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
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
you their Doctrin it s thus they say wee are guilty of errours that their Tenets of figuratiue Presence No Purgatory c. are vndeniable plain consequences out of Scripture and therefore wee err in denying them and that wee do err blamably and willfully because they are plain vndubitable consequences out of Scripture as you say also Mr Sall and wheras wee haue the scripture and belieue it to be the word of God and haue wits to vnderstand and sufficient instruction wee cannot but be willfully ignorant which ignorance is not sufficient to excuse vs from blame for not belieuing but they say that our denying of them articles though wee be obstinat in our denyal will not damn vs if wee haue no other sin because they are not fundamental Articles of Faith our errours do not shock the essential parts of religion though it were better and more safe to belieue them yet their belief is not absolutly requisit for saluation This is the Doctrin of the Church of England they grant vs saluation not for any ignorance but because wee hold the substance and all essential points of Faith It s therefore that Bramhal Bishop of Armagh called the Articles wherin the Protestant dissent from the Catholick Church Pious opinions and concluded that both Churchs had true Faith it s therefore that Doctor Stillingfleet compares both Churchs the Catholick to a Leaky ship wherin a man may be saued but with great danger and difficulty and the Protestant to a sound ship wherin one may be saued without hazard It s therfore that King I ames in the meeting of the Protestant Clergy at Southampton pronounced this sentence vvee detest in this point the cruelty of the Puritans and iudge them deseruing of fire vvho affirm that in the Popish religion a man may not be saued reade the Doctors of your Church Luther c. 6. and c. 4. in Gen. Osiander in epitom p. 2. pag. 1073. Melancthon in Conf. Aug. art 21. printed at Geneua an 1554. zuinglius in epis dedicat of his Confession of Faith to francis the first king of france Doctor field l. 3. de Eccl. c. 9. Bunnie in tract de pacif sect 18. whitaker q. 5. c. 3. Hooker l. de Pol. Eccl. but it were tedious to name all not any of the Church of England nor of the Lutherans but confess that the Catholick Church is a sauing Church because it has not erred in any fundamental points that wee are of one and the same Faith as to the substance It s true the Rigid Puritans and the Hugonots of france do say that the Catholick Church did err in fundamental points of Faith necessary for saluation and that therefore there is no saluation in her Comnunion and the Hugonots are of this sentiment but since about the yeare 1634. for before they constantly belieued with the Church of England that the Catholick Faith was a sauing Faith witness the answer of the Hugonot Diuins to Henry the fourth of france who asking if a man could be saued in the Roman Religion they answered yea wher vpon he prudently choosed that Religion which in the iudgment of all Parties was a sauing Religion Spondanus ad an 1593. But Mr Sall does not Profess to be a Puritan nor Hugonot and how come he to vtter such an impious expression But I will proue against him and his Associats Puritans and Hugonots that there is saluation in our Religion euen in their own Principles for either the true Church can err in fundamental points destructiue of saluation or not if not then the Roman Church which in the confession of you all was the true Church before and in Luthers age did not err in any point of doctrin repugnant to saluation if it can then your Church though it should be as you pretend the true Church can err also in fundamental points and you consequently cannot know if you be in the way of saluation Secondly you confess that the Lutherans and Protestants are in a true way of saluation but if the errours of the Catholik Church were fundamental and damnable They could not be in a sure way of saluation for it is as damnable an errour to say that a man may be saued in the profession of damnable errours as to profess them for example its as damnable an errour to say that a man may be saued denying Iesus-Christ as it is to deny him vae qui dicitis bonum malum if the Catholicks therefore be in a damnable state for professing those which you call errours the Protestants and Lutherans who vnanimously say they can be saued in the actual profession of those errours must be in a damnable state You must then either absolue both or condemn both besids the Lutherans hold some Points with the Catholicks which you condemn as damnable errors in our Religion for example the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist yet you belieue the Lutherans may be saued in their Religion therefore you must grant saluation to the Catholicks And now let vs draw Mr Sall by the skirt and mind him of what he sayes pag. 24. The Arch. B. of Cashel his instructor discoursed with him and his modesty pag. 28 added great vveight to his reasons Poore soul how simply you were fooled out of your Religion as appears by this passage His Lordship acknow-ledged the Catholick Church vvas a part of the true Church but not the vvhole and Mr Sall fancyed to perceiue such an admirable charity and real desire of vnion among Christians in this noble acknovv-ledgment of his Grace in granting vs that Honorable Title that he presently yielded all respect and submission to his reasons Open your eyes Poore Man you are charm'd by your instructors modesty and cheated of your Religion by fayre words Honorable title wherin doth the Honor of that Title of Catholick consist if it does not signify a Profession leading to saluation is it because that wee belieue many articles of Christianity though wee deny some then the Title of Arrian and Pelagians is Honorable which Professions belieued diuers Tenets of Christianity Is it because that by ignorance wee may be excused and be saued but you say that only the simple sort can haue that ignorance and besids Iews and Pagans may be saued in their respectiue Professions if they can claym ignorance Thus that Honorable title which sounded so plea sant to your ears is but an empty voyce His Instructor granted the Church of Rome to be a part of the Catholick Church but not the whole and Mr Sall did see such a vein of Charity and zeale to run through these vvords that he was rauish'd was euer Poore soule so deluded why did not you ask what his Lordp meant by Roman Church if he meant the Dioces of Rome that indeed is a part of the Catholick Church but that is not the Church wee speake of that wee say is infallible and wherof vvee are Members for wee are no Members of that Church wherin wee
say man must be saued if in any but if his Lordp did speake to the purpose and to what wee belieue by the Roman Catholick Church as I declared 5. ch and in the entrance to this chap. wee vnderstand all Christians throughout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Church of Rome which is the chiefe and Mother Church if he sayes This is but a part of the Church of God where is the other part I say where was it when Luther began his pretended Reformation for then there was no visible Congregation of Christians at least No Protestants nor any thing lyke them that did administer Sacraments and preach the word of God but was vnited in Faith and Communion with the Roman Church only such as were then held by Luther and now by vs schismatick as you are which then was the other part of Christ's true Church but this is not all how could he say and you belieue that the Roman Church take it either for the Dioces of Rome or as wee vnderstand it is a part of the Catholick Church if it be guilty of damnable errors can that be the true Church or any part of it that professes damnable errors against Faith S. Athanasius his Creed sayes no for it requires to haue an entyre and inuiolable Faith and you that is a Professor of Diuinity will say that a particular Person who holds damnable errors against the doctrin of the Church and obstinatly adheres to them is an heretick and no member of hers consequently you must say and your Instructor deluded you in saying the contrary that the Roman Church can be not part of the true Church if in her there was no saluationthrough damnable errors in doctrin You see Mr Sall that against the doctrin of the Church of England against your own and your Instructors concessions you haue engaged in that blasphemous assertion of not saluation in the Catholick Church to vse your own expression pag. 75. to spight the Catholick you ran beyond all measure euen of your ovvn principles as to spight the Ievv and seem a good Christian one vvould eat more Pork than his stomak can beare And to get the credit of a sound and zealous Protestant among your new Brethren you haue exceeded them in decrying the Church But the Reader will vnderstand by what I haue discoursed in this Chapter that the Catholick Church is the true Church that she cannot err in any point whateuer of Religion and consequently that saluation is to be sought in her VIII CHAPT THAT THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it That they cannot vvithout blasphemy alleadge Scripture for their Tenets That they haue not one and the same Faith vvith Catholicks that out of the Catholick Church there is no saluation Hovv far can ignorance excuse Protestants IT is the constant doctrin of the Protestant Church for I call not the Puritans and Hugonots of France Protestants whose error in this point I haue she wen in the former chap. that the Catholick Church has not erred in fundamental points of Religion because the true Church such as the Catholick was before Luther confessedly and now is in their acknowledgment cannot err in essential and fundamental articles consequently they discourse that the Protestant and Catholick Church differ only in points not fundamental and inferior truths which say they are pernicious errors but break not Vnity of Faith nor destroyes not saluation That the true Church can err and is fallible in points not fundamental and inferior truths This is faithfully the doctrin of the Protestant Church as you will find in the Authors I quoted in the former Chapt. in Stilling fleet in his book miscalled a Rational Account and in seueral others cited in the Protestant Apology tr 1. c. 6. and tract 2. c. 2. Now wee must consider what is the Protestant Church properly it belieues many Articles and as they say all fundamental Articles that the Catholick belieues so far they are not Properly Protestants but their proper Notion is to be taken from those Tenets wherin they differ so that Protestancy properly and as it is condistinct from Catholecism or Popery as you say is the doctrin wherin the Protestant Church differs from the Catholick Now I proue that the Protestant Church as it is properly the Protestant Church condistinct from the Catholick is not the Church of Christ because it does not teach the doctrin of Christ and no Church can be called of Christ further that it teacheth his doctrin and doubteless if wee did ask the Protestants and first Reformers why they did separate from the Catholick Church they would say To belieue and practise the Doctrin of Christ vvhich the Catholick denyed But I will proue that their doctrin for which they separated from vs and wherin they differ from vs is not the Doctrin of Christ The argument is in Ferio thus No fallible doctrin is the doctrin of Christ For who would be so blasphemous as to say that what Christ has taught is fallible Doctrin But Protestancy that 's to say all the Doctrin wherin Protestants differr from Catholicks and for which they separated from vs is altogether fallible Doctrin therefore Protestancy as it is properly the Doctrin of the Protestant Church is not the Doctrin of Christ That Protestancy or the Doctrin wherin wee differ is all fallible Doctrin its manifest for Protestancy or Doctrin wherin wee differ is altogether of points not fundamental wee all agree in the fundamental Articles as they vnanimously confess wee only differ in inferiour Truths wherin the Catholick Church has erred But the doctrin of points not fundamental and inferior truths is fallible Doctrin for it s their constant Doctrin also that the true Church be it the Catholick or Protestant can err and is fallible in articles not fundamental and inferiour truths therefore all your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin therefore it s not the doctrin of Christ I confess ingenuously I think this argument cannot be solidly answered For is it not certain that you differ from vs as you say only in not fundamental articles is it not also your doctrin that the true Church is fallible in articles not fundamental how can it then be denyed but that you differ from vs only in fallible doctrin the doctrin wherin you differ from vs is Protestancy and nothing els is properly Protestācy but that for which you departed from vs therfore your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin and consequently not the doctrin of Christ Hence I infer that you cannot without Blasphemy looke for your doctrin in Scripture no text or word of God can be alleadged for Protestancy nor any other warrant but your meer fancy for your protestancy is but a parcell of fallible doctrin and no fallible doctrin can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture which contains nothing but Gods infallible word Obserue how vainly the Protestants do boast their Religion and
differēce from vs to be bottom'd on the word of God that their figuratiue Presence is cleer in the Scripture that they will proue the pretended errors for which they forsook vs by Scripture they amuse the poore People with the specious pretext of Scripture no Rule of Faith but Scripture no Iudge of Controuersy but Scripture no warrant for Diuin worship but Scripture and after all its manifest by my former discourse that no Article of Protestancy as it is a particular Doctrin distinct from Catholecism can without sacrilege be sought for in Scripture If the Protestant Church be not The Church of Christ it can be no part of it for the same reason which but now I proposed for that no Article of Protestancy is the Doctrin of Christ being all but fallible Doctrin if they will not pretend to be a part of the Church because they belieue the chief and fundamental Articles wherin they agree with vs and that 's ridiculous because in so much they are not Protestants it s not for them Articles that they departed from vs and set vp a distinct Church this is to be a part of the Church in as much as they can pretend to be of the Roman Catholick Church and if they might be called a part of the Church for that reason Pelagians Eutychians and other Heretick Congregations may be called so also and thus the Church of Christ insteed of being the House of Peace and vnion be a house of confusion Out of this discourse also wee may vnderstand how vain is the pretence of Protestants and seueral other sects to vnity of Faith with the Roman Catholicks for when wee vrge them with this argument There is but One Faith as there is but one God S. Paul Eph. 4. without that one Faith its impossible to please God the Catholick Church has that Faith for you ackowledg its a true and a sauing Faith that holds all Articles necessary for saluation if therefore there be but one sauing Faith no other will saue but the Roman Catholick Faith they are so grauel'd with this discourse that they are glad to claim kinred with vs and say that wee all Catholicks Lutherans Presbiterians and Protestants haue but one and the same Faith as to the substance and Essentials of Faith because wee all belieue the Prime and chief Articles of Chlistianity Christs Incarnation Passion c. which with a good moral lyfe is sufficient for saluation nor is it possible that God will condemn a man that belieues those Articles and liues a good lyfe for denying Purgatory a tryfle nothing material if there be any or not This Omnifidian Doctrin of the Latitudinarians is now in great vogue and cryed vp for a charitable Doctrin that excludes none from saluation but lycenceth you to change Religions as your Interest or conuemency requires Out of this Principle follows that if they haue not the same Faith with the Roman Catholicks they haue not a sauing Faith otherwise there would be two sauing Faiths But they are not of the same Faith nay they are of a far different for it s not enough for vnity of Faith with the Catholicks to belieue the Prime fundamental Articles but all and euery particular Article though inconsiderable it may seeme to you which the Catholick Church proposes to be a reuealed truth any one Article that you deny though smale it be for example Purgatory breaks vnity of Faith with the Roman Catholick Church The Church belieues the Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament and belieues the Lawfullness of Marriage and the lawfullness of eating any victuals You cannot iustly say that one of these Articles is more Fundamental than the other why should the Lawfullness of Marriage be a Fundamental point of Religion more than the real Presence by your sence of Fundamental and not fundamental Articles they are of a seyse And what think you would he that agreeth in all other Articles and deny only the Lawfullness of Marriage would he I say haue vnity of Faith with the Catholick Church by your rule he would because he agrees in all fundamental and Prime points he only differs in an inferior truth a smale matter Yet S. Paul expresly sayes that he would not 1. Tim. 4.3 in the lather dayes certain vvill depart from the Faith obserue the word depart attending to the Spirit of errors and Doctrin of Deuils for bidding to Marry and abstain from meats Doth not this proue that the denyal of smale Articles breaks vnity of Faith you cannot therefore pretend to haue the same Faith with the Roman Catholicks that deny many Articles of their Faith Secondly the resurrection of the flesh is indeed a fundamental Article contained in the Apostles Creed but if it be to come at the end of the world or already past to such as are dead each soule after mans death reassuming again his body in a short tyme as Hymenaeus and Philetus said it s no fundamental Article as you Protestants vnderstand fundamentals for the chief and prime Articles yet S. Paul sayes of these two 2. Tim. 2.18 their speech spreadeth lyke Canker of vvhom is Hymenaeus and Philetus vvho haue erred from the truth saying that the Resurrection is past and haue subuerted the Faith of some Behold the denyal of smale and inferiour truths is called by S. Paul a spreading canker an erring from the truth a subuersion of the Faith it breaks therefore vnity of Faith and hence conclude that you haue not vnity of Faith with the Roman Church though you belieue with her the Trinity Incarnation and other chief Articles because you deny many others vnder the pretence of being smale and inferour Truths and deceiue not your self with that distinction of fundamental and not fundamental Articles wher with your Leaders do amuse you No article whateuer is man obliged to belieue if it be not sufficiently proposed to him that God has reuealed it and any article whateuer which is sufficiently proposed vnto vs to haue been reuealed by God wee are obliged vnder pain of damnation to belieue it so that as to our obligation of belieuing all Articles are equally fundamental if they be sufficiently proposed It s true som Mysteries of Faith are of their own Nature more requisit and needfull and on that account may be called fundamental as the Mystery of the Trinity and Christ his Incarnation but that is nothing to our purpose what obliges me to belieue them is not that they are so absolutly or greatly needfull for no such absolut nor great necessity of Christ his death can be proued he could haue redeemed vs with one tear he shed yet it is a fundamental Article because it is sufficiently proposed to me to be a truth reuealed so that in order to my obligation of belieuing all Articles sufficiently proposed as reuealed truths are equally fundamental And since that wee own our obligation of belieuing the Scripture to be Scripture Trinity and Incarnation vpon the testimony of the Church
which sayes they are reuealed Truths since the same Church declares that Purgatory also is a reuealed Truth I am as much obliged to belieue it as the Trinity and Incarnation though the Mysteries in them selues be of an infinit inequality By this it s proued that without the entyre belief of all and euery Article belieued by the Church of Rome you haue not one and the same Faith with her if you haue not her Faith you haue not the true sauing Faith for hers is such and there is but One if you haue not a true sauing Faith you cannot be saued therefore out of the Church of Rome there is no saluation Blame me not for this Assertion blame S. Paul who saies there is no saluation without Faith and saies there is but one Faith which wee haue proued and you confess to be our Faith blame S. Augustin epist 152. VVhoeuer is or shall be separated from the Catholick Church although he thinks himself to liue most laudibly for this one vvickedness that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ shall haue no lyfe but the vvrath of God remayns on him blame the Fathers of all ages who vnanimously agree in this that out of the true Church there is no saluation By what I haue discoursed in the first chap. it is euident there is but one Church by what I haue discoursed in the progress of this Treatise and especially in these two last chap. I proued that this one true Church is the Roman Catholick Church It s consequent therefore that out of her Faith and communion is no saluation Neither can wee be iustly accused of want of charity for holding this Tenet by your acknowledgment I mean the Protestants and Lutherans the Catholick Religion is a sauing Religion but no Religion is a sauing Religion that is not charitable witness S. Paul 1. Cor. 13.2 If I should haue Faith so as to moue mountains and haue no Charity I am nothing Therefore you cannot say but our Faith is a charitable Faith Answer me to this argument God has commanded vnder the dreadfull punishment of being blotted out of the book of lyfe to add nothing to or diminish any thing from his word Reuel 22.19 and Deut. 4.2 Either wee Catholicks do add to the substance and essentials of the Faith of Christ by belieuing real Presence and Purgatory to be fundamental points of Religion reuealed by God or you Protestants do diminish from the substance and essence of his Faith by denying those points and saying they are not substantial and essential points of Religion either then wee Catholicks must be blotted out of the Book of lyfe because wee belieue too much and impose vpon the flock a larger belief than Christ has or you Protestants must be blotted out of that book because you take away some fundamental points which Christ has reuealed it is therefore impossible that in both Religions a man be saued Either wee are not a sauing Religion because wee add fundamental points or you are not because you take them away But by your acknowledgment and by what wee haue proued wee are in a sauing Religion therefore you must confess that you are not Now wee must examin if ignorance can excuse the Protestants they pretend that they do not know they are in an error ad heer wee will answer to what Mr Sall auers that all Catholick Doctors confess that a Protestant baptized belieuing the Common Principles of Christianity not conuinced of error against Faith but conceiuing he follows the truth is not an Heretick but a member of the Catholick Church and so liuing a good lyfe may be saued for which he cites our Catholick Diuins It is the constant Doctrin of our schools that an inuincible ignorance of the Truth excuseth from the profession of it and saying that it is the constant Doctrin I need not cite Authors for it An inuincible ignorance is when you haue no means nor cannot get after a diligent enquiry any means for to ouercome it and be informed of the Truth The second position assented also vnto by our schools that a vincible supin or gross ignorance doth not excuse you from professing the Truth and this kind of ignorance you are in when you haue means afforded to you for to instruct you and through carelesness or some other motiue you do not make vse of those means or if you haue not those means at hand you may if you enquire for them get them and be instructed and in so weighty a matter as Christian Faith wherof depends your saluation did you know that in Constantinople you could find them you ought setting all other considerations asyde to go thither to seek them Now wee all grant that a Protestant who is inuincibly ignorant that has no way nor after due enquiry can get no means to ouercom his ignorance and be sufficiently informed of the truth of the Catholick Tenet such a man Baptized belieuing the common Principles of Christianity and liuing a good lyfe will be saued but this is smale comfort for of the Iews and Pagans wee must say the lyke Secondly a Protestant and there are I feare many of this sort that would amuse himself with the perswasion of being in an inuincible ignorance and that his Tenets will not condemn him because if in effect they should be false he is ignorant of that and his ignorance which he perswads himself to be inuincible will excuse him and will not be curious to enquire any more this man I auerr is in state of damnation for its a damnable sin to expose himself to a manifest danger of professing a damnable error but this man who perswades himself that he is inuincibly ignorant and sooths himself with that perswasion and so resteth content exposeth himself manifestly to the danger of holding a damnable error for what he has to secure him is only an inuincible ignorance and what if that ignorance be not truly inuincible what if he be not certain that his ignorance is inuincible then it cannot excuse him therefore wheras he does not certainly know that his ignorance is inuincible he exposes himself to manifest danger of professing a damnable error But howeuer the Principle taken in itself is true that if a Protestant be inuincibly ignorant it excuses him And wheras no man can certainly know that the ignorance of a Protestant it not inuincible only God can know that certainly it is rashness in any man to say this man that dyed in the Protestant Religion is damned For inuincible ignorance is a matter of fact it depends of that the truth was not sufficiently proposed that the means apointed by God for our instruction were not had or could not be had and how can you know certainly that all Protestants haue the truth sufficiently proposed to them or that they haue or can haue the sufficient means to be instructed in the truth nay or to doubt in the least of their own Profession for example a
may say what S. Paul said of the Lords supper This if worthily taken is life and saluation if vnworthily is damation if Scripture be vnderstood in the true sence intended by the Holy Ghost it leads to true Religion if vnderstood in the wrong sence it leads to perdition as S. Peter sayes 2. cpist 3.16 speaking of the Epistles of S. Paul the vnlearned and vnstable depraue them as the rest of the Scripture to their perdition by misunderstanding them Grant this volum to be the word of God the words of it may be and are interpreted in diuerse and quite opposit sences as that command of Christ he that vvill not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud shall not haue lyfe in him it is interpreted in three opposit sences by Lutherans Catholiks and Protestants and it is euident that Christ intended only one of the three sences wee are bound vnder pain of damnation to eat his flesh and drink his blood in that sence which he intended and no other will suffice the Scripture alone does not assure vs which of those three sences is that which Christ intended for wee haue all the Scripture wee read it wee study wee pray and wee cannot agree in the sence of those words either therefore there must be somwhat else beseids Scripture for to assure vs of the true sence of it or God has left vs with an obligation of belieuing and not afforded vs the sufficient means for to ascertain vs what he will haue vs to belieue To say that God giues an inward light and testimony of the spirit to the humble and well disposed harts which assures them the sence which they hold of the Scripture is the true sence is a groundless fancy exploded euen by the modern Protestants wheras those illuminated persons cannot be assured if that inward light be an illumination from God or an illusion of Satan often transfigured into an Angel of light our Controuersists haue fully refuted this foolish fancy I only add that if the means appointed by God to assure us of the true sence of Scripture be that inward light and testimony of the priuat spirit God has afforded no means for to keepe vs in vnity of Faith for there are as many different lights and testimonies of the spirit as there be men almost and so his house will not be a house of peace but of confusion and if that be the true sence of Scripture which the inward light and testimony of each mans spirit does suggest those lights and inward testimonies of the spirit being quite contradictorily opposit one to the other it follows that the H. G. intended quite opposit sences in each text of Scripture Nor could any man reasonably pretend to persuade an other to be of his religion for since he has no assurance of the truth of his Religion but what he has by that inward light and spirit how can he in reason go about to persuade me that his light and spirit is true rather than that which I haue my self so each man must be content to haue his Religion to himself and seeke no other to be of it S. Iohn 1. Epist 4.11 bids vs not to belieue euery spirit but to try it and in that very ch directs vs to a touch stone wherat to try our spirits He that knovveth God heareth vs he that is not of God heareth vs not in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth and the spirit of Error If your spirit heares and obeyes the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of Truth in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth in hearing vs not in reading vs. If your spirit will not heare the Church but prefer it self before the spirit of the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of error The means therefore to distinguish spirits to know the truth and the true sence of Scripture is not Scripture it self nor your inward light but the Church which is the approuer or reprouer of spirits The Modern Protestants haue found out an other way for to defend the sufficiency of Scripture for to vnderstand by it alone the true sence of it for say they though some text or texts of Scripture be obscure yet comparing them with other texts they are expounded and the true sence found by the scripture alone comparing one text with an other especially in what concerns the fundamental points of Religion necessary for saluation which are easily found and cleerly set down in Scripture Mr Sall pag. 105. of his discourse seems to be of this opinion saying that all necessary knovvlegde for Faith in God to serue and prayse him is fully contained in vvhat is cleer of Scripture There is nothing more cleer than that the Holy Scriptures are most obscure euen in points necessary for saluation the obscurity consisting in the hight of the Misteries it contains in the difficulty of its phrases in the seemingly contradictions it contains that the most learned men that euer were in the Church found it a task too great for their vnderstandings to expound it learned Protestants themselues do confess it and our Controuersists haue so euidenced it that it were a superfluous labor to proue it that only text of saint Peter 2. epist 3. ch which I quoted but now sufficiently proues it and that no text nor texts of scripture compared doth declare sufficiently euen the fundamental points of our Religion two instances do cleerly euidence First Gods Vnity in Nature and Trinity in Persons in all Christians acknowledgment is a fundamental article of Religion wee belieue he is One not in Person but in Nature wee belieue he is Three not in Nature but in Persons And what text or texts compared one with an other can you bring to shew this Mistery Let the dispute be betwixt a Protestant an Arrian and a Pagan suppose the Pagan confesses and agrees with both that the scripture is the word of God but will not admit that either the Protestant or Arrian is infallible in the interpretation of it how will the Protestant proue against the Pagan that God is One in Nature and Three in Persons He will alleadge out of saint Iohn 1. ep 5. the Father the son and the spirit and these Three are One the word One signifies Vnity in Nature and the word Three Trinity in Persons But sayes the Pagan that is against all reason and the principles of Philosophy that Three distinct Persons should haue but One Nature and though I do belieue the word of God to be infallibly true euen in what surpasses my reason yet I will not belieue against my reason but what the word of God does assuredly say and that text which you alleadge does only say they are One but does not express if that Vnity be in Nature or in Person nor doeth the text express that the Trinity is in Persons and not in Nature nay the Arrian who is a Christian as well as you saieth
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
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
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
Thes 2.13 vvhen you receiued from vs the vvord of the hearing of God you receiued it not as the vvord of Man but as indeed it is the vvord of God And therefore sayes he 1. Thes 4. S. he that despeiseth these things despeiseth not man but God Could a man speake more pertinently to signify that the doctrin of the Church is the doctrin of God that when wee heare her we heare him and that her words are infaillible wheras they are the words of God Observe that the Council of Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem Act. 15.28 deciding the Controuersy concerning Circumcision delivers their sentence thus It seemeth good to ihe Holy Ghost and to vs. Signifying that the resolution proceeded ioyntly from both from the Holy Ghost by his inward inspiration and direction from the Council by its outward declaration can wee doubt therefore but that the resolution of Controuersyes by that Council was infallibly true and not only of that but also of all succeeding Councils wheras the Apostles pronounced their sentence in those words grounded on the words of Christ He that heareth you heareth me grounded on the words of Christ Io. 15.26 vvhen the Paraclet vviâ—l come he shall giue testimony of me and you shall give testimony in which words Christ did speak to his Church which was the witness which ioyntly with the Holy Ghost was to giue testimony of him and grounded on the Promiss of his Paraclet which was made by Christ not only to the Apostles but to his Church for euer vntill the consummation of the vvorld This is yet more cleerly proved by the following discourse Christ commands vs to heare the Church that he that despeiseth her despeiseth him Lu. 10.16 to obserue and do what those that sit on Moyses his chayre bids vs do Mat. 23.2 commands them to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans that will not obey her S. Paul commands vs Heb. 13.17 not to be carried away with various and strang Doctrins but obey the Church wherin sayes he Eph. 4. God has placed Apostles Evangelists Doctors and Pastors to teach vs out of these and the lyke texts which are frequent in scripture largue thus He that does what Christ bids him do and belieues what he bids him belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour but Christ bids vs belieue and do what the Church commands vs to belieue and do as appeares by these texts therefore he that does what the Church commands him to do and belieues what she commands vs to belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour consequently what teuer the Church teachs is no errour To conclude S. Io. 1. epis 4.6 hauing warned vs to try our Spirits if from God or Satan he gives vs a rule wherby to try them he that knovveth God heareth vs he that knovveth not God heareth vs not In this vve knovv the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of errour This is the way prescribed by S. Iohn to ascertain vs of the nature of our Spirits if our Spirit be conformable to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of Truth if it does not conform itself to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of errour but if the Spirit of the Church de fallible it can give me no assurance of my Spirit whether it be of truth or of errour for what assurance can you haue that the Cloath which you measure is of a yard in length if you be not assured that the yard wherwith you measure it is an exact yard neither therefore can you be assured that your Spirit is of truth by trying it with the Spirit of the Church if you be not assured that the Spirit of the Church is of Truth But because our Aduersaries will still reply that all this is to be vnderstood of the Apostles who were infallible whylst they liued and are now infallible in their written word I haue already shewen that the written word is not sufficient to ascertain vs of the truth or vntruth of our Spirits and will now proue in this VI. CHAPT THAT NOT ONLY THE APOSTLES and Church in their dayes but that the Church in all succeeding ages is infallible THe Church of England confesses that the Apostles and Church in their tyme nay and for some ages after if you ask how many they do not agree was infaillible this is not consequent to their Principles that say only God is infallible but howeuer it s their Doctrin as appears in Mr Salls discourse pag. 18 professing to belieue the Holy scripture the Apostles Creed and S. Athanasius his Creed parallelling this wth the other two vvith the heauenly gift of faith and if the Council of Nice which deliuered vnto vs the doctrin contained in Athanasius his Creed had not been directed by the Holy Ghost as the Writers of the scripture were it were à Blasphemy to belieue that Creed and the doctrin of the Council with the same Faith with which wee belieue the scripture Now the Protestants all agree in this that now nor in these many ages the Church is not infallible for which assertion you must expect no scripture from them nor no reason but their bare word But let vs see what reason they pretend God say they having giuen vs an infallible written word sufficient to instruct vs Church infallibility was for the future needless what school boy but sees the weakness of this reason first after the scripture was written the Church continued infallible for some ages Mr Sall must confess by what I haue now said as generally all Protestants say and as all must say otherwyse Arrius and other Heresiarks might have questioned the truth of their doctrin if they had been fallible and could not be obliged in conscience to acquiesce to their iugdment nor ought not tobe held for Hereticks nor excommunicated for not submitting to them if they were fallible as yon do not esteem yourself an Heretick for not submitting to the Catolick Church on te same account S. Gregory l. 1. c. 24. sayes of the first four Councils I do embrace and reuerence the four General Councils as the four Books of the Ghospell which had been rashly and impiously said if they had not been infallible Secondly if Church infallibility was needbess because the scripture which is infallible was written then it was also needless that the Church should be infallible in fundamental points of Religion and yet Protestants do constantly auer that the Church is still infallible in fundamental points thought he scripture be infallible also in them Thirdly the Apostles remayned still infallible after the Scripture was written and why not the Church fourthly if infallibility is needless because the Scripture is infallible wee may say also that S Iohn is not infallible in is Ghos pell at least as to those points which were al ready mentioned in Mathew Mark and Luke or that these three lost their infallibility by the writing of S. Iohns Ghos pell because one infallible Ghos
Pope is infallible when wee say the Roman Catholick Church is infallible wee mean and all our Aduersaries know that the Church of Rome and all Churchs vniuersally spread throughout the world which are vnited with her in Faith and Communion either as she is diffused or representatiue in a General Council wherin Protestants are not included though a Christian Congregation because they are deuided from her This Church is the true vniuersal Church called Roman because the chief Pastor is in Rome called Vaiuersal because her Members are spread throughout the world of the infallibility of this Church Mr Sall speaks nothing but of the Pop's infallibity which is no Article of Faith which if an error is not of the Church and therefore ought not to leaue the Church for this reason When our Aduersaries are obliged and do promise to proue our errors by plain and vndeniable Scripture from the pag. 29. to 35. and from pag. 39. to 44. where Mr Sall vnder takes to proue this error not one text of Scripture does he alleadge but three so far from being plain and vndeniable that any man of common sense will find them impertinent the first ps 11.1 verities are mâ—imed among the children of Men. And how can this proue the Church to be fallible if it does not proue that the Apostles Euangelists and Prophets are also fallible who were Children of Men and if it does not proue the Church to be fallible also in fundamental points which Mr Sall and all Protestants deny The second all Men are Lyars Fallibility signifies only a possibility of deliuering an vntruth a Lyar is he that actually deliuers an vntruth and that against his own knowledge so that the text if it proues any thing to Mr Salls purpose it proues that the Apostles Euangelists and the Church of England are a company of fourbs that against their mind and knowledg deliuered vntruths for they are all men and all men are lyards The third text is out of S. Io. 16. prouing that the Paraclet was promised to the Church only vpon condition of louing God and keeping his Commandments to which I haue giuen a full answer ch 6â— reade there to saue me and yourself the trouble of a Tatalogy Thus Mr Sall has forsaken our Church and cannot proue by plain Scripture as he is obliged her errors Two reasons he alleadgs that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God and that there must be no such thing as infallibility of the Church wheras our Authors do not agree where to place it if in the Pope alone or in the Council to which reasons I haue sufficiently answered in the beginning of the 5. ch He sayes that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3. the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth must not be vnderstood of the Dioces of Rome and he knowes well that wee do not pretend it should wee pleade for the infallibility of the vniuersal Church as wee said but now He admires that Bellar should proue the Popes infallibility be the two Hebrew words signifying Doctrin and Truth placed by Gods command in the breast plate of the High Priest and thence drawes a consequence very absurd to him that the High Priest also must haue been infallible in the old Law I will not enlarge in this point because it concerns the Popes infallibility which is no Articles of Faith and only such I intend to vindicat but I must aduertise him of his ignorance in admiring it should be pretended that the High Priests of the Ancient Law were infallible wheras though monstrous it seems to him not only Catholick but Protestant Authors do teach it one I produce Doctor Porter a great Clerk in the Protestant Church in his book called Char. Mist pag. 35. The High Friests in cases of moment had a certain Priuiledge from error if he consulted the Diuine Oracle by the iudgment of vrim or by the breast-plate of iudgment vvherin vvere vrim and Thummim vvherby he had an absolut infallible direction And immediatly following if any such promiss made by God to assist the Pope could be produced his Decison might pass iustly for Oracles vvithout examination This blasphemy sayes he of parallelling the Pope with God in the Attribut of infallibility is raysed to a higher degree by their practice of making the Pope the suprem Iudge and Arbiter of Gods Lavvs And how does he proue this calumny Bellarmin l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say that if the Pope did command vices and prohibit virtues the Church vvould be obliged to belieue vice to be good and virtue bad And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be preferred before the institution of Christ vvheras hauing confessed that our sauior did ordain the Communion vnder both kinds to the Layty and that the Apostles did practise it they commanded it should be giuen for the future but in one kind alleading for reason that the precedent Popes and Church did practise it so vvhich is to extoll the Decrees of Popes aboue them of Christ as if the Lavvs of England vvere not to be vnderstood or practifed in Ireland but accordging to the vvill and declaration of the King of France certainly the King of France vvould be deemed of more Povver in Ireland than the King of England and the People more his subiects Answer Bellarmin in that place speaks expresly of vices and virtues when there is a doubt of their being such as for example vsury is a vice of its nature bad per se malum now wee all know it to be such and restitution to be a virtue if there should arryse a doubt of vsury's being a vice and in that case the Pope should command vsury to be practised then wee should be obliged to practise vsury and Bellar. giues the reason quia tenetur Ecclesia in rebus dubys acquiescere iudicio summi Pontificis Because in dubious cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope Behold how Bellar speaks in case of doubt that vice is vice and virtue is virtue for in that case the Pope as being the chief Pastor is in possession of the obligation of being obeyed by Gods command and a doubtfull excuse cannot exempt the subiects from their apparent duty Melior est conditio possidentis The Council of Constance knew that though the Communion was instituted and practised by the Apostles in both kinds yet Christ left it arbitrary to his Church to giue it either in one or both which I will proue in the discourse of Half Communion and therefore finding that Christ himself and his Apostles somtymes gaue it in one and that the precedent Popes for iust reasons had commanded it should be receiued so issued that Decree of receuing it in one kind And it is false what you say that they alleadged no other reason for so doing but the Decrees of precedent Popes they alleadged also for reason the example of Christ and his Apostles who gaue it in one
kind Though Christ washed his Disciples feet before he gaue the Communion Might not the Council say Notvvithstanding that Christ did vvash the Receiuers feet yet vvee do not require that ceremony because that though he did so he did no oblige vs to it it s so in this case though in the institution he gaue both kinds he did not oblige to giue both and therefore the Council might haue commanded to giue but one which was not to prefer their Decrees to his institution but to make vse of the Power he gaue them Your example of the King of France proues against you for if the King of France had the Power and command from him of England to interpret the Laws and the Irish were commanded by him to vnderstand and practise them as the King of France should interpret them and not otherwse certainly you would not say in that case that the King of France woul haue more command and Prower in Ireland than the King of England if to flatter his Excellency you haue not a mind tn say that the Lord Lieutenant has more Prower in Ireland than the King and so bid fayre for a haulter Another example to proue wee extoll the Papal Laws aboue the Diuine Costerus sayes he c. 15. 17. he sould haue said prop. 9. doubts not to auerr that it is a greater sin in a Priest to Marry which he confesses is but a transgression of a Papal Law than to keep a Concubin which is against the Law of God You belye Costerus in saying that the Marriage of a Priest is but a transgression of a Papal Law Though it be but a Papal Law that any who receiueth Priesthood shall make a vow of Chastity yet the vow being once made it s a transgression against the Diuine Law to violat it a breach of vow a sacriledg sayes Costerus And this being euident it s no less that it is agreater sin for him to marry first because he shews by marrying that he is an Heretick belieuing that to be a marriage which really is none Secondly by marrying he testifies a steddy resolution of perseuearing in the sin Canus sayes he and others cited by him do auer that the Church can err materially and consequently allows no more infallibility to the Church than to a priuat Doctor Answer Canus and other Diuins say that the Church an err materially in matters of fact as I will declare in the next ensuing Point but in Points of Doctrin no Catholick sayes that the Church can err nor materially and Priuat Doctors can err not only materially but formally Lastly he impugns our Doctrin of infallibility with an argument as old as the Reformation because wee cannot proue it but by Scripture and wee proue Scripture again by the infaillibility of the Church and this again by Scripture and so go still round in circle which is ridiculous in the schools and hence he takes occasion to pick aquarrel with Becanus to no other effect but that his Auditory should vnderstand that he was acquainted with the works of great Diuins But I will declare how wee can easily expound the Resolution of our Faith without any Circle which I am sure the Protestants will neuer do An act of Faith is an Assent to a truth which is obscure and reason cannot comprehend an argument of things not appearing sayes S. Paul only because it is sufficiently proposed to vs that God reuealed it and therefore S. Paul calls it a captiuating of our vnderstanding which is to say sumission of our Reason By Resolution of Faith the Diuins vnderstand To declare the Motiue why I belieue or the ground whervpon our Faith doth rest God doth not require of vs to belieue suddainly that a doctrin is reuealed by him because the Proponent tells vs so S. Peter calls Faith a Reasonable Obsequy wee must haue strong reasons to moue vs for to belieue a Truth to be reuealed before wee giue our Assent therefore before the Act of Faith and in human Faith also it s so wee haue som inward dispositions preuious to the Assent a good opinion of the Proponent for his lyfe for his actions and conuersation which prepare our vnderstanding representing it reasonable to belieue what is proposed Christ himself when he came to preach did not oblige the Iews to belieue abruptly that he was the son of God but began with a Holy lyfe admirable doctrin miracles and supernatural signs and these were preuious dispotions to prepare them that hauing such strong and credible Motiues for to iudge him a Person aboue the rank of Ordinary men they should belieue him when he should teach them that he was the son of God wheras it was incredible that God should credit him with such supernatural works and continual marks of his beneuolence if he were an impostor This appears in the passage of the Blind man cured by Christs Io. c. 9. the Scribs and Pharisees said Christ was a sinner the Blind Man argued No in as much as he worked so great a miracle in him Nisi hic homo esset à Deo non poterat facere quid quam if this man vvere not from God he could do nothing all this whyle he did not belieue that Christ was God but a man from God extraordinarily fauored by him He being thus prepared with these external Motiues and iudgment of credibility wherby he iudged Christ to be somwhat more than ordinary Christ meets him again and bids him belieue in the son of God yea said he vvho is he behold how he was ready and prepared by that precedent iudgment for to belieue He that speaks to you is he said Christ and presently he belieued Credo Domine You see the Motiue of his Assent was the testimony of Christ which he thought he was bound to belieue hauing formerly seen his works which made it euidently credible to him that he must speake but truth wheras they proued him to be a man from God Thus the People of Samaria belieued him to be the son of God when they did heare him because they were preuiously disposed by the words of the Samaritan and the miracle she related of him Thus the Prophets and Apostles proceeded preparing their Auditory with the Holyness of their lyues secret energy of their doctrin miracles and supernatural signs which moued men to iudge that they were sent by God and that they could not be Cheats and the People which is to be obserued would be iudged obstinat and were iudged obstinat such as did not belieue their doctrin when they did see them or though they did not see them but were credibly informed by those that did see them Wee haue in the former part of this Treatise shewen the great inducements and Motiues wee haue to iudge that the Roman Catholick Church beyond all Congregations in the word is particularly fauored by God the sanctity of her doctrin the conuersion of Nations by her vnto a doctrin so seemingly contrary to reason and