Paul professed all but that whose vnity the Prelats and Concils did endeauor to preserue are accursed heretical and impious Now since of all Religions that only is the true which God has revealed vnto vs and that no other worship will please him doubtless he has afforded vs the needfull and sufficient means to know what Religion it is and to distinguish it from other pretended Religions which he has not reuealed Without Faith and Religion it is impossible to be saued God therfore who desires our saluation and commands vs vnder pain of damnation to haue true Faith must haue prouided vs of the means necessary to attain to true Faith Let vs examin what Faith is It 's an Assent giuen to an object for the testimony of him that proposes it it is therefore grounded on the Authority of the Proponent and can haue no more assurance of the Truth than the testimony on which it is grounded as for example Human Faith wherwith I belieue what a Man of credit and knowen honesty tells me can haue no more certainty than the credit and honesty of that Man has and wheras Men let them be few or many in Number vsing only natural means may deceiue or be deceiued either in the testimony they giue or in the grounds of their Assertion be it the euidence of their senses which are subiect to fallacy or the euidence of their Natural reason for som times reasons that seeme to vs euident are but sophistries it is manifest that human Faith which relyes only on the testimony of men is fallible for though it may happen that de facto it is true and that there may be moral certainty of its being true yet absolutly it might be otherwyse and so the Faith grounded vpon it is still fallible But diuine Faith That Assent which Gods requires of vs to reuealed Truths must be an infallible Faith which not only is true but cannot be otherwise than true it must be a firm Assent in the highest degree of certainty excluding all doubts and feare of being mistaken and wheras Faith has no other assurance of the Truth than the Authority of the Proponent it follows that diuine Faith must rely vpon a most infallible vndoubted Authority which can not deceiue or be deceiued Hence it follows that no euidence of senses for our sensations are deceitfull can be a sufficient ground for diuine Faith nor no natural reason for if it be probable or only morally euident it may be false or falsified if absolutly euident it can be no ground of Faith because Faith being an argument of things not appearing as S. Paul saies it surpasses natural reason and because that if it be euident it forces the vnderstanding to an Assent and so leaues no place for the merit of Faith which consists in belieuing what the vnderstanding may deny because of the difficultie it finds in assenting to an obscure obiect which the vvill assisted with the pious inclination ouercomes and thereby merits No Histories nor doctrin of Fathers no testimony or authority of any fallible Church or congregation is sufficient because diuine Faith being infallibly certain must be grounded vpon an infallible Authority Lastly it follows that only the infallible written word of God or the authority of an infallible Church must be it which proposes vnto vs the reuealed Truths and on which wee must bottom our Faith Let vs heare what Mr Sall saies as to this particular he was once of opinion that Scripture alone was not the means appointed by God for proposing vnto vs the reuealed Truths their sence not being obuious euen to learned men and consequently not the means suitable to vulgar capacityes who being as well as the learned obliged to belieue the means for attaining to the knowledge of Religion must be suitable to their capacity as well as to that of the learned and Scripture through the difficulty of it surpasses both therefore it became the Goodness and Wisdom of God to appoint a visible Iudge assisted with his infallible spirit that in case of doubt should determin our controuersies and declare vnto vs what we ought to belieue But saies he pag. 27. the Archbishop of Cashell obiecting that vve ought to be very vvary in censuring the VVisdom of God if
this or that vvas not don in the gouernment of the vvorld vvhich seemeth to vs good to be don the Modesty of the Proponent added such vveight to this aduertisment that it touched me to the quick and reflecting on this point in my solitudes I savv saies he vvee might as vvell say that it belongeth to the goodness of God not to permit that his holy lavves should be transgressed by vile creatures nor that the Pastors of souls especially the Pope should scandalize their flock and as vvee do not iudge it a failure in his goodness to permit sins so vvee ought not vvauer in our opinion of his goodness and VVisdom if he has not appointed a visible Iudge for our direction hauing giuen us the holy Scriptures vvhich a bound vvith all light and heauenly doctrin to such as are not vvillfully obstinat Briefly Sr heere are three different opinions of Christ's presence in the Sacrament Catholik Lutheran and Protestant of the three quite opposit one to the other God has reuealed but one as I for merly discoursed and obliges me vnder pain of damnation to belieue that sence and no other I say under pain of damnation for said he if you vvill not eate the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Io. 6. must I not expect of Gods goodness that he will afford vnto me what is absolutly need full to acquit this obligation he absolutly requires of me to belieue that sence and no other of those three which he reuealed must I not then expect of his goodness some means to ascertain me which of those three different opinion is that which he reuealed would it be consistent with his goodness to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to flye to the Moon and afford me no wings which wee suppose are indispensably need full for to acquit that obligation The Assent which he requires at my hands is not a probable and dubious one but an Assent which renders me assured in the highest degree of certainty of the Truth I profess such and no other is diuine Faith such an Assent is impossible if there be not an infallible Authority on which it is grounded which you Protestants cannot deny for it s therefore you reiect Tradition and will admit no other Test of Faith but the written word of God because Faith must be grounded vpon an infallible Authority you say and Tradition is fallible and nothing infallible but Gods written word if Scripture were not written by the Apostles could not you say without any iniury to God that it became his wisdom to afford you some other infallible Authority wheras without such an authority it 's impossible to haue the Assent of Faith which he requires and was it not therfore that he gaue to his Apostles who preached to the primitiue Christians the credit of infallible Oracles because then there was no Scripture written nor any other Authority wherupon to bottom their Faith but the testimony of the Apostles Since therfore wee do manifestly proue that Scripture alone is not sufficient to determin Controuersies and instruct vs what wee are bound to belieue let not your instructors Modesty take it ill that wee say it becomes the goodness of God to appoint a liuing infallible Iudge on whose testimony and authority wee may rely and ground our Faith Vvee say with St Augustin l. de vtil cred ad Honorat Si Prouidentia Dei non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Si autem praesidet non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam esse qua velut gradu certo attolamur ad Deum If Gods Prouidence gouerns not the vvorld vvee need not be sollicitous of Religion but if Prouidence rules all it cannot be doubted but that God has appointed an authority by vvhich as by a certain assured vvay vvee may be lead to God Vvee must therefore grant such an Authority which is not Scripture as wee will proue or deny Prouidence Your instance is very weake and vn becoming so great a diuine as you profess to be Gods goodness cannot be questioned for permitting sins and the scandals of Popes nay it 's becoming his goodness to permit them for hauing created Man with perfect liberty for to work well or ill it becomes his goodness to giue him all that is needfull for the exercyse of that liberty and Man could not exercyse it if wee did not pretend to some extraordinary miraculous Prouidence for which wee haue no ground in Scripture nor reason and to which his goodness cannot oblige him if he did not permit him to sin and to question God why his goodness doth permit sin is to ask why he created Man with perfect liberty which if you do I answer because he gaue him liberty that he might vse it well and if he vses it ill it s his own fault VVee ought not say you to vvauer in our opinion of Gods goodness for not appointing a Liuing infallible Iudge vvheras he has afforded us the Scriptures vvhich abound vvith all heauenly light to them that are not vvillfully obstinat and this you proue 2. Tim. 3.16 Holy Scriptures are able to make us vvyse vnto saluation that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good vvorks But I infer to the contrary wheras the Scriptures though replenished they be with heauenly light are not sufficient for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to belieue wee might wauer in our opinion of Gods goodness if he did not appoint an infallible liuing Iudge for to instruct vs and that the Scriptures are not sufficient for the instruction of them that are not vvillfully blind Mr Sall himself proues it for pag. 17. he tells vs that doubting of the Tenets of our Religion his wit not content with an ipse dixit lyke Pythagoras his scholler demanded Reason for what he belieued he betooke himself to the frequent reading of Scripture but Sr if you be not content with an ipse dixit you are as vnfit for Christ's schoole as for that of Pythagoras and if your wit demands reason for what you belieue Scripture is no place to seeke for it which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit After reading the Scriptures he was so far from being sufficiently instructed that he confesses they made him doubt whence it appears that Scripture alone is not sufficient euen to those that are not vvillfully blind he was no such for he did read with a real desire of being instructed The text of S. Paul sayes that Scripture is able to make us vvyse to salvation but does noy say that Scripture alone is able if you will haue text to be for your purpose you must follow the example of Luther who to proue his error of iustification by Faith only corrupted the text of S. Paul Rom. 2.8 vvee account a man to be iustified by Faith vvithout the vvorks of the lavv and foisted
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
wheras the senses perceiue the Accidents which are naturally inseparable from that substance if there were not a higher Authority that affirms the substance is not there to whose testimony Reason is bound to yield against the euidence of the senses as when the Angel appeared to Tobias to acompany him in his voyage Tobias at his first appearance ch 5. prudently iudged him to be a Man wheras the senses did perceiue all the Accidents proper to human Nature and nothing affirmed him to be an Angel there Reason prudently concluded vpon the testimony of the senses but when in the 12. ch the Angel discouered him self to be an Angel then Tobias his reason was reclaymed and against the euidence of his senses which did see nothing but Accidents of Human Nature belieued it a Spirit vpon the testimony of an Angel The lyke passage wee read to haue happened to Abraham Gen. 18. whence wee vnderstand that God may separat the Accidents from the substance to which they are proper and also that when the testimony of our senses clashs with a higher Authority Reason must yield to the higher Authority against the euidence of our senses This is the present case our senses say its bread what wee see after the consecration the word of God sayes its his Body if the word of God did not oueraw the senses reason ought prudently to conclude its bread but the word of God being of a more infallible authority than the senses Reason must yield to the word of God and say its Christs Body against the euidence of the senses that saye its bread But replyed he God will not haue Reason go against the euidence of our senses but yeld to them euen in matters of Faith for after his Resurrection he proued it to his Apostles by the euidence of their senses saying Lu. 24.36 feele and see for a Spirit hath no flesh nor boans as you see me to haue I answer they did not belieue his Resurrection only vpon the testimony of their senses but also of his word and asseueration that said he was reuiued God will haue vs as I said formerly yield to the euidence of our senses when there is no higher authority that thwarts their euidence as heere there was none but the higher autority did rather assert what the senses did testifie but in the Mystery of the Eucharist it is not so Gods word does contradict the senses and therefore Reason must yield to it against our sensations Pag. 21. Mr Sall argues that no necessity vrges vs to belieue Christs real presence in the Sacrament neither for the effects that he promises by it not for the verifying of his words seeing our sauiour said in the same tenor I am the true vine without any alteration in the vine or his person not for the effects of the Sacrament Christ being able to conferr what spiritual graces he pleases with the worthy receiuing of bread and wyne without any substantial alteration in the Elements as in the water of Baptism he affordeth the soueraign grace of spiritual regeneration in the substance of water I answer its necessary for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament for let the words Body and flesh vine Rock c. be equiuocal as he will haue them to be indifferent to beare two sences figuratiue and real This is euident that when a word bearing an equiuocal signification is put in a Proposition it is determined to signify that of which only and of no other the Predicat can be verifyed as this word Man may signify a true or painted man in this proposition Man is a rational liuing creature it is determined to signify a true Man because the Predicat rational liuing creature can be verifyed only of him and not of a painted man So the word Body that may signify a true or figuratiue one in the institution of the Sacrament This is my body vvhich is giuen for you it s determined to signify Christ his true body because of it only and not of a figure it can be verifyed vvhich is giuen for you If you obserue this Principle you will cleerly answer any text that may be alleadged against this Mystery As to the instance of vine and such lyke mystical expressions spoken of Christ put them in a proposition with the word Christ and they will be determined to a figuratiue or mystical signification because that Christ that dyed for vs cannot be said of a vine or Rock in their proper signification Now to the second part of his argument that God might had he been pleased haue redeemed vs with out any real Incarnation of the second Person or real Passion of Christ vpon the Cross it s out of controuersy for his infinit wysdom and Power wanted not other means for to redeem vs is it therefore wee must say with the Heretick Marcion that the text And the vvord vvas made flesh must be vnderstood figuratiuly and deny any real Incarnation of Christ or Passion on the Cross but only a figuratiue one by your argument wee might because God might had he been pleased conuey vnto vs by a figuratiue body and Passion all the effects and grace that he conueyed vnto vs by a real Incarnation and Passion the spiritual regeneration conferred on vs in Baptism by water he might haue conferred it on vs by wine or Rose water is it therefore wee must say that true natural water is not necessary for Baptism but say you the text does distinctly express vvater yea and the text in the institution of the Eucharist does distinctly express Body and as the text does not add true and real Body so it does not add true and natural water by what rule must vvater in the text sygnify natural water and the word Body must not sygnify a real body Thus farr wee agree that Christ might were he pleased haue giuen vs the effects of the Sacramēt by a figuratiue Presence only also that he might haue conferred them vpon vs by the real presence of his Body for there is no impossibility in that he should haue giuenvs his real Body vnder the Accidents of bread the question is what is it that he has effectually don and which of the two has he giuen the figure of his Body or his real Body I say that his real Body for that is requisit for the verifying of his words in the institution of the Sacrament But why does S. Paul call it Bread so often euen after the consecration as 1. Cor. 11.13 as often as you eat this bread vvhoeuer shall eat this bread he took bread in his hands he brake it and said this is my Body vvhich is broken for you These expressions denote that it remayns still bread No Mr Sall it retains the name of bread because it retains the appearance of bread and because that when a thing is changed into an other it still retains the name of what it was as in the Scripture wee read
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