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
without feare of being mislead that rest of mind in the assurance of the truth for you may err by belieuing fallibility as I haue by belieuing infallibility my condition then is still better than yours and my doctrin to be prefered before yours Your Church as you confess may err in points of Religion whence it manifestly follows that it is not the true sence of Scripture that leads you in the road to Religion for the true sence of Scripture is absolutly infallible I ask you therefore on what do you ground your Faith You tell me that vpon the Scripture as interpreted by your Church and comparing one text with an other but it may happen that your Church may err in the interpretation that you confess for you say the true Church may err now I argue thus whoeuer may err relying vpon a Principle can neuer be sure that he does not err whylst he relyes only on that Principle this proposition is vndeniable for if he can err relying on that Principle it s because the Principle is fallible and if the Principle be fallible it alone without the help of some other can neuer giue any assurance that you do not err for example you belieue the King is in London because an honest Man tells you so that is a fallible ground which you rely on and you may err by relying on that ground and as long as you rely only on that mans testimony and haue no other you will neuer be assured of the Kings being at London You belieue the Church fallibility and on what ground do you rely on Scripture as interpreted by the Church you may err relying on this Principle as you confess therefore as long as you rely on this Principle only and haue no other you can neuer be assured that you do not err the Church of England has no other nor will admit no other Principle to ground their Faith vpon but the Scripture interpreted by her and comparing one text with an other therefore she can neuer be assured of the doctrin she belieues consequently cannot be assured of the fallibility of the true Church What will you say in this case there is a Man accused of Murther before your tribunal he does not only deny the fact but many circumstances fauours his innocency and the very Person that accuses him saies he is not sure he is the Murtherer surely you would not condemn this Man to death it being against all the maxims of iustice to punish a man that is not conuicted criminal This is the very matter in hand the true Church is accused of fallibility and falshood in her doctrin the circumstances of hauing florished for so many ages in the credit of an infallible Oracle fauors her innocency and her Accuser which is the Church of England does confess that she may err in her accusation and consequently must confess as wee proued that she cannot be sure she does not err for she grounds her accusation on the Scripture interpreted by her in which she may err and whylst she has no other Principle but that she can neuer be certain she does not err will not you then acquit the Church of whose crime her accuser is not sure as you would that Man accused of Murther Add this discourse to the former it is a Principle in all well gouerned Commonwealhs that a preacable Possessor is not to be disturbd from his possession vntill that by vnquestionable proofs he be conuicted an vniust vsurper or detainer no coniectures nor probable reasons will put him out of possession he will still with a safe conscience maintain it and the law will continue him in it vntill that by euident proofs he be conuicted The true Church was in all ages in peacable possession of this prerogatiue of infallibility neuer denyed to her but by some few condemned Heretiks what euident vnquestionable proofs can you bring to conuince her an vniust vsurper or detainer of it Reason affords you none for to say that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God is impertinent wheras she clayms no other infallibility but such as you grant to the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists but say you in a General Council which is a multitude of Men where a point of Religion is to be resolued by the maior part of Votes and where passion and interest somtymes may sway it may happen that an errour may haue more Abettors and truth be out voted This is to say that God has no Prouidence ouer his Church since he has promised the conduct of his infallible spirit to her for to lead her into all truth and keep her vnspotted from all errours let each particular of that multitude be euer so corrupt in himself God who can as easily gouern the harts of many as of one will not permit them to determin an errour nor truth to be out voted Was not the Council of the Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem a multitude Were not the first four General Concils multitudes which the Protestants confess to haue been infallible and guided by Gods spirit which was as necessary to the Councils of succeeding ages the emergent Controuersyes being no fewer in number nor less in weight Neither does Scripture afford you any match if you can these texts I am vvith you all the dayes untill the consummation of the vvorld Math. 28.20 and if the Church did teach an vntruth would Christ be with her then He vvill give you an other Paraclet the Spirit of Truth that vvill abyde vvith you for euer vvho vvill leade you into all truth Io. 14.16 vvhen the Paraclet vvill come vvhom I vvill send from my Father the Spirit of truth he vvill giue testimony of me and you vvill giue testimony Io. 15.26 the Paraclet and the Chruch are ioynt Witnesses of the truth Nor does experience fauor you all that you can shew is that some Pope did err or that some Council did err but that 's not to the purpose if you do not shew which you will neuer do thal a Pope and Council together has erred wheras therefore neither scripture Reason nor experience doth afford you any vnquestionable evident proofs that the Chruch is an vnuist vsurper or detainer of that prerogatiue of infaillibility which she has en ioyed in all ages why will you pretend to disturb her peacable possession Let vs heare what the scripture suyes Lu. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Christ spoke to his Apostles and Disciples on whom he layd the charge of teaching and preaching and who were the Church representatiue whateuer therefore wee heare from the Chruch representatiue wee heare it from Christ whateuer the Church speaks Christ speaks otherwyse wee should not heare Christ speak when wee heare the Church speake the Church therefore is the Mouth by which Christ speaks and as we cannot heare an vntruth from him as he cannot speak any so she cannot speake nor be heard to speake an vntruth this is de clared by S. Paul 1.
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
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