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
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
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
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.
yong Lad that neuer left his Fathers house neuer heard of Catholick Religion but all to desaduantage has no Catholick to confer with or if any not such as can giue him satisfaction he is through sickness or other impediments vnable to go in search of Priests or learned men he liues in his own Profession well can you be sure that this Lads ignorance was not inuincible for my part I iudge there are som though but few I feare that haue an inuincible ignorance I say but few for the reason I will produce soon But of learned men and men vers'd in the transactions of ages wee may haue moral assurance that their ignorance cannot be inuincible and of them we may say that if God has not giuen them som inward light in the last gasp and an act of contrition which yet to vs is vn knowen but that they dyed in the belief of their Tenets they are damn'd The reason why I say that but few Protestants can haue an inuincible ignorance of our Catholick Doctrin is All men are perswaded that there is a true Church and there is nothing more euident to any man of common sense than that all those Congregations and each of them which wee see among vs of Quakers Presbyterians Anabaptists Protestants Catholiks are not the true Church this I say is apparent to any man of common sense because each of vs condemns not only the external gouernement but the Tenets of the other and though all the rest ioyns to oppose the Catholick yet take them seperatly they are as apposit against one an other as they are against vs. In this confusion there is a very easy way to find out which of all is the true Church for what is more easy for a man that reflects seriously vpon the concerns of Religion which euery man is obliged in conscience to do than to learn by the Chronicles of England and by the seueral Historyes that are written when did these that wee call Reformations begin on what occasion and where in the world was there any such thing as Protestant Church Presbyterian Church c. two hundred and four years agon There is not a child in the Parish hardly but knows that Luther and Caluin began the Reformation which now is called Protestant Presbyterian c. in opposition to Popery which was as they pretended full of errors then Mass was banished Bishops Monks and Priests were exiled and their Lands forfeited the Churches were taken from vs and the Reformation introduced I know the Protestant will reply thath his Religion is Apostolical that it was the very Religion which Christ established and the Apostles preached but this consideration is too heigh for men of common vnderstanding this point cannot be soon cleered therefore I will not now engage in it because I pretend to shew to men of common vnderstanding an easy way to find out if this or that be a true Church whether your Religion was in the Apostles tyme or no you cannot deny but that which you call the Reformation is but of less than two hundred years date The ruins of the Churchs and Abbyes the Church Lands the Crosses placed in the heigh way and seueral other marks yet extant of Popery do testify it was the Catholick Religion that was the Religion of the Land your Chronicles beare witness it was it that florished for so many ages before in it your Ancestors did liue and dye This no man but knows This supposed there is no man of common sense if he reflects on the affairs of his saluation which reflexion wee are all obliged to make but is obliged to doubt of this Reformation or any branch of it be the true Religion you say men of common sense and of good vnderstanding do not doubt of it notwithstanding all what wee haue premissed but I say that they are obliged in conscience to doubt of it if they do not its through a supin and gross negligence of their saluation which is culpable and damnable I say they are bound in conscience to doubt of it first because common sense if not byass'd by som preiudice does dictat to any man that nouelties and innouations in matters of Religion are to be suspected and this pretended Reformation is such that was vn knowen to the world the day that Luther began it and to all the precedent ages for neuer was there any such thing as Protestancy spoken of Secondly because common sense dictats to a man that an ancient Religion which florished and which and noe other was established in all Christiandom ought not to be reuersed by a priuat Man as Luther was without sheuving by Miracles and supernatural signs that he was commissioned by God for so great a work and wheras Luther did shew no such no Protestant dare say that euer he did the truth of his Reformation ought to be doubted of Thirdly that very Catholick Church which he opposed was in former ages often opposed by others and she still remayned victorious and her opposers condemned for Hereticks which to any rational man is a sufficient ground for to doubt that Luther also might be such as the other opposers were And if you say that you ought not to doubt because your Ancestors haue sufficiently examined the causes of that Reformation and found them to be iust and that you receiue the Faith you profess from them and that you rely on their word I answer for one Ancestor of yours who approued the Reformation a hundred of your Ancestors approued the old Catholick Religion without any such Reformation And were there no other cause for any man of common sense for to doubt of the truth of the Reformation than that the very Reformers and their respectiue successors are deuided among themselues some of them approuing in the Catholick Church for good Doctrin what others condemn for an error this very dissention ought to make the Reformation suspected For Caluin and his Disciple which are the Church of England in so much condemns the Real Presence of Christ his Body in the Euchartst Luther and his Disciples do firmly belieue the Real Presence Luther condemns the Catholick Church for belieuing S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrevvs and some other parts of Scripture to be Canonical Caluin with the Church of England says the Catholicks do well and they also belieue them to be Canonical Seueral other examples wee could bring of Doctrins that some of the Reformers condemn for errors in the Catholick Church and other Reformers say they are no such ought not this to make vs doubt of the truth of this Reformation Now that it is apparent that any man man of common sense who reflects on Religion ought to doubt of this Reformation the way to satisfy his doubt is very easy For if he finds that the Catholick Church does in this age and in Luthers and each of the precedent ages work Miracles in confirmation of her Doctrin and that the Reformation nor any branch
true but what Mr Sall might well condole is the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the oath of supremacy that the King of England is head of the Church and let him consider if it be not cruelty against soules to oblige them to sweare a thing that not only Catholicks but all sectaries out of England denies nay Caluin in cap. 6. Amos Prophetae sayes Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae fuerunt homines inconsiderati erant enim Blasphemi cum eum vocarent summum Caput Ecclesiae And the very Protestant Doctors themselues not agreeing in what sence and how far is it true that the King is supream Head of the Church the poore People must be forced to sweare it Then say you the Council of Lateran erred in assuming that Power when it decreed Princes who did not purge their Territories from Heresies should be depriued of their Lands You abuse the Council neither it nor any other Council did no assume that Povver as you say but finding that is was that the probable and perhaps as they supposed the most probable opinion of Diuins that the Church had that power grounded their fact vpon that opinion and issued their Decree of that punishment against such Princes And the Catholicks who deny any such Power in the Church do not nor any man cannot say the Council erred formally that 's to say blameably in that Decree because it was grounded vpon a probable opinion and it is not requisit in any Tribunal for the iustice of a Decree or sentence that it be grounded vpon infallible grounds And the Catholicks who deny that power do say that Decree was Materially erroneous because the opinion vpon which the Council was grounded was false whence you can only gather that the Council may err Materially only in matters of fact such as that was but in Doctrina fidei morum in Doctrin of Faith and Manners it cannot err neither formally nor Materially because it is assisted in that Doctrin constantly by Gods infallible Spirit Transubstantiation How strangly Mr Sall is blinded in calling vs Idolaters for belieuing Christs real personal Presence in the Sacrament and pag. 116. sayes wee will be damned for this and orher Tenets if ignorance does not excuse vs and yet the Lutherans who are the Elder Brethren of the pretended Reformation whom Protestants do embrace and receiue to their Communion belieue that real personal Presence of Christ as well as wee are they Idolaters also and will they be damn'd if ignorance does not excuse them or will it be pardonable in them and damnable in vs He sayes wee haue no pertinent text of scripture for it pag. 21. and 28. but I defy him with all his Diuinity to answer me to these two following syllogism grounded vpon most cleer texts first Luk. 22.19 eate this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you The text declares he gaue them somwhat what to eat wee say it was his Real Body and proue it He gaue to them that which he gaue for them the text sayes it eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you But what he gaue for them was not a figure but his real and true Body therefore what he gaue to them was not a figure but his true and Real Body it will be no answer to say that he gaue to them figuratiuely what he gaue for them really for the text makes no distinction betwixt what he gaue to them and what he gaue for them and if you presume to say that what he gaue to them was but a figuratiue why may not wee as well say that what he gaue for them was but a figure and so fetch from Hell again the Heresy of Marcion that what suffered for vs was but a Phantastical Body For to leade you the second syllogism obserue that when the Multitude Io. 6. said This saying is hard hovv can this man giue vs his flesh to eate Christ called them Vnbelieuers There be som of you vvho do not belieue nay sayes they are damnable vnbelieuers v. 54 He that vvill not eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood shall not haue lyfe in him Obserue secondly that what the Iews though hard and impossible was that Christ should giue them to eate his true and real flesh for no man could apprehend any difficulty in that Christ should giue the figure of his Body wheras they did eat yearly the Paschal Lamb which they belieued to be the figure of the Messias Christ promised what they iudged hard and impossible what they iudged hard and impossible was not that he should giue a figure of his flesh but his true and real flesh therefore what Christ promised was not a figure but his real and true flesh and Mr Sall himself pag. 63. does acknowledge that the Iews did vnderstand Christ to haue spoken of his true and real flesh The Ievvs vnderstood him to haue spoken of a corporal and fleshy eating as the Papists do Now answer me I pray to this syllogism A damnable vnbelieuer is he who denies a Truth sufficiently proposed to him to be reuealed by God The Iewes in this occasion were damnable vnbelieuers and what they denied was a fleshy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it therefore Christ in this occasion did sufficiently propose vnto them a fleashy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it Pag. 63. he rayses an argument vpon this text for the figuratiue presence for sayes he the Ievvs vnderstood him to speake of a corporal and fleshy eating of his Body as Papists do and so represented difficulties that reason dictated against the lyke expressions as vvee did in the beginning of this discourse but he did correct their vnderstanding by his subsequent vvords v. 63. it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the vvords that I speak are spirit and lyfe by vvhich he dravveth them from the apprehension of a corporal eating to that of a spiritual feeding consequently Christ did meane a figuratiue spiritual eating of his flesh thus Mr Sall. By this you acknowledge that the Iews did not apprehend or think of any figuratiue eating consequently they could not either belieue it or deny it for how can a man deny that which neuer fell into his apprehensions tell vs therefore what is that which they denyed and denyed damnably they could not deny but that which they apprehended was spoken and what they apprehended as you confess was a corporal fleshy eating That therefore they must haue denyed therefore they were called vnbelieuers but how were they damnably vnbelieuers if Christ did not sufficiently and credibly propose vnto them a corporal and fleshly eating For none is bound to belieue if the reuealed Truth be not sufficiently and credibly proposed to him either therefore Christ his words My flesh is truly meat my Blood is truly drink did sufficiently and credibly propose a corporal eating of his real flesh or they ought not
assured this is our case in the adoration of the Host And hence wee cannot but condemn your intollerable rashness in saying that it s an intollerable boldness to auer that there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host as there is for the adoration of Christs Diuinity for if you vnderstand our Doctrin which is that there is as much reason for adoring an Host truly consecrated as there is for adoring the Diuinity of Christ it is most manifestly true wheras Faith teacheth vs that the Host truly consecrated is God and man Iesus Christ really present If you do not vnderstand our doctrin its intollerablerashness in you to censure what you do not vnderstand Half Communion We will declare our Tenet by a comparison of the Communion with the Sacrament of Baptism both are commanded by Christ if one be not born again by vvater and the Spirit he shall not enter into the King dom of Heauen Io. c. 6. and in the same chap. if you do not eate the sllesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you In the Sacrament of Baptism you must distinguish the substance and essence of it from the circumstances and manner of receiuing it The substance and essence of it consists in being regenerated by water for that is required by Christ expresly in the text the manner how this regeneration is made is by one total immersion of the Body in water or by three distinct immersions or without any total immersion but by sprinkling some principal part of the Body with water what concerns the essence of this Sacrament to be by vvater is indispensably requisit cannot be altered what concerns the manner of receiuing it Christ left that arbitrary to the Church and did not oblige either to one total immersion nor to three nor to sprinkling but to either of the three wayes Hence it is that though Christ did baptize the Apostles with a total immersion of their Bodyes as Ancient Authors do auerr if by three or one immersion wee know not though this manner of Baptizing by a total immersion was practised by the first age and some ages of the Church and that wee do not reade that Baptism should haue been administred in those ages by a sprinkling of the Body with water yet the Church in succeeding ages for iust reasons requiring it has seueral tymes altered this manner some tyme they ordained that Baptism should be giuen with three total immersions in hatred of the Heresy of them that denyed three persons in God and to signify that there was in God but vnity as well in Person as in Nature would not baptize but with one immersion Some tyme the Church commanded Baptism to be giuen with one immersion in opposition of Hereticks that would not baptize but with three to signify that the three Persons were of different Natures Thus you will find that in the 50. Canon of the Apostles three immersions are commanded in the 4. Council of Toledo but One S. Gregory writing to S. Leander sayes it may be administred either of both wayes and lastly the Church in consideration that many Infants especially in the Northren Kingdoms through the Coldness of the Climat dyed by the total immersion of their Bodyes commanded the Sacrament should be administred with the sprinkling of some principal part of the Body with water and this manner is vsed also by the Protestants who do not rebuke the Church for omitting the triple immersion practised by the Apostles Thus in the Eucharist wee must distinguish the essence of it from the circumstances That consists in eating and drinking the Body and blood either vnder Accidents of bread alone or wine alone or bread and wine together this is indispensably requisit to neither in particular did Christ oblige vs but left it arbitrary to the Church to determin as tymes and iust occasions required and that Christ did not oblige vs to any of those different manners in particular but left it arbitrary to the Church first the text it self declares it for when he gaue the Cup he did not absolutly command the vse of it saying Do this in commemoration of me but Do this as often as you shall drink in commemoration of me which is not a command of Drinking but when wee shall drink to do it in commemoration of him Secondly wee haue a positiue example of Christ himself that once gaue the Communion in the accidents of bread alone to his disciples in the way towards Emaus wee haue no positiue example in Scripture that Christ should baptize som tymes by sprinkling the Body with water sometymes by one total immersion and yet wee confess that Baptism may be administred any of these three wayes as the Church shall ordain wee haue no positiue example that Christ should haue giuen the Eucharist sometymes in Leuen sometymes in Azim bread and yet the Church may giue it in either and hauing a positiue example that he gaue the Sacrament once in bread and wyne and once at least in bread alone why cannot wee conclude that the Church may do so also Christ gaue the Sacrament at night is it therefore it cannot be giuen in the morning Christ gaue it after the corporal repast is it therefore it cannot be receiued fasting Christ washed his Apostles feet when he gaue it is it therefore needfull to wash the receiuers feet That non obstante of the Council of Constance that so much surprises poore Mr Sall as if the Council had been presumptious in prohibiting the vse of the Chalice hauing confessed that Christ and the Apostles gaue it to the faithfull argues nothing of presumption for as the Council knew that Christ and the Apostles gaue the Cup to the Layty so it knew also that sometymes they gaue only the Bread and therby did vnderstand that it was left in the power of the Church to giue the Sacrament in either of both kinds Vpon this ground did the Council of Constance and does the Church now prohibit the Chalice iust reasons mouing them to it First that if the Cup should be giuen that would hinder the frequent Communion to which the Church doth exhort vs much for wherethe wine is scant and deere and the Communicants thousands in number the expences would be great secondly People would conceiue a horror against the Communion if they were obliged to drink out of the same Cup with sickly Persons perhaps with contagious diseases Thirdly the Communion would be morally impossible to many that can not endure the tast of wyne Fourthly the danger of the effusion of some drops in a great multitude of Communicants these and many other reasons haue moued the Church to command the vse of the bread alone Heere indeed comes very pertinently Mr Salls argument against the real Presence The Communion vnder both kinds is not needfull neither for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament nor for the effects which by it
this Tenet of ours iugde you what strong considerations moued him to desert our Church He ads the folly of two Spanish fryers that beyond all measure euen of the Catholik Principles as he grants pag. 75. exceeded in the prayses of Saints and he would be no longer a Catholick since there were such madmen amongst vs and perhaps some Protestants will haue the lyke encouragement for to leaue that Church since Mr Sall is entred into their Congregation But if by your acknowledgment these excesses are against our Principles therefore you grant that our Principles do not wrrant any excesses in the Inuocation of Saints why therefore did you leaue the Church whose Principles are sound because some fryers played the foole a pretty reason Now that I haue answered your obiections Mr Sall y pray answer me to this discourse that the Saints in Heauen do pray for vs I proue it thus and if I be not mistaken euidently in the Principles of Religion The Saints in Heauen know euidently that there is a Militant Church on earth for they euidently know that the Resurrection or general Iudgment is not as yet come wheras they know that they haue not assumed their Bodies consequently they know the world is not ended and that there is a militant Church on earth Also they know euidently that this militant Church is in continual warfare still assaulted by Satan with temptations beset with spiritual dangers for this is the Essence of a Militant Church and in this it is distinguished from the Triomphant that This is out of all danger That is in continual battle by this it appeares that the Saints in Heauen are not altogether ignorant of our affaires on earth as our Aduersaries would haue them to be Now I proceed in my discourse can it be imagined that the Saints in Heauen knowing our temptations and battles with so fierce an enemy as Satan should be so deuoid of Charity as not to pray for vs I know not what you may answer but I know what some answer that they can not pray for being rauish'd with the possession of an acomplisht Bliss they cannot mind any thing els but the glory of the obiect which they see But this is in credible that the Deuils in the bitterness of their torments should not forget vs nor the hight of miseries should not allaytheir malice but still tempt vs and the saints and Angels should abate their Charity in the greatness of their glory specially that Christ sayes S. Paul Rom. 8. prayes inessantly for vs the possession therefore of the glory cannot hinder the saints prayers for vs. But I proue that their glory obliges them to pray for vs you cannot deny but that in the possession of that glory they ardently desire the exaltation of Gods name the increase of his glory the confusion of his enemy Satan and what greater confusion of Satan what greater exaltation of Gods name and glory than the victory of men against Satan the victory of those that are tempted by him and finally mens saluation vndoubtedly then wheras they euidently know that the Militant Church is in continual battle against that enemy in continual temptations and dangers of damnation the very possession of that glory makes them desire ardently and wish our victoryes and saluation this wish and desire of theirs you cannot deny but that it is manifest to God and what els I ask you is a Prayer but a pious desire of a thing represented to God it is euident therefore that the saints and Angels pray for vs to God This discourse you will say proues that the triumphant Church and each particular of it knows the wants of the Militant Church in general but not of each particular or of any particular person of the Militant Church therefore wee particular Persons ought not to pray to any of the Triumphant Church wheras they do not know if wee pray or any of our particular affairs But the argument proues at least that the saints departed and Angels are Mediatours for the Militant Church in general and so all Mr Salls discourse for the only Mediatourship of Christ falls to ground more ouer I will proue by Scripture and reason that they know the temptations and dangers of particular Persons of the Militant Church and consequently the former discourse proues that they pray for particular persons and heare their prayers Lu. 15. it s said that the Angels reioyce at and consequently know the conuersion of a sinner the Deuils know the state and condition of particular persons and by their temptations allures them to sin the glorious Spirits therefore who in their natural knowledge are equal to and in supernatural surpasse them do know no less neither is it credible that God should permit the Deuil to know mans condition to tempt him and should not permit the glorious Spirits especially our Angels keepers to help and defends vs the Protestants ought not to question this wheras in their Common Prayer Book they haue this Collect on S. Michael the Archangels day the 29. of Sept God vvho in a vvonderfull manner dispenseths the Ministeries of Men and Angels grant that as they do thee constantly assist in heauen so by thy appointment they may succour and defend vs on earth God therefore vseth the Ministery of Angels to help men and consequently Angels know mens particular affairs That there are witches in the world may not be denyed if wee will not condemn most Commonwealths of folly and iniustice which punish many for such and if wee will not laugh at Scripture which relates 1. Reg. 28. that Saul by the help of a witch raysed the Spirit of Samuel that the witchs inuoke and are heard by the Deuils its out of doubt and shall the Glorious Spirits be deaf to them that inuoke them lastly many examples are recorded in Scripture of the ministery exhibited by Angels to men 3.19.6 Reg. 1. Gen. 48.16 and 16.4 Reg. 19.34 And that saints also departed know our affairs and do assist vs the Scripture doth witness it Saul all fraught with afflictions finding no comfort in the liuing betooke himself to the Spirit of Samuel deceased 1. Reg. 28. this proues that men in those dayes did belieue that the saints departed know our aflairs and can help vs and Samuels answer to him does euidence the same Elias departed this world that 's to say all commerce with human kind the 18. yeare of Iosaphas Reygn as appears 3. Reg. 22. and 4. Reg. 2. and 3. Iosaphat dyed about seauen years after which was the 25. yeare of his reygn as appears 3. Reg. 22. Ioram succeeded to Iosaphat and Elias that departed from all human commerce seauen years before writ a letter to him rebuking him for his wickedness and threatning him with Gods indignation can there be amore manifest proof that the saints departed know our affairs and do help vs S. Peter 2. epist c. 1. tells the Christians to whom he writ that his death was at
forgiuen him but he that vvill speake against the H. G. it shall not be forgiuen him either in this vvorld nor in future I argue thus the text denies to a blasphemy against the H. G. what it grants to a blasphemy against the son of Man But what it denies to That is remission in this lyfe and the other therefore what it grants to This is remission in this lyfe and the other The text sayes again in this place Euery sin and blasphemy shall be forgiuen to men but a blasphemy against the H. G. Is it nor an euident sequele out this text that as a blasphemy against the Spirit is vnpardonable so all other sins are pardonable but a blasphemy against the Spirit is vnpardonable in this world and in the future therefore other sins are pardonable in both You will reply that this argument proues too much for it proues that as a blasphemy against the H.G. is vnpardonable in the other lyfe not only as to the punishment due to the sin but also as to the guilt or fault so other sins are pardonable in the other lyfe not only as to the punishment due to sin which is what wee pretend but also as to the fault or guilt of sin which is more than wee pretend for wee teach that Mortal sins are not forgiuen as to the guilt or fault in the other world therefore this argument proues too much Answer that a sin may be said vnpardonable its requisit that Nothing of it be pardonable for as the schoole Maxim sayes Negatio totum destruit wheras therefore the text imports that a blasphemy against the H. G. is vnpardonable in this lyfe and the future it follows that nothing either the guilt or fault of it or the punishment due to it be pardoned either in this lyfe or the future But that a sin may be said pardonable it suffices that some part of it at least may be pardoned wheras therefore our argument proues that sins are pardonable in the other lyfe its requisit that some part of it be pardoned or pardonable in the other lyfe either the guilt of sin or the punishment due to it Not the guilt or fault as wee belieue and proue by many euident arguments therefore the punishment due to it He tells vs the doctrin of Purgatory makes men negligent of true repentance and satisfaction for their sins in this lyfe for the hopes it giues of the Remission of them in Pugatory But this is incredible that men being instructed of the bitterness of the torments of Purgatory far exceeding all that can be suffered in this world should be encouraged to omit the smale pennance and pains of this lyfe for to fusser the far greater and more excessiue pains of Purgatory It giues quoth he occasion to pittifull abuses of Simony in the valuation of Masses of cruelty and iniustice and what is there in the world so sacred and Holy but the malice of man may abuse is it therefore all sacred things must be renounced and abolisht wee condemn the abuses as well as you but wee must not therefore condemn the Doctrin but correct the malice of man that abuses it From this of Purgatory he descends to exclaim against Indulgences which he pretends to be groundless because Suarez l. de Defen fid c. 15. sayes that Indulgences is a remission of the pains of Purgatory and most falsly auers that Suarez doubts if this power be in the Church wheras in that place he affirms it is vndoubtedly certain the Church has it and grounds this certainty on the infinitness of Christs Merits which euen our Aduersaries grant and on the power giuen to the Church Mat. 18.18 of binding and vnbinding which power sayes he cannot be doubted but it extends to the Remission of the pains of Purgatory for which in that place he brings no other proof but the constant practice of the Church which he sayes is an vnquestionable proof and remits the more ample proof of this doctrin to To. 4. in 3. p. disp 48. Mr Sall iudges the doctrin not sufficiently proued because Suarez alleadges in this place no other warrant but the ancient custom of the Church which Suarez and wee hold to be an vndoubted proof This proof and no other does S Augustin bring to proue Infants Baptism serm 4. de verbis Apost c. 18. This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strenght against this inuincible vvall vvhosoeuer rusheth shall be crushed in peeces By the same he proues the validity of Hereticks Baptism l. 1. contr Crescon c. 32. and 33. for which he sayes No examples is brought out of Canonical Scripture but that vvhich recommends vnto vs the Authority of the Church vvho teacheth it S. Chrysost vpon the words of S. Pauls 2. Thes 2. Stand and hold the Traditions c. Hom. 4. speaks thus Let vs account the Tradition of the Church vvorthy of belief it is a Tradition seeke no more And again S. August Epist 118. If the Church through out the vvhole vvorld practise a thing to dispute vvhether such a thing can be don is a most insolent madness I conclude then that Suarez sufficiently proued the truth of the doctrin of Indulgences hauing grounded it on the constant practise and custom of the Vniuersal Church You say the doctrin of Indulgence is not so Ancient and that the first who began to giue these Grants was Gregory the seauenth to the Emperour Henry the fourth to encourage him and the Christians to warr against the Sarazens as Baronius relates an Dom 1084. if all this were true it s older notwithstanding than Protestancy by many hundred years But if you haue no more skill in Diuinity or Moral Theology your Treatise shews well what you know in Controuersy than you seeme to haue in History you are but a fresh water scholler That Indulgence you speake of nor no other to any such purpose was not granted by Gregory the seauenth but by Vrban the second nor to Henry the fourth who made no warr against the Sarazens but to Henry the Third not in the yeare 1084 but 1095. Neither is this the first grant of Indulgences which you could meet if you had read the Histories Baronius related by you tells vs that Indulgences were granted by Leo the third the yeare 847. and by Iohn the Eight the yeare 878. Nor is it a good argument vve do not read that Indulgences vvere giuen before therefore the Povver of granting Indulgences vvas not in the Church before You add that priuat Bishops granted Indulgences for gathering of Monies to build Churches that is very true but if Nostre-Dame of Paris was built vpon that account is not so certain by that you may see Indulgences are not so slightly granted as your Ministers do perswade their flock but on Condition that the Receiuers endeauor to put them selues in the state of Grace by true repentance of their sins and that they exercyse some pious works of fasting Prayers
confess many of our Church do not follow it but the quite contrary but the Doctrin is not only practis'd by many but the Church exhorts the Faithfull vnto it and that to great effect wheras our Conuents and Monasteries are in habited by many who changed their plenifull estates for powerty their Silks end sattins for rags their delicat dishs for a fryers portion their liberty for retyrement and their wordly pleasures for a continual mortification you know this to be true who knows the Order of the Carthusians to speake nothing of other religious orders how much the Protestant Church is a stranger to this Doctrin and practise the world knows what Protestant did you euer hear of that forsook a plentifull estate to becom a poor Minister did euer any Minister or Preacher of your Church exhort his flock to this practise or would not he be esteemed a Mad man that would do it How then Mr Sall did you for to secure your saluation chuse that Church where this Counsel of Christ is neglected and which laughs at vs for following it did you for to secure your saluation forsake powerty which Crist recommended as a means to be saued and to which you were by solemn vovv obliged and go to a Church where you may haue and does expect to be rich Christ hauing branded Richs as dangerous to saluation This manner of securing saluation was euer yet vnknowen to all Saints who esteemed Richs and Honors sworn enemyes to the soule they to secure their saluation forsook Richs and Honnors and you to secure yours you forsake powerty Powerty I say to which you are obliged by solemn vow and seek for Richs Had you changed the Catholick Religion for an other more austere wee might belieue that your aim was to secure your saluation for Christ recommended Austerity of lyfe and the mortification of our flesh and senses as a most powerfull means for to ouercom vice I doubt not but that there are many Libertins in our Church who do indulge and cherish their Bodyes too much to the preiudice of their souls but look to the Doctrin and Maxims of the Church Pennance austerity of lyfe mortifications of the Body is not only taught as good and aduantagious to the soul but is practis'd by innumerable Catholicks of all sexes ages and conditions in disclplins hair-cloaths fasting sleeping on the bare ground rysing at midnight for to prayse God abstaining from delicat meats and wearing of Linnen and seueral other chastisements of the Body Christ has recommended this austerity of lyfe and Corporal mortifications by S. Paul 1. Cor 9.17 the great Baptist did practise them Mar. 1. the Prophet Dauid ps 148. S. Paul himself and all the saints of the Primitiue Church and the Church did euer yet esteem these means very powerfull for to purchase virtue and ouercom vice and you to secure your saluation you haue forsaken the Church where this Doctrin is taught and practis'd for the Protestant Church did you euer heare of any Protestant who disciplins himself who sleeps on the bare ground who ryses at midnight to sing psalms to God who abstains from wearing of Linnen I do not wonder that many Libertins of your Church should set these exercises at naught but that the whole Body of that Church by their Doctrin and Principles should condemn them as fruitless Idle nay and iniurious to Christ's Passion is this the Church Mr Sall which you haue chusen for to secure your saluation a Church whose Doctrin is so carnal which will not smart the flesh but cherish the Body it's lykly indeed that your aim was in your change of Religion to secure your saluation when you left a Religion where you in particular were obliged to Austerity for a Religion which obliges you to none but to enioy pleasures a Religion where you were by vow obliged to Powerty for a Religion where you expect to be and may be rich a Religion where by your Profession you were incapable of Honors for one where you may haue Preferments No Mr Sall you will not perswade the world that it was any aduantage to your soul which moued you your resolution will appeare to any impartial man to be uniust and damnable and attended particularly in you by innumerable sins for though the Precepts of the Church of fasting annual Confession and Communion and keeping Holy dayes reach not to oblige Protestants who are such by education but it 's out of controuersy that they oblige you to whom her Power for commanding and your obligation of obeying is sufficiently knowen wherfore there is not a fasting day which you infring an Annual Confession which you omit an Easter Communion that you neglect or a holy day Mass but you commit a haynous sin Reflect on these monstruous effects of your resolution and amuse not your self with the hopes that you will be of the number of them who at the last hour will be reclaim'd and call for a Priest to be reconcil'd It 's our duty to beseech God he may be so mercifull vnto you but it 's yours not to abuse Gods patience least that in punishment of not answering now to his inspirations you may heare then those dreadfull words of the Prouerbs ch 1. v. 24. I haue called and ye refused-ye haue set at naught my Counsels and vvould none of my reproof I also vvill laugh at your calamity I vvill mock vvhen your feare cometh-Then shall you call vpon me but I vvill not ansvver they shall seek me earnestly but they shall not find me for that they had knovvledg and did not chuse the fear of the Lord. FINIS