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
the true sence of Scripture to satisfy his doubts in Religion and to know what he ought to belieue and wee will find he did not vse the means which Christ appointed for our instruction pag. 17. you tell vs Mr Sall that you discouered the Roman Church to be guilty of idolatry couelty and impiety your wit say you demanded you a reason for what you belieued and if it demanded and euidently coâ—â—cluding reason it ourlasht wheras the Mysteries of Religion are of things not appearing as S. Paul saies surpassing reason you frequently perused the Scripture the Councils Fathers and Histories and all made you doubt of the Truth of our Tenets the consequence therefore is vndenyable that Scripture alone is so far from being cleer and easy in points of Religion that it alone nor with the assistance of Historyes Councils and Fathers is not sufficient euen to so great a wit as you pretend to be in no wayes obstinat vvillfully but desirous to know and embrace the truth is not I say sufficient to assure you what is an errour or not consequently somwhat else is wanting to know what wee ought to belieue Pag. 37. you tell vs that you vvent to the Church of England vvhose Eminent Persons by vvord and vvritting did assert do not you see that besides the Scripture wee want a liuing Church to inform ys what wee out to belieue that the fumme of our Faith is the vvord of God contained in Canonical Scripture and the plain vndubitable consequences out of it But Mr Sall you might haue belyed them all by your own experience who read Scriptuse assisted with your eminent with forsooth and knowleg in sciences assisted by the Fathers Historyes and Councils and yet as you tell vs all made you doubt pag. 18. but could not assure you of the truth or vntruth of our errours consequently somthing else is requisit for to know assuredly what is Truth and what not But Mr Sall before that the Cchurch of England by her Eminent Persons did tell you the Scripture alone and its vndubitable consequences is the intyre summe of Faith did you know that to be be true did you vnderstand it to be true by the Scripture when you frequently read it and by Councils and Fathers if you did to what purpose do you speake vnto vs of the Church of England what need had you to go to her You ought to haue sought and found the resolution of your doubts in the Scripture alone and its vndubitable consequences if you did not then you belieue the Scripture and its indubitable consequences to be the summe of our Faith vpon the testimony of the Church of England and her Eminent Persons which being fallible as you and she confess all your Faith is built on a fallible bottom Moreouer Mr Sall the Church of England informed that the Scripture alone and its indubitable consequences are the whole summe of diuine Faith but did the Church of England tell you who is he that must draw those indubitable consequences Must those consequences be drawen by a publick Authority establisht by Christ or is it sufficient that the consequences seem vndubitable to you or me or any priuat person If the second then all sectaries in the world haue a true rule of Faith which is their own reason that dictats what they belieue to be an vndenyable consequence of Scripture and none can blame them for they regulat their Faith by the rule that Christ has appointed if the first then the Church of England should haue informed you what suprem Authority is that which must draw those consequences and aproue or reproue those which to priuat persons seem to be vndeniably deduced out of Scripture But this which your instructors omitted has been shewen vnto you in this Chapter not only by Scripture and reason but by the practise of your Reformed Churchs represented in the Synod of Dordrecht that when two Contestants draw contradictory consequences out of Scripture each one pretending his own to be vndubitably deduc'd out of the Text the Church wherof the Parties are Members has the suprem Authority to resolue which is the true consequence that the Parties are bound in conscience to submit to her iudgment and to be held for Schismatiks if they do not and wheras your first Reformers drew consequences which seemed to them to follow vndubitably from Scripture and their Aduersaryes iudged the contrary to be vndubitable true your Reformers were bound to submit to the Catholik Church wherof theyr were Members and learne of her which were the true consequences and were Schismatick for not doing so and as their errour descended to you and your liuing Brethren the obligation also of being instructed by the Catholik Church and acquiescing to her iudgment descends vnto you And thus Mr Sall you miserably mistooke the means which Christ appointed for to instruct vs in Religion V. CHAPTER THE CHVRCH ESTABLISHED FOR our instruction is infallible THough I reserue a chapter a part for Mr Salls arguments against this Tenet yet I must heere toucth two of them which shew that he is either ignorant or malicious in mistaking our doctrin by the answer to which I will declare what wee belieue in this particular He impugns our doctrin from the pag. 29. to 35. and from the pag. 39. to 44. pag. 39. he argues that Infallibility is an Attribut proper to Gods essence which can no more be communicated to any Creature than the Deyty itself it s a Blasphemy saies he to attribute to any creature that which is proper to God alone consequenty the Church of Rome is guilty of Blasphemy in teaching the Pope or Council is infallible I cannot belieue but that you are sufficienty sensible of the weakness of this argument which from the very beginning of your pretended Reformation is so common that any Collier will answer it especially that it and all the arguments you bring in your whole discourse are exactly set down in Bellarmin whence you haue borrowed them and most euidently answered and if you had any ingenuity you ought not to trouble your Auditory with such third bare tryfles but tell them also what wee answer and retort it if you could Can you that pretends to the credit of a Professor of Diuinity ignore that a man who is by his own Nature Mortal might by Gods Protection who promises him he shall neuer dye be immortal and why will you deny but that Man who by Nature is subiect to errour may by Gods special protection promising him that he shall neuer err be kept from falling into any errour or mistake This is what wee belieue that the Church which is by Nature as being a congregation of Men fallible may be mistaken and though ignorance or malice teach an vntruth but that God has promised to assist her continually with his spirit for to leade her into all Truth and neuer to permit her to teach or belieue any errour by virtue of wich promiss iudge
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.
pell is sufficient at least as to the points it contains These instances shew that reason to be very friuolous and if it proued any thing at most it can proue that the Church infallibility is not necessary for our instruction but it might be-necessary for other ends of Gods prouidence who might haue left still that gift of infallibility to his Church for a mark of his loue to her wee find he did promise the conduct of his infallible Spirit to his Church wee de not find he should haue limited this grace to any tyme nay to the contrary wee find that he sayd it should be for euer all dayes to the consummation of the vvorld why should wee therfore limit that fauor vnto à tyme to conclude wee haue proued in the 2 and 3 chap. that Scripture is not sufficient to instruct vs and consequently an infallible Church is still necessary An other reason no less silly to proue that the Church after few ages became fallible for the Popes Prelats and People became very vicious and from the debauchery of manners they came by Gods iust iugdment to fall into errours in doctrin which Mr Sall pretends to proue by Scripture pag. 32. the promise made by Christ of the Paraclet for to lead the Church into all truth vvas a conditional promise as appears by Christ his vvord Io. 14.16 if you loue me keep my commandmens and I vvill ask my father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet that he may abyde vvith you for euer euen the Spirit of Truth vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue The Paraclet is promised on condition they Keepe the commandments and by the later words vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue the Paraclet is flatly denied to all those the Scripture styles by the name of vvorld that is to say the wicked and wordly men Hence sayes Mr Sall wee can be no more sure that the Pope and his Council are infallible than wee are that he liues in Gods loue and obseruance of his commandments and wheras it is manifest by our own Historyes that the Pope Pastors and flock haue fallen into many crimes it followes they haue forfeited the conduct of Gods infaillible Spirit If from the lewdness of manners wee might conclude the Churches corruption in doctrin what Ghospell could the world expect from Luther and the other pretended Reformers for whose wickdness there are as good Records as for the debauchery of Popes and Prelats the sinns of Prelats did deface the Ghospell and did the Apostasy of Luther and the Sodomy of Caluin restore it to its splendor Christ did foresee that they who should sit on the chayre of Moyses would be wicked in their lyues and yet commanded vs to obey and belieue their doctrin The conduct of Gods Spirit promised to them for to leade them into all Truth was not a personal gift giuen to them for their own sakes but for the flock for to keepe them in vnity of Faith and therefore though God does permit them to fall into wickedness of lyfe his Prouidence will not permit them to fall into errors of doctrin that the flock which it obliged to obey them may not be mislead To proue that the Promiss was only conditional you corrupt the text for as well your Bible as ours sayes thus if you loue me keepe my Commandments and there puts a punctum Then ads a distinct verse or section And I vvill ask my Father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet c. which makes an absolut sence independent of the former That this is the true interpretation of that text it appears for in seueral other texts That assistance of as Mat. 28 20 behold I am vvith you all dayes euen to the consummation of the vvorld Mat. 16. the Gates of hell shall not preuayle agaiust her Io. 16 13. vvhen the Paraclet shall come the Spirit of Truth he shall teach you-all truth And is it not strang Mr Sall should auerr the Paraclet was promised vpon condition of Gods loue and obseruance of his Commandments wheras the Church remayns still infallible infundamental points notwithstanding that it has fayled in that condition as Mr Sall and all Protestants do deknowledge But what he will neuer answer is that if that Promiss was conditional it folloues wee cannot be sure the Ghospell is infallible if wee be not sure that the Euangelists when they wrote it haue been in the loue of God and obseruance of his Commandments for if they were not they had not the Paraclet sayes Mr Sall but no text of Scripture tells vs that the Euangelists were in the state of Grace when they writ the Ghospell nor nothing else giues vs assurance of it Therefore wee are not assured the Ghospell written by the Euangelists is infallible nay which is worse in the common doctrin of Protestants wee are assured it is not infaillible for the common doctrin in their Church is that it is impossible to keepe Gods commandments the Euangelists therefore when they writ did not keep Gods Commandments consequenly they could not haue the Paraclet to lead them into truth consequenly the Ghospell is not infallible and so Mr Sall ouerthrows all-Christian Religion Let vs consider what inducements had the primitiue Christians to belieue the Apostles infallible was it not the testimony of the Apostles confirming their doctrin with many Miracles look into the Historyes of all succeding ages and you will find that the Church which affirmed herself to be infallible did confirm her doctrin with many and great Miracle as wee will euidence in the ensuing Chap. And on what do you ground your beliefe when you say the Apostles were infallible You say that vpon the Scripture but I defy you to shew any text of Scripture which declares the infallibility of the Apostles that relates not to the Church in succeeding ages as well as to them either therefore they proue the Church to be infallible in succeeding ages or they do not proue the Apostles to be infallible For example wee proue the infallibility of the Apostles by the words of Christ he that heareth you heareth me Lu. 10. whence followes that the words of the Apostles were the words of Christ But Christ himself Mat. 18. declares that text must be vnderstood of his Church whereuer it be if he vvil not heare the Church let him be to you as a Heathen and Publican We proue it out of S. Iohn 14.18 He vvill giue you an other Paraclet the spirit of truth that vvill a byde vvith you for euer but this text playnly declares that the Promiss was made also to the Church in succeeding ages by the word for euer for the Apostles were not to be for euer in their own persons but in their successors and to remoue all occasion of cauilling vpon the word for euer saying that it signifyes only the tyme of the Apostles lyues Christ declares himself in a cleerer expression Mat. 28. I am vvith you all dayes to the consummation of the
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
Pope is infallible when wee say the Roman Catholick Church is infallible wee mean and all our Aduersaries know that the Church of Rome and all Churchs vniuersally spread throughout the world which are vnited with her in Faith and Communion either as she is diffused or representatiue in a General Council wherin Protestants are not included though a Christian Congregation because they are deuided from her This Church is the true vniuersal Church called Roman because the chief Pastor is in Rome called Vaiuersal because her Members are spread throughout the world of the infallibility of this Church Mr Sall speaks nothing but of the Pop's infallibity which is no Article of Faith which if an error is not of the Church and therefore ought not to leaue the Church for this reason When our Aduersaries are obliged and do promise to proue our errors by plain and vndeniable Scripture from the pag. 29. to 35. and from pag. 39. to 44. where Mr Sall vnder takes to proue this error not one text of Scripture does he alleadge but three so far from being plain and vndeniable that any man of common sense will find them impertinent the first ps 11.1 verities are mâ—imed among the children of Men. And how can this proue the Church to be fallible if it does not proue that the Apostles Euangelists and Prophets are also fallible who were Children of Men and if it does not proue the Church to be fallible also in fundamental points which Mr Sall and all Protestants deny The second all Men are Lyars Fallibility signifies only a possibility of deliuering an vntruth a Lyar is he that actually deliuers an vntruth and that against his own knowledge so that the text if it proues any thing to Mr Salls purpose it proues that the Apostles Euangelists and the Church of England are a company of fourbs that against their mind and knowledg deliuered vntruths for they are all men and all men are lyards The third text is out of S. Io. 16. prouing that the Paraclet was promised to the Church only vpon condition of louing God and keeping his Commandments to which I haue giuen a full answer ch 6â— reade there to saue me and yourself the trouble of a Tatalogy Thus Mr Sall has forsaken our Church and cannot proue by plain Scripture as he is obliged her errors Two reasons he alleadgs that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God and that there must be no such thing as infallibility of the Church wheras our Authors do not agree where to place it if in the Pope alone or in the Council to which reasons I haue sufficiently answered in the beginning of the 5. ch He sayes that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3. the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth must not be vnderstood of the Dioces of Rome and he knowes well that wee do not pretend it should wee pleade for the infallibility of the vniuersal Church as wee said but now He admires that Bellar should proue the Popes infallibility be the two Hebrew words signifying Doctrin and Truth placed by Gods command in the breast plate of the High Priest and thence drawes a consequence very absurd to him that the High Priest also must haue been infallible in the old Law I will not enlarge in this point because it concerns the Popes infallibility which is no Articles of Faith and only such I intend to vindicat but I must aduertise him of his ignorance in admiring it should be pretended that the High Priests of the Ancient Law were infallible wheras though monstrous it seems to him not only Catholick but Protestant Authors do teach it one I produce Doctor Porter a great Clerk in the Protestant Church in his book called Char. Mist pag. 35. The High Friests in cases of moment had a certain Priuiledge from error if he consulted the Diuine Oracle by the iudgment of vrim or by the breast-plate of iudgment vvherin vvere vrim and Thummim vvherby he had an absolut infallible direction And immediatly following if any such promiss made by God to assist the Pope could be produced his Decison might pass iustly for Oracles vvithout examination This blasphemy sayes he of parallelling the Pope with God in the Attribut of infallibility is raysed to a higher degree by their practice of making the Pope the suprem Iudge and Arbiter of Gods Lavvs And how does he proue this calumny Bellarmin l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say that if the Pope did command vices and prohibit virtues the Church vvould be obliged to belieue vice to be good and virtue bad And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be preferred before the institution of Christ vvheras hauing confessed that our sauior did ordain the Communion vnder both kinds to the Layty and that the Apostles did practise it they commanded it should be giuen for the future but in one kind alleading for reason that the precedent Popes and Church did practise it so vvhich is to extoll the Decrees of Popes aboue them of Christ as if the Lavvs of England vvere not to be vnderstood or practifed in Ireland but accordging to the vvill and declaration of the King of France certainly the King of France vvould be deemed of more Povver in Ireland than the King of England and the People more his subiects Answer Bellarmin in that place speaks expresly of vices and virtues when there is a doubt of their being such as for example vsury is a vice of its nature bad per se malum now wee all know it to be such and restitution to be a virtue if there should arryse a doubt of vsury's being a vice and in that case the Pope should command vsury to be practised then wee should be obliged to practise vsury and Bellar. giues the reason quia tenetur Ecclesia in rebus dubys acquiescere iudicio summi Pontificis Because in dubious cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope Behold how Bellar speaks in case of doubt that vice is vice and virtue is virtue for in that case the Pope as being the chief Pastor is in possession of the obligation of being obeyed by Gods command and a doubtfull excuse cannot exempt the subiects from their apparent duty Melior est conditio possidentis The Council of Constance knew that though the Communion was instituted and practised by the Apostles in both kinds yet Christ left it arbitrary to his Church to giue it either in one or both which I will proue in the discourse of Half Communion and therefore finding that Christ himself and his Apostles somtymes gaue it in one and that the precedent Popes for iust reasons had commanded it should be receiued so issued that Decree of receuing it in one kind And it is false what you say that they alleadged no other reason for so doing but the Decrees of precedent Popes they alleadged also for reason the example of Christ and his Apostles who gaue it in one
irksom to our natural inclinations miracles wrought by her in all ages the constancy of her Martyrs euen in the youngest age and weaker sex Her vnity in doctrin against the persecutions of so many Tyrants and Heresiarks that almost all ages opposed it these marks which are proper only to her and that no other congregation can claim makes it euidently credible that if God speaks to vs by the mouth of any it must be by hers The lyke and no other had the Primitiue Church to iudge of the Apostles that God spoke by them and such as in the Apostles tymes did not belieue them hauing so great inducements to iudge them men of God were condemned for obstinat people and consequently who will not iudge the same of this Church ought also to be held for obstinat notwithstanding any pretence of ignorance they may alleadge Hauing these inducements to prepare our vnderstandings for Faith it follows that what euer this Church proposes vnto vs to be a Truth reuealed by God wee are obliged to belieue her and embrace her doctrin vpon her testimony wheras it appears by those inducements so credible that God speaks by her as he did by the Apostles Now I resolue my Faith thus you ask why I belieue the Trinity I answer because God has reuealed it You ask why I belieue that God reuealed it I answer because the Church by which God speaks tell vs so You ask why I belieue that God speakes by the Church heere is the difficulty I must not answer because the Scripture sayes it for I belieue Scripture only vpon the testimony of the infallible Church and to proue again the infallibility of this by the Scripture would be a circle neither must I answer that I belieue God to speake by the Church because she works miracles for if the miracles be absolutly euident they can be no Motiue of Faith which is of its own nature obscure and if they be but morally euident miracles they cannot be the Motiue because the motiue of Faith must be infallible and because the Motiue of an Act of Faith must be Gods word and miracles are not Gods word but signs and Marks of his word Wee must therefore answer to that question again because the Church by vvhich God speakes saies that God speakes by her and I am obliged to belieue he speaks by her because he does credit her vvith so many miracles and supernatural Marks vvhich makes it euidently credible that he does speake by her Where you distinguish the Motiue of your Act of Faith from the Motiue of your obligation of belieuing and your iudgment of credibility the Motiue that you giue for your Act of Faith is only the word or voyce of God by the Church and nothing els but the word of God can be the Motiue of Faith the Motiue you giue for your obligation of belieuing and iudgment of credibility are the external inducements of miracles and supernatural signs You reply To belieue that God speaks by the Church because the Church by which God speaks sayes so is to belieue that God speaks because Gods speaks by the Church which is idem per idem to belieue a thing for itself and an obscure thing for a thing equally obscure which is vnreasonable wheras an obscure vnknowen thing cānot be belieued but for somthing that is more cleer and knowen I answer what is belieued is that God speaks by the Church which is obscure and vnknowen to our reason The Motiue why wee belieue it is the voyce of God by the Church euidently proposed to our vnderstanding by the external Motiues of credibility to be credibly his voyce so that the same thing which of itself and considered without the external Motiues of credibility is obscure and vnknowen acompanied with the motiues of credibility is more cleer and knowen and moues me to belieue but so that the Motiues of credibility are not the Motiue nor any part of the Motiue why I belieue the testimony of the Church to be the voyce of God but are the Motiues why our vnderstanding euidently knows it to be very credible and iudges it very iust and reasonable that wee should belieue it to be the voyce of God And that this is the way of Resoluing Diuine Faith it s proued for wee haue the same Faith that the Primitiue Church of Ierusalem Antioch and Damasco had and consequently wee must haue the same Motiue of Faith When the Apostles preached to them they belieued the Trinity not for Scripture for but little or nothing was then written of the new Testament but because God told them by the Apostles that it was a reuealed Truth And if you did ask them whey they belieued that God did speake by the Apostles they would answer because the Apostles who were Gods Messengers told them so and they could not but be obliged to belieue it because of their miracles and supernatural signs Thus wee say of the Church Now the Church being belieued infallibly true wee belieue the Scripture to be the word of God vpon her testimony and the Scripture being belieued Gods word then wee draw out of the Scripture new proofs and Motiues of belieuing the Church to be infallible because the Scripture which is the word of God sayes it But the chief and last Motiue whervpon our Faith must rest is the word of God speaking to vs by the Church the Church I say by which God actually in this present age speaks vnto vs for wee do not belieue because God did speak in the 1.2 and third age by the Church for that is Tradition and Tradition nor Scripture is not the Motiue but the Rule of our Faith the Rule by which the Church is guided to know which and what is the word of God the Motiue of our Faith is because God speaks now by his Church as he did in those first ages for which wee haue euident arguments of credibility as the first ages had Pop's supremacy What is belieued as an Article of Faith by the Church is the spiritual supremacy of the Pope his supream Power either Direct or indirect in temporal affaires ouer Princes is no Articles of Faith but a question disputed in the schools and neither Partie that denies or affirms is condemned of Heresy by the Church if Mr Sall mislyked the Doctrin he might haue disclaimed it and remain a Catholick as many other Catholicks do He speaks of the sufferances of the Irish vpon the account of this Doctrin a meer fiction as wittily as maliciously inuented to make the Pope odious to the People That the Irish should haue suffered for that cause is false but it s very true that they suffered for not swearing the contrary Doctrin That the Pope has no such Povver which no man can sweare wheras he is not certain of it and wheras it is a question disputed in the schools if he has or not that Power how can any man in conscience sweare either part to be
the blind see the lame vvalk though they see they are called blind because they were blind and are restored to their sight And S. Io. 2.9 sayes vvhen the Ruler of the feast had tasted the vvater that vvas made vvine The liquor that the Ruler of the feast tasted was true wine yet the text calls it vvater because from water it was conuerted into wine So the bread which by the words of the consecration is conuerted into Christ his Body retains the name of bread because it was once bread because it has still the appearance of bread and because wee should vnderstand that true bread and wyne and nothing but bread and wyne is requisit for the due administration of that Sacrament as for the Baptism true natural water is necessary And that you may not be startled at S. Pauls calling it so often bread obserue you the rule I haue giuen and you will easily perceiue that the word bread so often vsed after the consecration signifyes not true and real bread but beares only a mystical or figuratiue signification for you will find that the Predicats that are said of that bread after its consecration cannot in any wyse be verified of true substantial bread and consequently that the word bread after the consecration cannot signify real but figuratiue bread for example Christ sayes of that bread that S. Paul speakes of the bread that I shall giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld what was giuen for the lyfe of the world was not true bread but true flesh consequently when that flesh is called bread the word bread must not signify real bread Christ sayes of that bread this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you This Predicat vvhich is giuen for you cannot be verified of bread in its true and proper signification consequently the word bread after the consecration signifyes but figuratiue bread the appearance of bread But sayes Mr Sall wee all agree in calling the Eucharist a Sacrament a Sacrament is but a sign of a sacred thing why should not wee agree also in calling the Sacrament of Christ his body the sign of Christ his Body and heere he brings a rapsody of texts of S. Augustin S. Denis and others to proue that it is but a type a Symbol a figure and remembrance of Christ his Body which labor he might haue well spared for wee do freely grant that the Eurachist is a sign type remembrance and Symbol of Christ his body offered for vs on the Cross the Eucharist is a commemoration and representation of that bloody sacrifice but it is also Christ his true Body the vnbloody oblation of his Body in the Eucharist is a figure and representation of the bloody oblation of the same body on the Cross as a King that would act a Part in a tragedy of his own victoryes he would be the thing represented and the representation He alleadges the words of some Fathers of the Church that expresly say the Symbols in the Sacrament are not changed in their Nature but do abyde in their proper substance figure and form nay more distinctly they say that the Nature and substance of bread and vvyne remaine after the consecration thus speaks Saint Chrysost if you belieue Mr Sall in an epistle he writ ad Caesarium but if you belieue Bellarmin S. Chrysost neuer writ any such epistle also Gelasius a Pope sayes Mr Sall though Bellarmin sayes he was no Pope but som Monk and Theodoret dial 2. c. 24. And is it not a pretty thing that the Protestants would perswade vs that these Fathers and others did belieue only a figuratiue Presence and yet from the very first begining of their pretended Reformation they constantly auerr that all the Fathers fell into the errours of Purgatory real Presence Adoration of Saints c. whoeuer will read those Fathers will find the real Presence most cleerly asserted in seueral places of their works especially in S. Chrysost and for one or two obscure passages or expressions that our Aduersaryes meet with they must be for a figuratiue Presence Bellarmin and our Catholick Authors giue a Catholick sence to those words the Protestants giue an other the Fathers do not liue to speake for themselues and declare what sense they intended is it not necessary therefore that wee should haue an infallible liuing iudge who may deliuer vnto vs what wee must belieue in this Mystery This aduertisment I must giue my Reader that the Fathers in all ages of the Church some spoke nothing at all of the Mysteryes now controuerted and belieued by vs others spoke of them but briefly and obscurely others wrote in some places of their works plainly and distinctly but in other places in expressions subiect to misconstruction The reason was that the Fathers of each age professedly writ or altogether or for the most part of their works of those points of doctrin which were opposed by the Hereticks of those tymes and those they deliuered in their proper Notions expresly and carefully shunning any dubious words but of other Mysteryes and Articles of Faith that were vnanimously belieued no contradiction of Hereticks requiring an exact discussion of them either they omitted to speake of them or writing of them they were not so carefull in speaking with cleer expressions because they had no occasion of fearing a misconstruction of their words particularly when in other places of their works they had deliuered themselues in plain terms Hence it is that wee must not be startled if wee do not find any mention of Indulgences Purgatory or real Presence in some Fathers or if wee meet some words in some Fathers which may be wrested against our Tenets as in this of the real Presence which vntill about the yeare 800. had not any opposition among Christians then it was apposed by Iohn Scotus not the Franciscan fryer and by the Arch Bishop of Sens in France but this storm was soon and easily calm'd about the yeare 1100. Berengarius raysed much dust against this Mystery and drew many Abettors to his faction then the Catholick writters did declare the Mystery and defend it and Berengarius was condemned by fiue Councils successiuly assembled against him and his Partizans the Fathers who writ since that tyme speake so manifestly in fauor of the real Presence that you will hardly find any expression in their works wherat your vnderstanding may stumble It s most false what Mr Sall imputes to Scotus Ocham and other more modern Catholicks that the doctrin of Transubstantiation it not contained in the Canon nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council they expresly teach especialy Scotus in 4. dist 11. q 3. that the doctrin was belieued before the Council continually in the Church but more explicitly declared by the Council who for that end introduced the word Transubstantiation which expresses better the doctrin belieued as the Council of Nice introduced the word Consubstantial to signify the equality of the son with the Father
Alms deeds and such others as they who giue the Indulgence require and that the Alms which are enioyned in such cases though by the malice of some they may be turned to sinister vses are designed for pious vses You mention some words of the 92. Canon of the Council of Lateran vnder Innocent the Third and that Council has but 70. Canon in all nor does the Council speake any thing in any Canon of Indulgences it s no new practice of your fraternity to coyn new Canons and texts as you want them You cite S. Thom. and S. Bonauen who relate some were of opinion that Indulgences were but a pious fraud of the Church to draw men to charitable Acts its true those saints relate that opinion but relate not who were the Authors of it but only that some did say so and they condemn it as impious and iniurious to the Church S. Bon. in 4. dist 20. q. 6. sed hoc est Ecclesiae derogare dicendo eam sub specie mentiri quod abhorret mens recta Thus you only proue by this argument that there were some impious people that accusâ—d the Church of being a cheat And do not you do the lyke wee embrace most willingly the aduertisment of Bellar de amiss Gratiae l. 6. which you relate but nothing to your purpose that in things depending of the freewill of God wee must affirm nothing but what he has reuealed in his Holy Scripture but you are mistaken in asserting that God has not reuealed the Doctrin of Indulgence in the Scripture for that text Mat. 18.18 vvhateuer ye shall vnbind on earth shall be vnbinded in Heauen signifyes the Power of vnbinding from the pains of Purgatory you say it does not and you cite Durandus and Maior who say it does not and that Indulgences are not found expresly in Scripture but I say that though they be not expresly found in scripture they are implicitly found there and you confess in the beginning of your discourse that wee are bound to belieue not only what is contained in Scripture but the vndeniable consequences out of it out of that text the Power of vntying from the pains due to sin is an vndeninable consequence the Church declares it and interprets the text so to whose Authority Dur. and Maior must yeild And though there were no text in Scripture that either explicitly or implicitly did import Indulgences in particular yet by Scripture it self wee are bound to belieue it it being the Doctrin of the Church as S. August said of Hereticks Baptism l. 1. cont Crescon c. 32. and 33. oBserue his words which comes very appositly to our present subiect Although verily there be brought no example for this Point he means the validity of Heretick Baptism for which he sayes there is no text in Scripture yet euen in this Point the truth of the same Scripture is held by vs vvhile vvee do that vvhich the Authority of Scripture doth recommend vnto vs that so because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs vvho soeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the Church CoÌ„cerning it vvhich vvithout ambiguity the Holy Scripture doth recommend vnto vs. By which sentence of S. Augustin you find that wee follow Scripture whylst wee follow the Doctrin of the Church which the Scripture commands vs to heare and obey You will perhaps infer out of this discourse a consequence which may seem to you absurd thus therefore wee are bound to belieue as an Article of Faith what Doctrin the Church proposeth to vs though that point in particular be not contained either explicitly or implicitly in any text of Scripture only vpon the testimony of the Church This consequence is true and the reason is that the Church being Gods infallible Oracle caÌ„not propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but only that Doctrin which truly is reuealed by God God reuealed all Truths of Religion to the Apostles as wee haue discoursed in the 6. Chap. the Apostles deliuered all those truths to the Church to be handed from age to age to Posterity the Apostles did not deliuer all those Truths in writing as wee haue discoursed in the 2. and 3. ch but part in writing and this is Scripture part by vnwritten Tradition and this is the Depositum that S. Paul speaks of to Timothie the Church is the keeper of this Depositum and as by the Scripture wee know what written Truths the Apostles deliuered so by the Church wee know assuredly what vnwritten Truths they deliuered Now wee say that the Church cannot propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but what was deliuered by the Apostles who doubtless knew and taught to their Disciples all truths of Religion to the Church for wee do not say nor belieue that the Church can coyn new Articles of Faith but only deliuer the Old that through carelessness came to be confusedly knowen and almost forgotten wee do not pretend that the Church has new reuelations of new Doctrin which God did not deliuer to his Apostles but that she has the assistance of Gods Spirit to know certainly and find out the truths that were formerly reuealed and taught by the Apostles not only in writing but by word of mouth what truths therefore the Church proposes vnto vs wee are obliged to belieue them as reuealed truths though they be not in Scripture particularly mentioned for if they be not there they were taught verbally by the Apostles they are of Apostolical tradition and if the tradition be obscure or doubtfull the declaration of the Church renders it certain Thus it matters not that Indulgence is not expressed nay nor implicitly contained in Scripture if it be not it must of necessity haue been taught verbally by the Apostles since that the Church proposeth this Doctrin as a reuealed Truth and no truth is a reuealed truth but has been reuealed to them and by them deliuered vnto their Disciples Publick Prayer in an vnknovven Language Ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam your own position is the strongest argument I can alleadge for Publick seruice in an vn knowen language you say thus the purpose of Nature by speaking is to communicat the sense of him that speaketh to the hearer but hovv can that be if the hearer perceiueth not the meaning of the vvords he speaketh Therefore wee must speake in a knowen language I ask to whom do wee speake in the Liturgy or Publick seruice of the Church Sure it s not to the congregation but God it s to him wee direct our Prayers for to prayse him and implore his Mercy The Hearer is God properly and not the Cougregation and therefore where there is no Congregation present the Psalms are sung in the Oyre and Publick seruice don if therefore wee communicat our fence when wee say Mass or publick seruice to God who is the hearer wee satisfy the purpose that Nature intends by speaking and wheras God vnderstands our fence in
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
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
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
it belonged to iudge which of the Doctrins controuerted was the most conformable to the word of God and if both could be toletated in the Church and therefore demanded a Synod Zeland and the other Prouinces demanded the same as also the Protestant Princes of Germany the Commonwealth of Geneua and generally all the Reformed Churchs All this passage is faithfully extracted ex Act. Synodi Dordrectani Typis Isaaci Ioannis Canicy printed at Dordtecht an Dom. 1620. Heervpon the States General issued their circular letters to all the Prouinces requiring that each should send six of their best Diuines to Dordrecht were the Synod was open'd the 13. December an 1618. The King of England the Electors of Palatin Branderbourg and Lansgraue of Hesse the Valons the Cantons of Surich Berne Basle and Schaffouse the Commonwealths of Geneua Breme and Embidem sent their Diuins of most credit and learning to this Synod so that wee may call it more than a National Synod and a Representatiue of all the Reformed Churchs And though the Ministers of France were not permitted to go thither they sent their iudgment of the question debated in writing The Arminians protested against the Synod as being a Partie concerned and consequently not a competent Iudge being composed of Persons confessedly of the doctrin of the Gomarists was it not thus that the Reformers protested against the Council of Trent The deputies of te extern Churches deliuered in writing their opinions of this protestation Those of England that it was against the practice of the primitiue Church of the Councils of Nice Constantinople Chalcedo and Ephese whose members were confessedly of the Catholick Church opposed by Arius Nestorius Macedonius and Eutyches that not withstanding they were competent iudges against whom no protestation was admitted but all Parties were obliged to submit The Diuins of Palatin that to determin a controuersy in Religion the Parties must not go to the Turks or Pagans or to indifferent Persons that profess no Religion but must be said by the Pastors and Prelats of that Church wherof they are members and wherin the question is debated The Diuins of Geneua that both Parties were by the sentence of Christ bound to submit to the Synod or to be esteemed Heathens and Publicans All the rest of the Diuins concluded the same whervpon the Synod condemned that protestation and declared it self to be the lawfull and soueraign Iudge in that cause Vel abycere debent omnem protestationem aduersus Synodum subjicere sua dogmata illius judicio vel certe si manent in protestatione immoti eo ipso se declarant vnioni Ecclesiarum reformatarum renunciare Or they must set by all Protestations against the Synod and submit their doctrin to its iudgment or if they persist in their protestation therby they declare themselues to renounce the communion of reformed Churches Is not this to declare them Schismaticks that will not submit to the Church The Armeniens were then summoned to waue the Protestation and giue in writing their fiue articles which they did they were examined by the Synod and condemned as erroneous and contrary to the word of God and all those that would sustain them incapacitated for to beare any charge or exercise any Ecclesiasticall function Sess 138. The Armeniens did not submit to this iudgment alleadging the Synod as all others was fallible and did err in this point and therefore could not be obliged in conscience to submit and perhaps some Protestants will syde with them saying that a Councill can not oblige mens consciences and that their Decrees can reach no further than to what concerns the Politick gouernment of the flock but this Synod which indeed was more than a National one of the Reformed Churchs and assisted by the deputyes of the Church of England declares an obligation in conscience of acquiescing to its decisions not only by the words now alleaged but by the Sess 42. Si conscientiae suae quam debent oationem habent ad obtemperandum supremarum Potestatum mandatis hujusque Synodi ordini iudicio acquiescendum tenentur If they haue any regard for their Conscience behold their Decrees reach to the Consciences they are bound to obey the commands of the heigher Povvers and acquiesce to the iudgment of this Synod And immediatly after this Synod when the Arminiens insisted in their reason for not submitting because the Synod vvas fallible the States consulted their National Synod then assembled at Delpht what ought to be don This answered that notwithstanding the Synod was fallible they were obliged in conscience to belieue the sence of Scripture proposed by it and giues for reason that wheras many pious and learned Doctors from all Churchs did meet together in the feare of the Lord to declare by the word of God what ought to be belieued omnino credendum est it must be vndoubtedly belieued that Christ according his promiss was present to that meeting and gouern'd it by the Holy Ghost Iudic. Syn. Desph Sess 26. Syn. Dord And if the Decrees of Councils reach not to oblige Consciences then Arrius must not be iudged an Heretick though condemned by the Council of Nice nor can Mr Sall belieue S. Athanasius his Creed with the heauenly gift of Faith wherwhith he belieues the Scripture as he acknowledges pag. 18. Now whateuer any particular Doctor or Doctors of the Church of England say what Pagan would enquire into the Mysteries of Christian Religion with a desire of being instructed would reade this Synod of Dordrecht and Delpht and also the Councils of Nice and all other General Councils of the Catholick Church and would not vnderstanding that it is the Doctrin and practice of both Church the Reformed and Catholick that the Councils haue the suprem Authority of deciding Controuersies and deliuering the true sence of Scripture that none can protest against the authority of Councils legally assembled and that both Parties contesting about any point of Religion is to be said by the Church wherof they are Members and whoeuer will not submit renounces the vnion of the Church and becoms schismatick Hence it follows Mr Sall that wheras there was no Christian Church visible when your first Reformers opposed the Catholick Tenets but the Roman Catholick Church They were obliged to be iudged by her andsubmit their doctrin to her iudgment they being Members of that Church that in declining her Authority in the Council of Trent and protesting against her as being a Partie and fallible they became Schismaticks And if the Reformation in its of spring was schismatical doubtless in their continuation it must be so for tyme giues no prescription to an errour nor haue you more right to continue in that separation from vs than your first Reformers had to begin it And as the Arrians are still Hereticks though separated from vs these 1300 years and still obliged to teturn so are you Now let vs heare Mr Sall what means did he vse to vnderstand
you if such a promiss be impossible wee say the Church cannot err in her doctrin which is to be infallible Dare you deny but that the Prophets the Apostles and Euangelists were infallible in what they taught and writ dare you deny but that the Church of God is infallible in fundamental points of Religion and are you therefore guilty of Blasphemy or do you intrench on Gods prerogatiues or giue his Attributs to creatures God is infallible by Nature by his own proper perfection this is his Attribut and this cannot be giuen to any creature to be infallible by the protection of an other who defends him from falling into any errour is not Attribut of God it were a Blasphemy to say that he is infallible in that manner but the Prophets Apostles Euangelists and the Church are thus infallible by Gods special protection and the conduct of his spirit An other argument against our Tenet pag. 30. is the disagreement of our Authors in placing this infallibity some will haue it to be in the Pope alone others in him and a Council of Cardinals others in the Pope and General Council alone This dissention is to Mr Sall a concluding argument that there is no such thing as Church infallibity and thus he furnishes the Deists with a concluding argument that there is no such thing as true Religion in the world for will the Deists say with him the Authors that pretend to true Religion do not agree where it is some say its in the Iewish Church others that it is in the Protestants others in the Catholik Church others in other Congregations and will conclude in Mr Salls Dialect that there is no such thing as true Religion extant because the Pretenders to it do not agree where to find it But the poore Man ignorantly or maliciously mistakes our doctrin all Catholiks do agree in the infallibility of the Pope and General Council ioyntly this is the infallibility wee belieue as an article of Faith It s true that the Catholik Authors do dispute if the Pope alone is infallible some say he is and will haue it to be an article of Faith that he is others say that he is not but with a Council of Cardinals and Diuines others say that neither this is an article of Faith some say that a General Council legally assembled is infallible in their Decrees though not confirmed by the Pope others say not if they be not confirmed by him But all these are but school questions the Church heares them and permits them to dispute and whateuer Bellarmin or any other saies wee are not obliged to belieue it to be an article of faith whylst it is opposed by other Catholick Doctors and the Church does not determin the Controuersy but what you are to obserue is that those Doctors who defend the infalliblity of the Pope alone and those that deny it those that affirm the infallibility of the Council alone and those that contradict it they agree vnanimously in the infallibity of the Pope and Council together because that with out any controuersy the Pope and Council ioyintly represents the vniuersal Church and the vniuersal Church is infallible this is the article of Faith wee belieue And if you tell vs a Pope or a General Council has err'd you will tell vs nothing to the purpose if you do not shew that a Pope and Council together has err'd for that 's the Church hauing by the answer of these two arguments declared what infallibility the Church clayms and where wee belieue this infallibility to be let vs now proue our Tenet First it s a comfort to an vnacquainted Traueller to be guided by one whom he firmly belieues to be acquainted with the way though really your guide were not acquainted with the way if you certainly belieue he is and that he cannot stray though you do not know the way yourself you will follow him with satisfaction and without feare of being byass'd but if you do not know the way and you belieue your guide is not so well acquainted but that he may stray you will still trauell with feare of being byass'd This is the different condition of a Catholik and a Protestant the Catholick trauelling in the way to saluation which is Religion is guided by a Church which he without the least doubt belieues cannot be mistaken whether she can or not since he is absolutly perswaded she cannot he trauells with satisfaction and without feare the Protestant in this way is guided by a Church which he belieues is not so well assured of the way but that she may err ought he not therefore to walk disatisfyed and with continual feare of being mislead You answer that the Protestant is not lead by the Church but by the Scripture which is an infallible guide It s very sure the Scripture is infallible vnderstood in the true sence but you can haue no assurance that you haue the true sence of Scripture consequently you can haue no assurance that you haue an infallible guide this proposition is certain The Scripture ill interpreted does mislead this proposition is also certain you and your Church may err in the interpretation of Scripture comparing one text vvith an other Since therefore your guide in the road of Faith is the Scripture interpreted by you and your Church comparing on text with an other You are guided by a guide that may err and mislead you and as you haue no well grounded assurance that you and your Church do not err in the interpretation of Scripture cōparing one text with an other you can haue no assurance but that you are mislead But the Catholik belieuing his Church to be infallible in the interpretation of Scripture does rest his mind in the full assurance of the truth he professeth And ought not you to embrace that doctrin which giues you that satisfaction and rest of mind rather than the Protestant doctrin of fallibility which leaues you doubtfull if what you belieue be true or not Particularly when in belieuing it you hazard nothing not your saluation for all learned Protestants which wee will proue against Mr Sall do grant saluation in the express beliefe of articles of Popery you reply it s no solid comfort that the Catholik amuses himself with in belieuing his Church that guides him to be infallible if really she be not so for if it proues in effect to be otherwise he will come short of his imaginary comfort and will find that he and his Church is mistaken I answer if wee consider the testimonies of Scripture the strength of reason the consent of ages the multitude of Vniuersityes Fathers and Doctors that defend this doctrin of infallibility it is as lykely to be true as your doctrin of fallibility it s as lykely that you are mistaken in belieuing fallibility as I am in belieuing infallibility you run therefore as great a hazard of being mistaken as I do on the other syde you cannot haue that satisfaction
bryb'd a man to feign himself dead that he might be thought to rayse him to lyfe but the man was found dead in good earnest and the fourberie published by many writers And those Miracles related by Saints and Ecclesiastical Histories had they been Sorceries and enchantments is it possible that the Hereticks against whose Doctrin they were wrought or som one then liuing should not haue discouered it This you cannot deny but that Herod and many Iews who neuer did see our Sauiour work any Miracles nor hear him preach were bound to belieue and obstinat for not belieuing our Sauiors Miracles and Doctrin only vpon this account that they were credibly informed by those who were ey witness of his Miracles and doctrin notwithstanding that the Scribâ— and Pharisees said they were wrought by the Deuil wheras therefore S. Augustin S. Bernard and the Saints of other ages are as credible Witnesses as those Iews were that related the Miracles of Christs and could iudge and know what a miracle was as well as those Iews do inform you that those true miracles were wrought in those ages in confirmation of our Catholik Tenets and that in their presence you are bound to belieue they were true miracles and obstinat in not belieuing them To say as the Centurists and Osiander that these miraculous works were Sorceries and enchantments is a most desperat assertion first it is to make the Saints and Fathers of antiquity who relates them as wrought in their owne presence examined by them and iudged to be true miracles meer fools that were deceiued and knew not to distinguish betwixt a true miracle and a Sorcery Secondly what rule or way hath Osiander and the Centurists got to know those passages to be enchantments and not true miracles which S. Augustin S. Bernard and other Saints had not Thirdly Christ appayed the hungar of a multitude with few loaues which he blessed S. Bernard cured the diseases of a multitude by the loaues which he blest let vs abstract from the Authors of these two actions let the actions be considered by a learned Pagan Philosopher who belieues not in Christ will not he iudge them both to be equally miraculous or both to be but enchantments I conclude what all wyse learned holy men and especially euen the aduersaries also of the Author do iudge after an exact examin of all circumstances to be a true miracle it is willfull obstinacy to deny it be such but the fore named Saints and they of all other ages as will appeare if you read the Ecclesiastical Histories haue iudged miracles to be truly wrought in each age som haue been eywitnesses of miracles other haue examined and enquired what they were and their circumstances and iudged them to be such S. Iohn Damascen and S. Bernards enemyes against whom they preached and writ did not deny them to be such Therefore wee cannot without obstinacy deny them Now that wee are obliged to belieue the doctrin in whose confirmation they wee wrought it s proued by what is said and that if wee be not obliged to belieue Catholecisme its most apparent wee are not obliged to belieue Christianity for by the self same arguments by which you proue against a Pagan the Christian Religion to be true wee also proue the Catholick to be true consequently either the Catholick must be true or the Christian is not by what were the Iews and Gentiles perswaded that Christianity was reuealed by God because it was preached by Holy men of great sanctity of lyfe of great austerity of no attache to the world or wordly things of admirable virtue and who confirmed their doctrin with supernatural signs and Miracles but S. Bernard who preached the Inuocation of Saints Transubstantiation and veneration of Relicks against the Henricians was a great Saint witness VVhitaker de Eccl. pag. 369. I do realy belieue S. Bernard vvas a true Saint Osiander Cent. 12. Saint Bernard Abot of Clareual vvas a very pious man Gomarus in speculo Eccl. pag. 23. One pious man your Church had in many years Bernard a Saint Pasquils return into Engl. pag. 8. he vvas one of the lamps of Gods Church S. Augustin was confessedly a great saint S. Iohn Damascen that writ seueral learned Treatises against the Iconoclasts for the worship of Images S. Malachias S. Thomas Aquinas and S. Francis Xauerius who conuerted so many Kingdoms in the Indies to the Catholick Religion at that very tyme that Luther reuolted from the Church all these and many more great Saints preached the Catholick Religion and confirmed it with many Miracles as wee haue related and the Histories do manifest therefore wee haue as strong motiues to persuade the truth of Catholick Religion as you haue to proue the truth of Christian Religion both therefore must be belieued or neither Can any man iudge it consistent with the goodness of God to permit Transubstantiation and the worship of Saints and Images if they were false doctrin to be proposed to men by great and Holy Saints and confirmed by so many miracles when by the very self same means and motiues of credibility he proposes to vs Christianity wherby men must find themselues equally obliged to belieue both or neither nor will it be an euasion to say that the Miracles wrought in fauor of Christianity were true miracles and those which were wrought for Popery were but enchantments and sorceries for abstracting from Faith which obliges vs to belieue that the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were true miracles our senses and Natural reason cannot but iudge the restitution of Damascens hand the healing of the sick by the loaues blest by S. Bernard to be as true miracles as any that was wrought by the Apostles and therefore they were iudged by all wyse men of those ages to be such and abstracting from Faith as I said what reason can be alleadged for to say the one were true miracles and the others not I conclude with this discourse as Children are obliged in conscience to honor their Parents its Gods commandment so you are obliged in conscience to belieue that Doctrin to be true which is confirmed by true Miracles for as wee formerly discoursed its impossible that God should confirm false Doctrin with true Miracles that being repugnant to his infinit veracity to confirm a lye with the seal and marks of his Commission to teach it but for your obligation of honoring this particular Man and woman who are your Parents it s not requisit you haue euidence and infallible assurance that they are your Parents its sufficient for your obligation that you are morally certain they are yours and this moral assurance which you haue is grounded only vppon the testimony of honest people that informs you of it the lyke you haue that true Miracles haue been wrought in many ages in confirmation of those Tenets of ours which you call erroneous the testimony of great saints as honest men as those who tell you that
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
to be called damnably vnbelieuers They would not belieue that corporal eating of his real flesh as you do not for the difficulties which reason dictated against the lyke expressions such as you and your fraternity proposes against them and therefore wee say that you are damnably vnbelieuers as they were and you and they are checkt by those wordes of Christ the flesh profiteth nothing it s the spirit that quickneth c which were not to check their vnderstanding for apprehending a corporal eating but to check their obstinacy that for the difficulties which natural reason did suggest against his expressions they would not belieue what he spoke and they vnderstood him to haue spoken the flesh profiteth nothing that was to say to them and to you that they must not iudge of this Mystery by the senses of the flesh nor by natural reason which is adquired by the help of the fleshy senses They cannot vnderstand how that can be It s the spirit that quickneth that 's to say it s the Diuine grace that must enlighten your vnderstandings to know and belieue how this can be Euen as when S. Peter confessed Chist to be the son of the liuing God Christ added it s not flesh and blood that reuealed that vnto thee but my Father that is in heauen Mat. 16 17. which was to say that it was not natural reason nor any knowledge of the senses of flesh or gotten by them but the grace of the heauenly Father that discouered that Mystery to him If you reade that passage in S. Io. 6. you will find that Christ as wee haue euidently proued proposed a corporal eating of his real flesh but did not at all then which is to be obserued propose the manner how he would giue his flesh to be eaten The obligation of the Iews was to belieue that he would giue it and not to dispute hovv that could be or in what manner but they began to think how it could be quomodo potest c. and their natural reason which only they consulted not vnderstanding that it could be otherwyse than by cutting his flesh in morsels to be giuen to them this appearing so absurd to human reason they absolutly denyed the possibility of the Mystery If Christ when he proposed to them his flesh for food had also proposed the manner that he intended of giuing it perhaps they would haue belieued but then he did not but only the eating of his flesh Their error was two fold the one that they denyed the possibility of giuing his flesh to be eaten for which they were called vnbelieuers the other was the cause why they denyed it because the manner of eating it which their natural reason proposed vnto them appeared absurd and therefore not conceiuing how it could be they denyed it therefore Christ checkt this their vnderstanding that the manner of giuing his flesh really to be eaten was in a spiritual way aboue what their natural reason could apprehend and sayd its the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing as wee haue expounded but they either because they did not vnderstand this expression or that they obstinatly adheared to their first denyal flincht from him I conclude with this reason you will not deny but that God might if he were pleased haue conuerted the substance of that bread which he took in his hands into his real flesh and Body as by his omnipotent word he created all things of nothing as he conuerted the water into wyne and as the bread which wee eat is by the heat of our stomacks conuerted into our flesh and blood suppose I pray that he intended at the last supper to make such a change or that now he descended from heauen to make it what words could he vse more significant to let vs vnderstand that he gaue vs his real and true Body vnder the Accidents of bread than those take eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you this is truly my flesh if in a serious discourse I promised you a horse would not you vnderstand that I intended to giue you a true horse would I perform my promomiss by giuing the figure of one since then that he might haue giuen vs if he had been pleased his true and real Body and that he spoke as if really he did intend it for he could not speake otherwyse if he did wee must vnderstand that he did intend it and gaue it If he did intend it when he spoke those words what could hinder him if he did not intend it was it sincerity and honesty to speake otherwyse than as he intended no more than if you hauing promised a horse would giue only the picture of one Let vs heare Mr Salls arguments he begins as the Iews with difficulties that reason proposes against so great a Mystery that the Accidents of bread should be without any substance to rest on that a Body would be at one tyme in many places that a well proportioned body should be confined to the smale compass of a wafer that the Accidents conuerted into vermin should produce a substance I would tyre my Readers patience if I did scan each triuial objection of these that has been a hundred tymes answered and our answers neuer replyed vnto You would haue shewen more wit Mr Sall and got more credit by replying to the answers that our writers giue to these obiections and especially Bellarmin from whom you borrow them than by repeating again a parcel of thrid bare tryfles against so great a Mystery in homage of which wee must captiuat our sence and reason as wee do to the Mystery of the Trinity which surpasseth all created intellects far more than this Mystery and yet not so cleerly expressed in Scripture as this is And if you must haue natural reason for to belieue this Mystery tell me what reason haue you for to belieue that the Bread and wyne giueth lyfe and grace to the worthy eater what proportion can reason find betwixt bread and Diuin grace what proportion betwixt the water of Baptism and spiritual Regeneration none if you do not appeale to the omnipotency of God by he same wee answer you also to shun tedious Tatalogyes that those difficulties you represent be impossible to Nature but they are possible to the omnipotent word of God But for the satisfaction of the Reader I will deliuer this argument in the terms of an ingenious man which once I discoursed with This Mystery said he is repugnant to sense and reason consequently it is not to be imposed on man if God will not haue him to renounce both It s repugnant to sense for what wee see tast and feel is but bread repugnant to reason for this ought prudently to conclude that the substance of bread is there vpon the testimony of the senses which perceiue the Accidents that by natural course are inseparable from the substance of bread I answer Reason prudently ought to conclude the substance of bread is there