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
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
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.
say man must be saued if in any but if his Lordp did speake to the purpose and to what wee belieue by the Roman Catholick Church as I declared 5. ch and in the entrance to this chap. wee vnderstand all Christians throughout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Church of Rome which is the chiefe and Mother Church if he sayes This is but a part of the Church of God where is the other part I say where was it when Luther began his pretended Reformation for then there was no visible Congregation of Christians at least No Protestants nor any thing lyke them that did administer Sacraments and preach the word of God but was vnited in Faith and Communion with the Roman Church only such as were then held by Luther and now by vs schismatick as you are which then was the other part of Christ's true Church but this is not all how could he say and you belieue that the Roman Church take it either for the Dioces of Rome or as wee vnderstand it is a part of the Catholick Church if it be guilty of damnable errors can that be the true Church or any part of it that professes damnable errors against Faith S. Athanasius his Creed sayes no for it requires to haue an entyre and inuiolable Faith and you that is a Professor of Diuinity will say that a particular Person who holds damnable errors against the doctrin of the Church and obstinatly adheres to them is an heretick and no member of hers consequently you must say and your Instructor deluded you in saying the contrary that the Roman Church can be not part of the true Church if in her there was no saluationthrough damnable errors in doctrin You see Mr Sall that against the doctrin of the Church of England against your own and your Instructors concessions you haue engaged in that blasphemous assertion of not saluation in the Catholick Church to vse your own expression pag. 75. to spight the Catholick you ran beyond all measure euen of your ovvn principles as to spight the Ievv and seem a good Christian one vvould eat more Pork than his stomak can beare And to get the credit of a sound and zealous Protestant among your new Brethren you haue exceeded them in decrying the Church But the Reader will vnderstand by what I haue discoursed in this Chapter that the Catholick Church is the true Church that she cannot err in any point whateuer of Religion and consequently that saluation is to be sought in her VIII CHAPT THAT THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it That they cannot vvithout blasphemy alleadge Scripture for their Tenets That they haue not one and the same Faith vvith Catholicks that out of the Catholick Church there is no saluation Hovv far can ignorance excuse Protestants IT is the constant doctrin of the Protestant Church for I call not the Puritans and Hugonots of France Protestants whose error in this point I haue she wen in the former chap. that the Catholick Church has not erred in fundamental points of Religion because the true Church such as the Catholick was before Luther confessedly and now is in their acknowledgment cannot err in essential and fundamental articles consequently they discourse that the Protestant and Catholick Church differ only in points not fundamental and inferior truths which say they are pernicious errors but break not Vnity of Faith nor destroyes not saluation That the true Church can err and is fallible in points not fundamental and inferior truths This is faithfully the doctrin of the Protestant Church as you will find in the Authors I quoted in the former Chapt. in Stilling fleet in his book miscalled a Rational Account and in seueral others cited in the Protestant Apology tr 1. c. 6. and tract 2. c. 2. Now wee must consider what is the Protestant Church properly it belieues many Articles and as they say all fundamental Articles that the Catholick belieues so far they are not Properly Protestants but their proper Notion is to be taken from those Tenets wherin they differ so that Protestancy properly and as it is condistinct from Catholecism or Popery as you say is the doctrin wherin the Protestant Church differs from the Catholick Now I proue that the Protestant Church as it is properly the Protestant Church condistinct from the Catholick is not the Church of Christ because it does not teach the doctrin of Christ and no Church can be called of Christ further that it teacheth his doctrin and doubteless if wee did ask the Protestants and first Reformers why they did separate from the Catholick Church they would say To belieue and practise the Doctrin of Christ vvhich the Catholick denyed But I will proue that their doctrin for which they separated from vs and wherin they differ from vs is not the Doctrin of Christ The argument is in Ferio thus No fallible doctrin is the doctrin of Christ For who would be so blasphemous as to say that what Christ has taught is fallible Doctrin But Protestancy that 's to say all the Doctrin wherin Protestants differr from Catholicks and for which they separated from vs is altogether fallible Doctrin therefore Protestancy as it is properly the Doctrin of the Protestant Church is not the Doctrin of Christ That Protestancy or the Doctrin wherin wee differ is all fallible Doctrin its manifest for Protestancy or Doctrin wherin wee differ is altogether of points not fundamental wee all agree in the fundamental Articles as they vnanimously confess wee only differ in inferiour Truths wherin the Catholick Church has erred But the doctrin of points not fundamental and inferior truths is fallible Doctrin for it s their constant Doctrin also that the true Church be it the Catholick or Protestant can err and is fallible in articles not fundamental and inferiour truths therefore all your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin therefore it s not the doctrin of Christ I confess ingenuously I think this argument cannot be solidly answered For is it not certain that you differ from vs as you say only in not fundamental articles is it not also your doctrin that the true Church is fallible in articles not fundamental how can it then be denyed but that you differ from vs only in fallible doctrin the doctrin wherin you differ from vs is Protestancy and nothing els is properly Protestācy but that for which you departed from vs therfore your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin and consequently not the doctrin of Christ Hence I infer that you cannot without Blasphemy looke for your doctrin in Scripture no text or word of God can be alleadged for Protestancy nor any other warrant but your meer fancy for your protestancy is but a parcell of fallible doctrin and no fallible doctrin can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture which contains nothing but Gods infallible word Obserue how vainly the Protestants do boast their Religion and
do consequently both those Religions of Iudaism and Christianity must not be true Religions If it be he that commanded wee should worship him by belieuing the real Presence of Christ his Body in the Eucharist certainly it s not he that commanded wee should worship him by denying the real presence for that would be to contradict himself therefore of all those Religions which clash one with an other only one must be the true Religion This is further proued No Religion wherin God is duely worshipped and a man may be saued can iustly be called an accursed heretical and damnable Religion this Position is euident consequently it appears how vniustly Protestants call the Catholik Religion Idolatrous and superistitious it being by their own acknowledgment as wee will proue against Mr Sall a religion wherin wee may be saued and consequently wherin God is duely worshipped But S. Paul in express tearms does anathematise accurse and condemn all and each Religion euen those that are Christian Religions besids that one which he and his fellow Apostles did teach if vvee Gal. 1.9 or an Angel from Heauen should Euangelize vnto you othervvyse than as vvee haue don let him be accursed pursuant to which doctrin Hymenaeus Philetus and others declining som what the doctrin of the Apostles in the Article of the Resurrection of the Body not absolutly denying it but saying it was already past 1. Tim. 1.20 and 2. Tim. 2.18 they still remayned within the verge of Christianity but because by their error in that Article only they were of a different Religion from that of S. Paul he delivers them to Satan calls them creeping Cankers and subuertors of the Faith which would haue been a manifest iniustice in him if they stiil remayned in a true Religion where God was duely worshipped it follows therfore that no other euen Christian Religion is a true Religion but that one which S. Paul professed and from which they departed And if any Christian Religion with a good Moral lyfe were sufficient for saluation the Prelats and Pastors of the Church in all ages are to be laught at for their continual care of keeping their flock in vnity of Faith and doctrin wheras any Religion was sufficient with a good Moral lyfe the General Councils were most rash and impious in condemming Arrius Nestorius and other heretiks wheras they still remained Christians and the lyues of many of them were most iust and vpright as S. Augustin testifies of the Pelagians Let the Libertins then of our age be vndeceiued who to secure their interest and ambition are ready to embrace any Religion that is the most preualent in the state for all though Christians Religions but that one which S. Paul professed all but that whose vnity the Prelats and Concils did endeauor to preserue are accursed heretical and impious Now since of all Religions that only is the true which God has revealed vnto vs and that no other worship will please him doubtless he has afforded vs the needfull and sufficient means to know what Religion it is and to distinguish it from other pretended Religions which he has not reuealed Without Faith and Religion it is impossible to be saued God therfore who desires our saluation and commands vs vnder pain of damnation to haue true Faith must haue prouided vs of the means necessary to attain to true Faith Let vs examin what Faith is It 's an Assent giuen to an object for the testimony of him that proposes it it is therefore grounded on the Authority of the Proponent and can haue no more assurance of the Truth than the testimony on which it is grounded as for example Human Faith wherwith I belieue what a Man of credit and knowen honesty tells me can haue no more certainty than the credit and honesty of that Man has and wheras Men let them be few or many in Number vsing only natural means may deceiue or be deceiued either in the testimony they giue or in the grounds of their Assertion be it the euidence of their senses which are subiect to fallacy or the euidence of their Natural reason for som times reasons that seeme to vs euident are but sophistries it is manifest that human Faith which relyes only on the testimony of men is fallible for though it may happen that de facto it is true and that there may be moral certainty of its being true yet absolutly it might be otherwyse and so the Faith grounded vpon it is still fallible But diuine Faith That Assent which Gods requires of vs to reuealed Truths must be an infallible Faith which not only is true but cannot be otherwise than true it must be a firm Assent in the highest degree of certainty excluding all doubts and feare of being mistaken and wheras Faith has no other assurance of the Truth than the Authority of the Proponent it follows that diuine Faith must rely vpon a most infallible vndoubted Authority which can not deceiue or be deceiued Hence it follows that no euidence of senses for our sensations are deceitfull can be a sufficient ground for diuine Faith nor no natural reason for if it be probable or only morally euident it may be false or falsified if absolutly euident it can be no ground of Faith because Faith being an argument of things not appearing as S. Paul saies it surpasses natural reason and because that if it be euident it forces the vnderstanding to an Assent and so leaues no place for the merit of Faith which consists in belieuing what the vnderstanding may deny because of the difficultie it finds in assenting to an obscure obiect which the vvill assisted with the pious inclination ouercomes and thereby merits No Histories nor doctrin of Fathers no testimony or authority of any fallible Church or congregation is sufficient because diuine Faith being infallibly certain must be grounded vpon an infallible Authority Lastly it follows that only the infallible written word of God or the authority of an infallible Church must be it which proposes vnto vs the reuealed Truths and on which wee must bottom our Faith Let vs heare what Mr Sall saies as to this particular he was once of opinion that Scripture alone was not the means appointed by God for proposing vnto vs the reuealed Truths their sence not being obuious euen to learned men and consequently not the means suitable to vulgar capacityes who being as well as the learned obliged to belieue the means for attaining to the knowledge of Religion must be suitable to their capacity as well as to that of the learned and Scripture through the difficulty of it surpasses both therefore it became the Goodness and Wisdom of God to appoint a visible Iudge assisted with his infallible spirit that in case of doubt should determin our controuersies and declare vnto vs what we ought to belieue But saies he pag. 27. the Archbishop of Cashell obiecting that vve ought to be very vvary in censuring the VVisdom of God if
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
fundamental Truth reuealed by God is to diminish of the word of God by which you deserue to be blotted out of the Book of life Apoc. 22. If it be not a fundamental point it is a damnable error to say it is for that would be to add to the word of God which also deserues to be blotted out of the Book of life consequently in this our contest wee are indispensably obliged to belieue either that it is or that it is not nor can wee suspend our Iudgment but must resolue absolutly on either side but no text or texts of Scripture do declare if it be or be not a fundamental article of Faith if not expounded by some infallible interpreter therefore Scripture alone is not sufficient for to assure vs what wee are obliged to belieue III. CHAPT THE SAME ASSERTION proued LOoke back to the Infancy of the Church for the first eight or tenn years there was not a word of the New Testament written and the last part whateuer that part was wherin the Doctors do not agree was not written in 40. years after Christ his Ascension part of the Scripture after it was written did perish for example an Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians mentioned 1. Cor. 5.9 by which wee vnderstand that he writ three epistles to them whereof two only are extant also part of the old Testament was lost as appears Chron. 9.12 and 29. Nay this very Scripâ—ure that now is extant and owned by vs all to be Canonical for the first 402. was not a good part of it owned to be such for the Fathers of the Church disputed and many denyed S. Pauls epistle to the Hebr. Iudes epist second of saint Peter second and Third of saint Iohn to be Canonical consequently they could not be the Test of Faith because they were not belieued to be Scripture all this tyme as there was an obligation vpon Christians to belieue so they had the sufficient means for to know what they were obliged to belieue which was not Scripture because either it was not written or if written it was not all as now it is belieued to be Scripture therefore God must haue appointed some other means besids Scripture for to instruct vs in Religion And if you insist that the Scripture as now it is extant is the needfull and sufficient means for our instruction I infer therefore wee had not the needfull and sufficient means vntill all this Scripture now extant was written consequently the Church was for many years without the sufficient means for instruction I infer again therefore vntill the last text of Scripture was written wee had not the sufficient means and wheras you are bound to proue by a cleer text that Scripture alone is the sufficient means it must be with the last text of all scripture you must proue it for then and no sooner was the scripture the sufficient means when the whole Canon was completed and the last text was written and this is impossible to be proued also it follows that you must not pretend to proue the sufficiency of scripture by any text of the new or old Testament written before the last text wheras the whole Canon was not completed when those texts were written and consequently they could not proue the sufficiency of scripture which in your acknowledgment did not begin to be the sufficient means vntill the Canon was finisht Moreouer if the scripture as now it is extant be the needfull and sufficient means then the Lutherans whom you receiue to your Communion and embrace as Brethren haue not the sufficient means for diuine Faith and consequently nor Faith itself wheras they deny many parts of Scripture to be Canonical which you belieue But what most cleerly proues that Scripture as now it is extant is not the sufficient and needfull means is this discourse first its not the needfull means for if a very considerable part of this Scripture did perish wee would still haue the sufficient means in what would remain of Scripture to instruct vs in what wee are bound to belieue for what wee are bound to belieue vnder pain of damnation are only the essential and fundamental points of Religion whoeuer belieues them though he denies other points not fundamental and inferior Truths in the doctrin of Protestants belieues what is sufficient for his saluation but there are many chapters or at least half chapters or at least many verses of Scripture which do not in the least mention any essential and fundamental point of Religion therefore all those chapters and verses are not needfull for to know what wee are bound to belieue and if they did all perish wee would in what remained haue the sufficient means Now that Scripture as now it is extant is not the sufficient means I proue it for if any part of Scripture be the sufficient means it must be that part which contains the fundamental and essential articles of Religion and wheras you do not know nor could any of your Doctors euer yet though often desired by vs giue a Catalogue of those which you call fundamental points which they be and how are they distinguisht from not fundamental points its impossible that you can tell which part of Scripture is that which contains the the fundamental points of Religion and consequently you cannot tell which part of scripture in the sufficient for our instruction That the Church was the means appointed by God for our instruction before the scripture was written the Protestant do not nor cannot deny and if they will not wauer in their Principles they must confess it continued so vntill the whole Canon was finisht which was not vntill many years after Christ his Ascension But say they scripture being written which doubteless God gaue vnto vs for no other end than to be our guide and rule of Faith the Church surceased from that office and is not to be regarded further than as she agrees with that written word so that after scripture was receiued for Gods written Oracle the Church was casheered out of those glorious offices which formerly she enioyed because as our Aduersaries pretend there was no need of any other infallible Oracle but the scripture which in the iudgment of all is such If this discourse be good it proues also that the Apostles ceased to be our instructors and infallible Oracles after the scripture was written and that the Church ceased to be infallible in fundamental points because the scripture is an infallible oracle contains all points and one infallible Oracle is sufficient yet our Aduersaries confess that the Apostles remained still infallible and the Church in fundamental points And wheras all scripture was not written at once but successiuly by parts the Church was not deuested of teaching vs but by degrees as the parts of scripture were written which paradox though ridiculous follows out of the former discourse But what if part or all the scripture did perish which is not impossible both because that
Thes 2.13 vvhen you receiued from vs the vvord of the hearing of God you receiued it not as the vvord of Man but as indeed it is the vvord of God And therefore sayes he 1. Thes 4. S. he that despeiseth these things despeiseth not man but God Could a man speake more pertinently to signify that the doctrin of the Church is the doctrin of God that when wee heare her we heare him and that her words are infaillible wheras they are the words of God Observe that the Council of Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem Act. 15.28 deciding the Controuersy concerning Circumcision delivers their sentence thus It seemeth good to ihe Holy Ghost and to vs. Signifying that the resolution proceeded ioyntly from both from the Holy Ghost by his inward inspiration and direction from the Council by its outward declaration can wee doubt therefore but that the resolution of Controuersyes by that Council was infallibly true and not only of that but also of all succeeding Councils wheras the Apostles pronounced their sentence in those words grounded on the words of Christ He that heareth you heareth me grounded on the words of Christ Io. 15.26 vvhen the Paraclet vviâ—l come he shall giue testimony of me and you shall give testimony in which words Christ did speak to his Church which was the witness which ioyntly with the Holy Ghost was to giue testimony of him and grounded on the Promiss of his Paraclet which was made by Christ not only to the Apostles but to his Church for euer vntill the consummation of the vvorld This is yet more cleerly proved by the following discourse Christ commands vs to heare the Church that he that despeiseth her despeiseth him Lu. 10.16 to obserue and do what those that sit on Moyses his chayre bids vs do Mat. 23.2 commands them to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans that will not obey her S. Paul commands vs Heb. 13.17 not to be carried away with various and strang Doctrins but obey the Church wherin sayes he Eph. 4. God has placed Apostles Evangelists Doctors and Pastors to teach vs out of these and the lyke texts which are frequent in scripture largue thus He that does what Christ bids him do and belieues what he bids him belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour but Christ bids vs belieue and do what the Church commands vs to belieue and do as appeares by these texts therefore he that does what the Church commands him to do and belieues what she commands vs to belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour consequently what teuer the Church teachs is no errour To conclude S. Io. 1. epis 4.6 hauing warned vs to try our Spirits if from God or Satan he gives vs a rule wherby to try them he that knovveth God heareth vs he that knovveth not God heareth vs not In this vve knovv the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of errour This is the way prescribed by S. Iohn to ascertain vs of the nature of our Spirits if our Spirit be conformable to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of Truth if it does not conform itself to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of errour but if the Spirit of the Church de fallible it can give me no assurance of my Spirit whether it be of truth or of errour for what assurance can you haue that the Cloath which you measure is of a yard in length if you be not assured that the yard wherwith you measure it is an exact yard neither therefore can you be assured that your Spirit is of truth by trying it with the Spirit of the Church if you be not assured that the Spirit of the Church is of Truth But because our Aduersaries will still reply that all this is to be vnderstood of the Apostles who were infallible whylst they liued and are now infallible in their written word I haue already shewen that the written word is not sufficient to ascertain vs of the truth or vntruth of our Spirits and will now proue in this VI. CHAPT THAT NOT ONLY THE APOSTLES and Church in their dayes but that the Church in all succeeding ages is infallible THe Church of England confesses that the Apostles and Church in their tyme nay and for some ages after if you ask how many they do not agree was infaillible this is not consequent to their Principles that say only God is infallible but howeuer it s their Doctrin as appears in Mr Salls discourse pag. 18 professing to belieue the Holy scripture the Apostles Creed and S. Athanasius his Creed parallelling this wth the other two vvith the heauenly gift of faith and if the Council of Nice which deliuered vnto vs the doctrin contained in Athanasius his Creed had not been directed by the Holy Ghost as the Writers of the scripture were it were à Blasphemy to belieue that Creed and the doctrin of the Council with the same Faith with which wee belieue the scripture Now the Protestants all agree in this that now nor in these many ages the Church is not infallible for which assertion you must expect no scripture from them nor no reason but their bare word But let vs see what reason they pretend God say they having giuen vs an infallible written word sufficient to instruct vs Church infallibility was for the future needless what school boy but sees the weakness of this reason first after the scripture was written the Church continued infallible for some ages Mr Sall must confess by what I haue now said as generally all Protestants say and as all must say otherwyse Arrius and other Heresiarks might have questioned the truth of their doctrin if they had been fallible and could not be obliged in conscience to acquiesce to their iugdment nor ought not tobe held for Hereticks nor excommunicated for not submitting to them if they were fallible as yon do not esteem yourself an Heretick for not submitting to the Catolick Church on te same account S. Gregory l. 1. c. 24. sayes of the first four Councils I do embrace and reuerence the four General Councils as the four Books of the Ghospell which had been rashly and impiously said if they had not been infallible Secondly if Church infallibility was needbess because the scripture which is infallible was written then it was also needless that the Church should be infallible in fundamental points of Religion and yet Protestants do constantly auer that the Church is still infallible in fundamental points thought he scripture be infallible also in them Thirdly the Apostles remayned still infallible after the Scripture was written and why not the Church fourthly if infallibility is needless because the Scripture is infallible wee may say also that S Iohn is not infallible in is Ghos pell at least as to those points which were al ready mentioned in Mathew Mark and Luke or that these three lost their infallibility by the writing of S. Iohns Ghos pell because one infallible Ghos
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
Hereticks and laboured in declaring them and neglected the others came to be only confusedly knowen and not so exactly as they were deliuered by the Apostles and this occasions and has in all ages occasioned disputes in Religion When therefore the Church in Ceneral Councils declares an Article of Faith it does not as our Aduersaryes calumny vs coyn a new Article it ads nothing to what the Apostles deliuered but it declares to the Disputants in Religion what was antiently taught and belieued by the Apostles and was forgotten or misvnderstood by others Doubts in Religion are but Doubts of what the Apostles did teach some say onething others an other what wee pretend is that wheras these doubts haue been in all ages and euer will be there has been and euer will be an infallible Church to ascertain vs which is the true Doctrin for though the Apostles knew all Truths and taught them either by vvord of Mouth or in vvriting what Doctrin they deliuered verbally or by vvord of Mouth is doubted of by Posterity if This or That be of Apostolicall Tradition alsoe the vvritten vvord is questioned if This or That Part of Scripture be truely Canonical what wee pretend is that as though Christ taught all Truths to his Apostles yet he sent an infallible interpreter the Paraclet after his Ascension to assist and direct them in case of any Doubts arising of those Truths to declare vnto them the true sence of the Truths which he taught them That as though the Paraclet taught all Truths to the Apostles yet he still remayned with them to direct them if any doubts should occurr against those Truths and as though the Apostles taught to their Disciples all those Truths yet the Protestants themselues confess it was needfull they should haue left an infallible vvritten vvord to inform and ascertain vs what Doctrin the Apostles did teach so wee pretend that though the Apostles haue taught verbally and by their vvritten vvord all Truths of Religion yet since that wee see T is douted what the Apostles did teach verbally and which is their vvritten Doctrin it was absolutly needfull there should be left to vs after their departure an infallible Guide and Instructor for to ascertain vs which is the Doctrin and vvritten vvord of the Apostles and the true sence of that vvritten vvord which infallible Guide and instructor wee say is the Church constantly assisted by Gods infallible Spirit So long therefore shall the Church be assisted with that Spirit to direct vs as there shall be doubts against Religion which will be for euer VII CHAPTER THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLICK Church is the true Church appointed to teach vs Infallible in all Points of Religion BY the Roman Catholick Church wee do not vndestand the Dioces of Rome as Mr Sall willfully mistakes but the whole Congregation of Faith full spred troughhout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Pope as their Head and because he resides in Rome this Congregation takes the de nomination of Roman as though an Army be quartered twenty myles round the Camp takes its denomination from the head-quarter where the General lodges This Church wee say is the Church which Christ established to teach vs what Truths he reuealed for that Church established by Christ which florished in the Apostles tyme is it now extant or not if not wee all labour in vayn in prouing each of vs that his won Church is the true and Primitiue Church if it be it must be infallible as that was but no other Church but the Roman Church pretends to be infallible nay they lowdly disclaym infallibility therefore no other is the true Church but the Roman Catholick Yow say the True Church is infallible in Fundamental Points that Your Church is so far infallible and no other Church can iustly claym to any more consequently that yours is the true Church But I reply the Scripture sayes the Church is infallible and you now in some measure do consess it the Scripture does not limit that infallibility to points fundamental nay sayes the Paraclet shall leade her to all Truth by what Authority do you make that restriction the Apostles and Church in their tyme was infallible in all Points Fundamental and not Fundamental they taught as well the chiefe and prime Articles of Faith as the inferiour Truths they writ the new Testament which contains both kind of Articles Fundamental and not Fundamental and which is infallibly true in whateuer it contains and they were no less infallible in what they taught verbally then in what they vvrit wheras S. Paul commands vs to hold fast the Traditions receiued from them whether by vvritten Epistles or by speech 2. Thes 2. Now I ask were the Apostles infallible in the Points not fundamental and inferiour Truths that they taught or not if not Scripture is not infallible in those points nor could S. Paul say when he preached points not fundamental that their vvord vvas indeed the vvord not of men but of God for the word that is not infallibly true is not Gods word If they were infallible then the Church in the Apostles tyme was infallible in all points fundamental and not either that Church therefore is not now extant and so wee labour in vayn in pretending it is or there is a Church now extant infallible in all doctrin of Religion fundamental and not which can be ne other but the Roman Church wheras Protestants and all other sectaryes-owns themselues to be fallible You answer again it s the same Church as to the substance and essence of a Church which requires only to be infallible in fundamental points as yours is but I will proue that it is as repugnant to the essence of the true Church to be fallible or fals in smale articles of Faith as in great ones I say in smale articles of Faith for to teach a doctrin to be an article of Faith is to teach it is reuealed by God but it is impossible the true Church should teach any doctrin smale or great to be a reuealed Truth which is an vntruth and not really reuealed by God because the Church is commissioned by God to teach vs his doctrin what he has reuealed and for that purpose has giuen her the Mark and Seale of his Commission which are Miracles wherby to confirm their doctrin by which God moues men to embrace and belieue the Church which teacheth No proof more certain and strong of the true Faith Church and Religion than Miracles wrought in confirmation of it when Moyses Ex. 4.1 said They vvill not belieue me nor heare my voyce God gaue him the gift of Miracles as a mark and sign that he was sent by him When Elias raysed the dead Child to lyfe 3. Reg. 17.24 the Mother cryed out novv in this I haue knovven thou art a man of God and the vvord of our Lord in they mouth is true Christ being asked if he was the Messias proued himself to be such by the
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
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
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
in themselues good because they are abused but the Abusers must be punished And this good consideration Mr Sall will not perswade you to admit the vse of Images wee grant Mr Sall that principle to be good that things in themselues commendable must not be probited because they are abused when the vse of then is absoluty needfull or conuenient and the abuses are not very frequent and pernicious as in this case of reading the Bible it s not needfull nor can it be proued to be very profitable for the common people on the other syde the abuses are most apparent frequent and pernicious for thence comes all these sects and heresies therefore it ought to be prohibited but Mr Sall you must mind what I aduertised you in my discourse of Prayers in an vnknowēn language that it is not you or I nor any other but the Church that must iudge of the conueniency or inconueniency the aduantage or desaduantage of reading of Scripture she must declare that and acording what she iudges who is constantly directed by Gods infallible Spirit in the gouernment of the flock must permit or prohibit it This your Church will not say that the vulgar people are bound in conscience to read the Scripture for many cannot reade any thing others do not read all Scripture nor do they think that they sin by not reading others do neuer read any thing of it what you can iustly pretend is that it is conuenient and profitable and therefore ought to be permitted and heere returns what I discoursed of Praying in an vnknowen tongue Let any vnpreiudic'd man iudge if it does not belong to the Church to determin what is conuenient or most conuenient since that God has giuen a Church to gouern vs Let any man iudge if a particular man that against the establisht authority vnder which he liues and is bound to obey should rise against that authority and make himself iudge of what is conuenient or inconuenient for the gouernment and vnder pretence of a greater conueniency that appears to him should alter the established practices of the Commonwealth should not such a man I say be esteemed a seditious Reuolter and be punished what therefore shall wee say of Luther he liued vnder the authority of the Catholick Church he was a priuat person he found the vse of the Bible prohibited and publik seruice in Latin he did not pretend that it was absolutly necessary for saluation to pray in knowen languages nor to reade the Bible but iudged it to be most conuenient and therefore condemned the Church for prohibiting it is not this man to be esteemed a schismatick that opposes himself to the publick authority and makes himself iudge of the practices established by it and must not wee rang you with him that persists in the same rebellion Priests and fryers haue abused Scripture it s very true but for one that has thousands haue not and for one of the vulgar that has not many haue besids priests and fryers being the Pastors of the Church are obliged to reade and when a Priest or fryer abuses the Scripture its easy to punish him but when a multitude of popular people abuses it the remedy is not so neer at hand He quotes vpon Mr Stillingfleets word a Council of Bishops at Bononia that prohibited the Scripture giuing for reason that it discouers the corruptious of the Catholick Doctrin but this Council must be of the same coyn of the 92 Canon of the Council of Lateran which wee mentioned aboue no such Canon of Lateran or Council of Bononia is or was extant but in Mr Stillingfleet and Salls imagination I conclude with these two Assertions first its needfull that the Pastors Prelats and Doctors of the Church do reade the Scripture and that the flock receiue from them the sence of it and the Doctrin contained in it It s for this end that God placed in his Church some Prophet some Apostles some Euangelists Doctors and Pastors to keepe vs in Vnity of Faith by teaching what wee ought to belieue S. Paul Eph. 4. Act. 20.18 he commands the Pastors to watch ouer the flock in which the H. G. hath placed them to gouern the Church It s therefore Christ laid his command on the Apostles and their successors to teach all Nations to preach the Ghospell and therefore sayes S. Basil q. 25. Superiorum est ista scire c. it s the obligation of the Superiors to say the Pastors to knovv and learn these thing vvhich they may teach to others but of the others not to konovv more than behoueth them to knovv And Leo Pope writing to the Patriarck of Alexandria epist 62. and epist 82. ad Iul. You must haue care that none vvho is not a Priest of the Lord may presume to vsurp the authority of teaching or preaching vvhether he be a Monk or a layman though a learned man And S. Aug. l. 1. de moribus Eccl. c. 1. vvhat man of iudgment doth not vnderstand that the exposition of Scripture is to be asked of them vvho by their profession are their Doctors And if to proceed wysely wee must consult the Lawyers for the true meaning of the Law and that each Commonwealth hath men whose profession it is to study it and deliuer the true sence of it to those that are not Lawyers by Profession how much more it is needfull that there be Doctors in the Church whose obligation is to study the Scripture and find out by the Fathers and Interpreters the true sence of it and teach it to the people This and no more doth the authorities of Fathers produced by Mr Sall proue the reading of Scripture is recommended vnto vs sayes he by S. Basil S. Chrysost and S. Augustin it s very true but to whom to the learned men of the Church whose obligation it is to teach the Doctrin it contains and to the Layty no further than to hold that sence of them which the Pastors deliuer to be the sence of the Church The second Assertion that it is not conuenient nor lawfull for the Layty to reade them further than with a total submission of their Iudgment to the sence giuen to them by the Church This is manifestly proued by the multitude of sects wherin to the world is deuided through the liberty assumed of reading the Scriptures and vnderstanding them as the Readers think best Secondly by the obscurity of Scripture which wee haue demonstrated in the 2 and 3. ch S. Peter sayes Mr Sall 2. Epist 1.19 exhorts vs to read vvee haue also a sure vvord of of Prophecy vvherunto ye do vvell to take heed c. but S. Peter by that sure vvord of Prophecy means not only the written word of God but also the vnwritten word which is the Tradition by which the Church deliuers to vs the true sense of the written vvord which he bids vs to take heed of S. Paul recommends vnto vs the reading of Scripture Rom. 15. and 2.
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
in the word Faith alone 2. S. Paul in that text speaks only of the Scripture wherin Timothie was versed and which he had perused from his Youth which was only the Old Testament so that if the text proues the sufficiency of the Scripture for our instruction it proues the sufficiency of the Old Testament only 3. S. Paul in that vers ch v. 14. sayes to Timothie thou continue in those things thou hast learned and are committed to thee knovving from vvhom thou hast learned them Whence its apparent that he remitted Timothie for instruction to the Scripture and also to the doctrin deliuered to him by a liuing Oracle which was the Apostle himself Lastly the whole Canon of Scripture was not compleated when S. Paul writ that text nor in many years after and you can not pretend that euer wee had the sufficient means for our instruction in any part but in the whole and entyre Canon therefore you cannot pretend that that text doth proue the sufficiency of Scripture II. CHAPT SCRIPTVRE ALONE NOT THE Means for to instruct vs in Faith IF Scripture alone were the means appointed by God for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to belieue is it not strange that Christ should not himself haue left vs a Written word to walk by when he laid vpon vs the obligation of embracing true Religion or that he should not at least haue laid a Command vpon his Apostles of deliuering vs a written word reade the whole Canon and you shall find no such command but he left Apostles and Pastors and a command vpon them to teach and preach vnto vs and vpon vs of belieuing and obeying them which argues that the means which he designed for our instruction in Religion was not a written word but a liuing Church Necessity is laid upon me yea vvo is vnto me if I preach not the Ghospel 1. Cor. 9.16 He feared no vvo for not vvriting but for not preaching the Ghospel because he would depriue the flock of the means which God appointed for their instruction And the Channel by which Faith is conueyed vnto vs being our Eares fides ex auditu and not our Eyes it seems apparent that the means which he appointed is a liuing Oracle who speaks and not a volum which wee reade But let vs suppose that the Apostles did by special command of Christ write the Ghospel this is manifest that since the very beginning of the Church Christians did doubt which was the true Scripture written by the Apostles and which not there is not one part of all Scripture but was questioned and denied by some Christians to be Canonical Cerdon the Valentinians and Manichaeans denyed the Old Testament to be Scripture Epiph. Haer. 41. The Ebionits reiected the four great Prophets the Books of Salamon and Psalms of Dauid Epiph. Haer. 30. Marcionits reiected all the Ghospels except that of S. Luke idem Haer. 4.2 and Irer l. 1. c. 6. the Ebionits did own only that of S. Mathew They also reiected the Epistles of S. Paul Epiph. Haer. 30. And the Disciples of Cerdon would not belieue the Acts of the Apostles Tert. de Praescrip c. 51. The Lutherans this day blot out of the Canon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews as also that of Iude the second of S. Peter and second and Third of S. Iohn all which the Caluinists belieue The Church of England will not admit the Books of Machabees Esther Iudith and others which the Chatolik Church admits nor did the Ancient Fathers of the Church proue against the Marcionists and other Hereticks those Books to be Scripture by the Scripture itself but by the Church as S. Augustin l. cont Episc Man c. 5. Euangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoueret Authoritas I vvould not belieue the Ghospel to be the Ghospel if the authoriiy of the Church did not moue me to it Now I argue thus you say true Religion is knowen by Scripture alone that 's to say wee haue no assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth but by Scripture alone Therfore wee can haue no more assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth than wee haue of the Scriptur's which contains that Truth being true Scripture if therefore you be not innfallibly ascertained that this is true Scripture you cannot be infallibly ascertained that the Truths which it contains are reuealed Truths But Scripture alone giues no assurance that it is true Scripture that it is not corrupted either by the malice or ignorance of the translators or inaduertency of the Printer for there is not a text in all Scripture that mentions it therfore the Scripture alone cannot ascertain vs of the Truth of Religion And it cannot be imagined but that since the true sence of Scripture is doubtfull God has prouided vs of some means to know which is the true sence so also since that wee are obliged to belieue with diuine Faith that this Booke is Scripture it cannot be doubted I say but that God has afforded some means for to ascertain vs which is true Scripture and to confound those that deny the Scripture to be Scripture But Scripture itself alone can neuer assure vs of its being Scripture For to say that Scripture doth manifest itself to be Gods word by certain Criteria or signs found in Scripture itself as a diuine beam of light a Maiesty of style an energy of vvords wherby it does manifest it self to the humble and well intentioned harts to be Gods word these are but fond imaginations for all the Ancient Fathers of the first 402. years of the Church doubtless were as humble and as well intentioned as wee and all that tyme the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews Iude and S. Peeters second Epistle and second and Third of S. Iohn were not belieued as an article of Faith to be Scripture nay were absolutly denyed to be such by Tert. Cypr. Lactan. and others and yet they had the same Majesty of style and energy of words as now they haue and whateuer you may iudge of vs Catholiks Luther you will say was humble and well intentioned and could see no such Criteria or signs in those Epistles which Caluin belieues to be Canonical and 't is but a fond imagination to conceit any such lustre or Majesty in those Books which you belieue more than in the Books of Tobias Esther and others which you deny Consider I pray if a Pagan desirous of his saluation were placed in a vast Library could he distinguish the Scripture from other Books and know it to be the word of God only by reading it and if you did euer reade of any Kingdom couerted to Christianity by reading the Bible only without Apostolical men to expound the Christian Doctrin and by that you may gness which were the means appointed by God for our instruction if Scripture alone or a liuing Church And allowed wee be assured this Book and an other is the word of God of the Scripture wee
some part of it has perisht already and that there is nor in all scripture any promiss of its perpetuity as there is of the perpetuity of the Church then I hope the scripture would return to her ancient prerogatiue of being the needfull means appointed for our instruction this extrauagant position you are bound to affirm and you can shew no scripture for it and yet you can belieue nothing but what is in scripture I should think this a good discourse the Church was once our guide and means appointed to ascertain vs of the truths when the scripture that now is extant was not written But the scripture now owned for such does not say the Church was deuested of that Prerogatiue therefore I am still obliged to belieue she enioyeth it for the obligation that once was and it not proued to be abolished remains still in force there was an obligation of belieuing the Church to be Gods infallible Oracle nothing appears that taketh away that obligation therefore it s still in force To conclude the Necessity of an interpreter besides Scripture for to instruct vs what wee are to belieue is proued not only because Christ did place Apostles Euangelist Doctors and Pastors in his Church Eph. 4.11 for this end as the Apostle distinctly faies for to keep vs in Vnity of Faith to instruct vs that vvee may be no more Children vvauering to and fro and carried avvay vvith euery vvind of doctrin but also by the practice of the Catholik and Protestant Churchs who giue such vast reuenews to Ecclesiastical persons for teaching the flock and expounding the Mysteries of Faith if scripture were so cleer in the necessary points what needed any more but to giue each one a Bible and imploy the Rents of the Clergy in some other vse what needed so many authentick Christian doctrins published by both Churchs for to declare the Mysteries of Religion what needed so many Volums and Commentarîes of the Fathers vpon the scripture if it alone is cleer full and plain in what wee are bound to belieue IV. CHAPTER A TRVE CHVRCH ESTABLISHED by Christ to decide Controuersies and deliuer the true Doctrin vvhich vvee are bound to belieue NO Protestant at least of our tymes will deny the existence of a true Church it being an article of the Apostles Creed I belieue the holy Catholik Church The true Notion of it wee haue from S. Paul Rom. 12.4 by a comparison of it with a Natural Body as this hath seueral members each one wherof hath its proper function so wee all as so many different members which exercise diverse functions concurr to constitute one Body in Christ In the natural Body there is a head which is the seat of the Iudgment which gouerns there are eyes to see ears to heare a mouth to speake hands to work and feet to walk thus in the Church Christ's mystical Body there must be a head to gouern which is the suprem Pastor there must be eyes to pry and examin the truth and these are the Doctors there must be hands to deliuer the word of God and a mouth to speake and these are the Preachers Pastors and Curats there must be eares to heare and feet to walk which are the flock Hence wee gather the true Notion of the Church of God to be a visible society of true belieuers under one suprem Pastor where the Faith of Christ is taught and belieued The Church therefore is constituted of two parts the One whose obligation is to teach and rule the flock the other whose obligation is to obey and belieue what the Church by her Pastors and Doctors does teach and command and wheras the Church was still extant or the article of our Creed was some tyme false it follows there were still extant Pastors and Doctors who did teach the true Faith of Christ and a flock that belieued it As to the obligation of the Church to instruct and gouern vs these texts of scripture euince it Necessity is laid vpon me for to preach and vvo be to me if I preach not 1. Cor. 9.16 Attend to yourselues and to the vvhole flock vvherin the H. G. has placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God Act. 20.23 Which obligation was layd an the Apostles and their successors when Christ commanded them to teach all Nations to preach the Ghospel vnto all creatures which obligation S. Paul doth in seueral places of his Epistles declare but particularly Eph. 4.11 He placed in his Church som Apostles and som Prophets others som Euangelists others som Pastors and Doctors and declares to what end did Christ prouide his Church of them for the consummation of Saints into the vvork of the Ministery that vvee may meet in the vnity of Faith that vvee be no more children vvauering to and fro and carried avvay vvith euery vvind of Doctrin Whence two consequences follow the first that if you be tossed in your mind and doubtfull what to belieue if tvvo Sacraments or seauen if real Presence or figuratiue you are not to be carried away with euery wind of Doctrin but go the Church which God has furnished with Doctors Apstoles and Pastors for to instruct you the second consequence that Christ Faith being but One and wee obliged to liue in the Vnity of that Faith the Apostle tells vs in this text that the means which he has appointed for to keepe vs in Vnity of Faith are the Apostles Euangelists Doctors and Pastors of the Church that the Church by them may lead vs to the professiion of one Faith The other part which cōstitutes the Church is the flock whose obligation is to obey and belieue what she by her Doctors and Pastors does teach and command vs this obligation is manifestly proued Mat. 23.2 all that they vvho sit on the chayr of Moyses vvill say vnto you that obserue and do Lu. 10.16 Christ commands that he who will not heare the Church is to be esteemed a Heathen and a Publican and adds that he vvho despeiseth her despeiseth him that is to say he that despeiseth her Doctrin which S. Paul expounds 1. Thes 4.8 when after giuing them instructions he saies He that despeiseth these things despeiseth not man but God and 2. Thes 3.14 he that obeyeth not our vvord do not acompagny him that he may be confounded These cleer and manifest texts proue the obligation of the flock to belieue and obey the Doctrin and commands which the Church by her Pastors and Doctors layeth vpon them Whence it appears that the Church is the Oracle and Mistress which Christ has appointed on earth for to instruct and gouern vs. This discourse that the Church is constituted of two parts the one whose obligation is to teach and gouern the otherwhose obligation is to learn belieue and obey is cleerly shewen in the 1. Cor. 3. where the Apostle compares the Pastors and Prelats to Husband men who soweth the seed and to Masterbuilders that make a house and compares the
flock to a field that receiues the seed and improuments and to an edifice But saies he He that planteh and he that vvatereth are one and euery man shall receiue his ovvn revvard according his ovvn vvorks vvee are labourers together vvith God ye are Gods Husbandry ye are Gods building All is but one body one common wealth but with this distinction that some in this Body and commonweath are labourers some whose charge it is to plant and sovv the seed which are the Apostles and their successors others are the Husbandry the field which is vvatered and receiues the seed whichs the flock Out of these Premisses I discourse thus as it is impossible that God laying an obligation vpon vs of belieuing reuealed Truths should not haue afforded vs the necessary means to know what Truths he has reuealed so it is a madness in me to expect to come to that knowledge by any other way or means than by that which God has appointed for our conduct it 's an vnquestionable truth that God might haue established an other manner of Prouidence for the saluation of man whitout Scripture Sacraments or Church but if God has decreed in this his present gouernment not to saue Man but vpon certain conditions will you be so peremptory as to expect by special priuiledge as a person particularly fauored to walk a path by yourself and be exempted from those conditions which are generally required fromall God might do so there is no doubt of it but it 's a madness in you to expect it You are to enquire what worship God requires from Man what truths he has reuealed which is the true sence of Scripture I do not doubt but God might if he were pleased vse other means for your instruction without Church Scripture Pastors or Doctors snatching you to the Third Heauen as hedid S. Paul 2. Cor. 11.4 or by sending an Angel to resolue your doubts or by inward illustrations and diuine lights but since that in this his present Prouidence he has established a Church furnished as wee mentioned with Doctors Pastors Apostles and Euangelists and layd an obligation vpon her to teach you and vpon you to belieue and obey her will you as a person particularly priuiledg'd expect to haue the knowledge of what you ought to belieue and to yet the true sence of Scripture by any other means than by and from that Oracle which God has appointed for the instruction of all I pitty some deluded souls who ery out God knovvs if I did knovv the true Religion and the true sence of Scripture I vvould embrace it But friend do you expect a reuelation from Heauen or an inward light for to ascertain you God has afforded means for to instruct vs and commands vs all he excepts none to heare and oby her which is the Church make vse of the means which he has appointed and you will be instructed think not that your ignorance will excuse your incredulity of what you ought to belieue when God has giuen you means wherby to be instructed and you will not make vse of those means and if you say you do not know which Church is that which God has appointed for your instruction both by what I haue already discoursed and what shall be said in the ensuing chapters it will manifestly appeare that it is the Roman Catholik Church But say you I search the Scripture as Christ commanded 10.5.39 and what I meet not there I do not belieue because I am persuaded it 's it that God has left vnto vs for to instruct vs and that it contains expresly and cleerly what wee are bound to belieue But wee haue proued in the two former chapters that Scripture does not contain all articles which wee are bound to belieue and that euen the fundamental points of Religion are not sufficiently proued by Scripture alone without an infaillible interpreter for there is not any text hardly of Scripture but may be interpreted in different sences and Scripture alone does not ascertain vs which is the true sence And if an Heretick did aryse and say that it is not lawfull to keepe sunday for a Holy day but saturday because God commanded this should be kept and the Apostles could not alter it against the express command of God Ex. 20. if he should say that it is lawfull for vs to keepe but one Holy day and no more in the weeke and that wee are obliged to work the other six dayes according that text six dayes thou shalt vvork but the seaueth is the Sabaoth of they Lord Ex. 20. can his errour be eleerly proued by Scripture alone if he should say that it is not conformable to the instruction of Christ to giue the Communion to Women because wee do not read that Christ should haue giuen it to any by what Scripture will you conuince him of an error If he should say that you cannot in conscience defend your right against one who commences a suit in law against you or that is an vniust vsurper of your goods he will giue you plain Scripture for it To him that vvill contest vvith you in Lavv and take your Coat from you giue him also your Cloak Mat. 5.40 and by what text will you conuince him that he misvnderstands that text if he should say with the Luciferians that a Priest who would apostatise from his Religion ought not to be receiued again to the Communion of the Church though he did repent grounded vpon the words of Christ Mat. 5. if the salt that 's to say the Doctors and Pastors of the Church hath lost its Sauour vvher vvith shall it be salted it is therfore good for nothing but to be cast out and trod vnder foot of men This is a damnable error the doore is still open Mr Sall if you will but knock with repentance yet no text of Scripture doth cleerly conuince that errour finally there was neuer yet any Heresy no neuer will be but will hit vpon some text of Scripture to proue its error and if it be lawfull for euery man to interpret he Scripture in the sence that seems best to him they will neuer be conuinced by Scripture alone Hence it follows that since the texts of Scripture admit different sences either of two things must happen or that God has left it arbitrary to Mankind to belieue that sence which each one bonafide thinks in his own iudgment to be the best and has not obliged him to submit his iudgment to the sence giuen by any other and if so Arriants Protestants Catholiks and all are of a good Religion for each of vs belieues that sence of Scripture which wee think the truest which is all that God requires Or if God has obliged vs all to belieue one sence of Scripture though that sence may not seem the best to this or that particular man and will haue vs submit our iudgments and belieue that sence which he obliges vs all to belieue if so then God
must haue appointed some suprem Autority to declare vnto vs what sence is that which he will haue vs all belieue to which all dissenting Parties must assent and submit their iudgment for it were vnbecoming the goodness of God to oblige man vnder pain of damnation to belieue one sence and no other of all the different sences the letter of Scripture admits and not to afford som assured means and publick Authority for no priuat authority will suffice to propose vnto vs what sence it that Nor will it be possible to keep vs in Vnity of Faith without this suprem Authority for it s not possible to haue Vnity of Faith if wee do not all hold one and the same senee of Scripture nor it is possible that wee all hold the same sence if there be not a publick Authority for to propose vnto vs what sence is it that wee must hold to whose iudgment wee must be all bound to acquiesce for if it be lawfull for euery man to reiect that Authority and hold that sence of Scripture which he iudges the best it will be lawfull for euery man to liue in a different Religion from that of others and so there will neuer be any Vnity of Faith and Religion Now that the suprem Authority appointed by Christ for to decide our Controuersies and deliuer vnto vs the true sence of Scripture is the Church establisht by Christ it s proued by the texts of Scripture alleadged in the beginning of this Chap. its proued also by the practise of all ages for when in the Apostles dayes there arose a controuersy about the Circumcision of the Gentils som affirmed they ought not only be baptised but also circumcised others denyed the Necessity of Circumcision both Parties alleadged Scripture but neither was appayed and how was the controuersy decided and the true sence of Scripture alleadged by both proposed by the Church conuened in a Council at Ierusalem Act. 15. the one Party was condemned for Hereticks if they did not submit and acquiesce to the Doctrin proposed by the Church About the yeare 324. arose a dispute betwit Arrius that was a member of the Catholick Church and others also Catholicks concerning the Diuinity of Christ each of the disputants alleadged seueral texts of Scripture and pretended his own to be the true sence who decided this Controuersy was it the Scripture alone without a publick authority to propose the sence of it No but the Church gathered in the Nicen Council to whose decisions all Christians were bound to acquiesce and condemned as Hereticks that would not About the yeare 378. arose a dispute between Macedonius and other Catholicks concerning the Diuity of the H. G. which he denied both Parties cited many texts of Scripture but the dispute was not ended vntill the Church gathered in a Council at Constantinople examined that question and texts produced by both Contestants and concluded against Macedonius after which Decision it was not lawfull to doubt of the Diuinity of the H. G. To be brief look into all ages that euer any question arose concerning Religion the final decision was alluayes deuolued to the Church who deliuered the true sence of Scripture quoted by the Disputants and esteemed an Heretick that did not submit This shews that the world did euer yet belieue the suprem authority of deciding controuersies and deliuering the true sense of Scripture was still in the Church But the wery Protestants themiselues who decry the Church and will haue no other Iugde of Controuersies but Scripture do confess that betwixt two Parties prouing their differents Assertions of Religion out of Scripture the Church hath the suprem authority of deciding and deliuering the true sence of Scripture to which both Parties are obliged in conscience to acquiesce read Doctor Porter in his Treatise of Char. Mist pag. 195. and Chilling-worth in his Book of the Protestant Religion a safe vvay of saluation pag. 206. and B. Lawd cited by Doctor Porter they teach that the Decrees of General Council bind all Persons oblige in conscience til euideuce of Scripture or a demonstration maks their error appeare that they are not to be controlled by priuat spirits nor cannot de renuersed but by an equal authority of an other General Council But because Protestants easily contradict one an other and others will say these are but opinions of priuat Doctors and not the Doctrin of the Protestant Church I will proue that what euer their Doctrin be their practice proues that they belieue the supreme authority of deciding Controuersies betwitxt two Parties disputing out of Scripture to be only in the Church the proof Arminius a Minister of Amsterdam and Professor of Diuinity at Leyden broached new Doctrin touching points of Predestination Grace and Liberty quite contrary to the Doctrin of Caluin receiued in the Churchs of Holland By his wit and credit he got many Proselyts that in a short tyme his Doctrin made great progress throughout all the States Gomarus nothing inferior to him in wit and reputation an ancient Professor of Diuinity at Groeningue opposed this nouelty and with all the ancient Ministers stood for the Doctrin of Caluin Printed Pamphlets were publisht Texts of Scripture quoted but neither did yield to the other each drew Abettors to their opinions and the Prouinces were deuided into two factions of Armenians and Gomarists The Churchs of Hollands petitioned to the States General for a National Synod to determin the Controuersy but Armenius strengthned with the protection of Barneuelt A duocat General of the States obtained that in lieu of a Synod the matter should be discussed in a conference of Diuins the States deputed som persons of quality for to heare the Disptutans Arminius presented himself with four Diuines and Gomarus with as many Arminius his fiue articles were scan'd texts of Scripture searched for and carefully examined reasons proposed by both Parties with all ardor nothing omitted that wit or industruy could giue and after a tedious and eager dispute the question remained vndecided the Parties receded each proclaming the victory Armenius dyed soon after but his schollers took vp the cudgle and gain'd so much ground vpon the Gomarists that all the three Prouinces of Holland Vtrecht and Ouerissel embraced their fiue Articles and pretended a petition to the States General for a toleration in the profession of that Doctrin which they offered to defend with the pure word of God adding it did not appertain to a National Synod but to the Diuins of each particular Prouince to take cognisance of the affairs of Religion in that Prouince and therefore they protested against any National Synod The Gomarists on the other syde cryed out for a Synod the controuersy did not only trouble the peace of the Prouinces but made a great Ecco in the neigh bouring Reformed Churchs The King of England by his Embassador Sr Dudley Carleton represented to the States that the only means for to allay those disputes was a National Synod to whom
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
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
haue disputed with the Deuil as Luther did in points of Religion for the Deuil is not so kind but to the grand Heresiarcks thus far he imitats Luther that in the beginning of his Apostacy his chief drift was a separation from the Catholick Church vpon any account whateuer I say vvhateuer for it is euident that the first Reformers had not fixed on any one settled Religion in oposition to the Catholick wheras they were strugling and disputing for many years in seueral meetings had to that purpose to determin what ought to be belieued by all and what articles of Popery ought to be denyed and which not which doth euidence that their first drift was to separat from the Catholick and their second endeauour was to find out some other Religion wee haue the proof of this in the Chronocles of England for their separation from the Church of Rome began by the Schisme of Henry the Eight which was quite different from the Religion his successor and Son Edwrad the 6. endeauoured to establish and this quite an other from that which Queen Elizabeth introduced for she would haue an Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and other points denyed by the former that which the Queen established was fashioned to an other shape by King Iames and his successors Nay to this day the Sectaries who style them selues Reformed Religion do not agree what Tenets must be held in oposition to the Catholicks but are sufficiently Reformed by denying what the Catholick belieues Thus doth Mr Sall proceed for what he has proposed to himself was a separation howeuer it should be from the Church of Rome but you will find in his discourse that he is not yet throughly resolued what Religion to chuse and what to belieue not only because that he has resolued to be of the Church of England which is an indiuiduum vagum ready to change with all gouernments but that in his Declaration he professes to belieue the 39. Articles of the Church of England and pag. 39. he sayes that the summe of his Faith is the written word of God and the plain vndubitable consequences out of it and it is manifest that the 39. Articles are not plain vndubitable consequences out of Gods written word for a plain vndubitable consequence is that which the Premisses being granted is iudged by all wise learned vnderstanding men to follow out of the Premisses and cannot be denyed be any wyse vnderstanding man That in the Roman Catholick Church there are wyse learned men it were a madness to deny it but a far greater madness to say that the Fathers and Doctors of all ages before those 39. Articles were coyned were not wyse and learned men that studied and vnderstood the Bible and to all these the 39. Articles seems contrary to the word of God so far they were from iudging them plain and vndeniable consequences out of it And the Lutherans Presbyterians Anabaptists and Huguenots of France do not allow the 39. Articles of the Church of England and consequently do not iudge them to be plain vndeniable consequences out of Scripture So that you must say that either all are a company of knaues that speake against their consciences or that those 39. Articles are not plain and vndeniable consequences out of Scripture consequently Mr Salls some tymes belieues only Scripture and its plain consequences sometyms more But what proues that he is not yet throughly a Protestant and so wee know not what he is but a Not Catholick is his blasphemous Position that there is not saluation in the Roman Catholick Religion for it is the constant doctrin of the Church of England that the Catholick Religion is a sauing Religion first because this has been euer yet their complaint against vs that wee are vncharitable in denying saluation in their Church and they extol their own charity for granting that in the profession of Popery prouided he has no other sin a man may be saued Secondly because they confess there was a true Church extant the age that Luther began the Reformation and all the precedent ages for its an Article of our Creed the constant Existence of Gods Church I belieue the Catholick Church and that there was no other Church then extant but the Roman Catholick Church they also confess it and must grant it for the essence of the true Church consisting as they say in the due administration of the Sacraments and preaching of the word of God and no other Church being extant in Luthers age and the precedent that administred Sacraments or preached the Ghospell but the Roman Church doubtless it must haue been the true Church for in what Kingdom Prouince Citty Village Church or Chappell in the world was these things or any of them don by Protestants its therefore the constant doctrin of Protestants that Roman Catholick Church was then the true Church and is now a true Church for its the same now that then it was Now that a man may be saued in the true Church of God prouided his lyfe be good it were a blasphemy to deny it consequently its a blasphemy to say that in the Roman Church a man may not be saued and it were to say that all our Ancestors for so many ages all the Fathers Doctors and saints confessed by the Protestants shem selues to be saints were all damned Neither can Mr Sall excuse his Blasphemy and cure the wound with that plaister of Ignorance which he applyes saying that Papists pag. 116. may be excused by ignorance and this smale comfort he will not grant but to the simple sort and not at all to the learned men So that none of our Ancestors were saued for the space of so many hundred years no saints that are confessed by both Parties to be such if they were not fooles and ignorant people of the simple sort wherby all the wyse and learned Fathers and Doctors of the precedent ages and of this age are absolutly damned Nay and Thomas Aquinas which he him self styles a saint and none of the simple sort but a learned Doctor who confessedly was a Papist is also damn'd It s impossible that his Auditors if they were of the Church of England could heare him with patience to cast all their Ancestors to hell a Blasphemy so opposit to the Doctrin of their Church wherein doth the Charity of the Protestant Church consist and they do vaunt that they exceed the Catholicks is it in saying that by ignorance a Papist maybe saued in his Religion prouided his lyfe be good this is no excess of Charity for wee grant also as wee will declare in the ensueing Chap. that Protestants and not only they but Heathens and Iews may be saued in their Religion if they be ignorant and liue well wee are but little beholding to the Protestant charity if they grant no greater capacity of saluation in the Roman Catholick Religion then in Paganism and Iudaism No Sr since you are resolued to be a Protestant let me teach
yong Lad that neuer left his Fathers house neuer heard of Catholick Religion but all to desaduantage has no Catholick to confer with or if any not such as can giue him satisfaction he is through sickness or other impediments vnable to go in search of Priests or learned men he liues in his own Profession well can you be sure that this Lads ignorance was not inuincible for my part I iudge there are som though but few I feare that haue an inuincible ignorance I say but few for the reason I will produce soon But of learned men and men vers'd in the transactions of ages wee may haue moral assurance that their ignorance cannot be inuincible and of them we may say that if God has not giuen them som inward light in the last gasp and an act of contrition which yet to vs is vn knowen but that they dyed in the belief of their Tenets they are damn'd The reason why I say that but few Protestants can haue an inuincible ignorance of our Catholick Doctrin is All men are perswaded that there is a true Church and there is nothing more euident to any man of common sense than that all those Congregations and each of them which wee see among vs of Quakers Presbyterians Anabaptists Protestants Catholiks are not the true Church this I say is apparent to any man of common sense because each of vs condemns not only the external gouernement but the Tenets of the other and though all the rest ioyns to oppose the Catholick yet take them seperatly they are as apposit against one an other as they are against vs. In this confusion there is a very easy way to find out which of all is the true Church for what is more easy for a man that reflects seriously vpon the concerns of Religion which euery man is obliged in conscience to do than to learn by the Chronicles of England and by the seueral Historyes that are written when did these that wee call Reformations begin on what occasion and where in the world was there any such thing as Protestant Church Presbyterian Church c. two hundred and four years agon There is not a child in the Parish hardly but knows that Luther and Caluin began the Reformation which now is called Protestant Presbyterian c. in opposition to Popery which was as they pretended full of errors then Mass was banished Bishops Monks and Priests were exiled and their Lands forfeited the Churches were taken from vs and the Reformation introduced I know the Protestant will reply thath his Religion is Apostolical that it was the very Religion which Christ established and the Apostles preached but this consideration is too heigh for men of common vnderstanding this point cannot be soon cleered therefore I will not now engage in it because I pretend to shew to men of common vnderstanding an easy way to find out if this or that be a true Church whether your Religion was in the Apostles tyme or no you cannot deny but that which you call the Reformation is but of less than two hundred years date The ruins of the Churchs and Abbyes the Church Lands the Crosses placed in the heigh way and seueral other marks yet extant of Popery do testify it was the Catholick Religion that was the Religion of the Land your Chronicles beare witness it was it that florished for so many ages before in it your Ancestors did liue and dye This no man but knows This supposed there is no man of common sense if he reflects on the affairs of his saluation which reflexion wee are all obliged to make but is obliged to doubt of this Reformation or any branch of it be the true Religion you say men of common sense and of good vnderstanding do not doubt of it notwithstanding all what wee haue premissed but I say that they are obliged in conscience to doubt of it if they do not its through a supin and gross negligence of their saluation which is culpable and damnable I say they are bound in conscience to doubt of it first because common sense if not byass'd by som preiudice does dictat to any man that nouelties and innouations in matters of Religion are to be suspected and this pretended Reformation is such that was vn knowen to the world the day that Luther began it and to all the precedent ages for neuer was there any such thing as Protestancy spoken of Secondly because common sense dictats to a man that an ancient Religion which florished and which and noe other was established in all Christiandom ought not to be reuersed by a priuat Man as Luther was without sheuving by Miracles and supernatural signs that he was commissioned by God for so great a work and wheras Luther did shew no such no Protestant dare say that euer he did the truth of his Reformation ought to be doubted of Thirdly that very Catholick Church which he opposed was in former ages often opposed by others and she still remayned victorious and her opposers condemned for Hereticks which to any rational man is a sufficient ground for to doubt that Luther also might be such as the other opposers were And if you say that you ought not to doubt because your Ancestors haue sufficiently examined the causes of that Reformation and found them to be iust and that you receiue the Faith you profess from them and that you rely on their word I answer for one Ancestor of yours who approued the Reformation a hundred of your Ancestors approued the old Catholick Religion without any such Reformation And were there no other cause for any man of common sense for to doubt of the truth of the Reformation than that the very Reformers and their respectiue successors are deuided among themselues some of them approuing in the Catholick Church for good Doctrin what others condemn for an error this very dissention ought to make the Reformation suspected For Caluin and his Disciple which are the Church of England in so much condemns the Real Presence of Christ his Body in the Euchartst Luther and his Disciples do firmly belieue the Real Presence Luther condemns the Catholick Church for belieuing S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrevvs and some other parts of Scripture to be Canonical Caluin with the Church of England says the Catholicks do well and they also belieue them to be Canonical Seueral other examples wee could bring of Doctrins that some of the Reformers condemn for errors in the Catholick Church and other Reformers say they are no such ought not this to make vs doubt of the truth of this Reformation Now that it is apparent that any man man of common sense who reflects on Religion ought to doubt of this Reformation the way to satisfy his doubt is very easy For if he finds that the Catholick Church does in this age and in Luthers and each of the precedent ages work Miracles in confirmation of her Doctrin and that the Reformation nor any branch
of it has none can any reasonable man desire a more pregnant proof of the truth of the Catholick Church and falshood of the Reformation reade the Historyes and Fathers of all ages you shall find the Miracles wrought by her as I related in the former Chapter you say you find them related but you do not belieue them this I call and cannot be called otherwyse than obstinacy to deny what the whole Torrent of Antiquity affirms as it would be obstinacy to deny there was a Iulius Caesar in the world for which wee haue but the testimony of Historyes written by Pagans for no Christian did see him You say the Authors that relate those Miracles were Papists and therefore their testimony to be suspected I answer the Authors who write those Miracles had no pike against Protestants nor did not write out of any design against you for you were not in the world and therefore you ought not to pretend any exception against them and if but one or two did relate them your reflexion could be pardonable but to say that all the Fathers and Historians of Antiquity were knaues that spoke against their consciences many relating them to haue been wrought in their own presence or fools that did not vnderstand what miracles were is an intolerable impudence Add to the Miracles wrought by this Church in all ages the conuersion of Nations to Christianity and none by the Reformation the succession of her Bishops without interruption for so many ages no such in the Reformation Her Eminent Saints none in the Reformation her vnion in Doctrin of Faith none in the Reformation the voluntary pouerty of her Professors exchanging plentifull estates for the powerty of a religious lyfe a practise recommended by Christ and thought madness by the Reformation the multitude of Churchs built by her and demolished by the Reformation Does not all this proue our Church to be the true Church of Christ that he has qualified with such glorious Marks These makes our Church so glorious and shyne lyke the Citty on the Mountain lyke the candle in the candlestick that it is hardly possible that any man can haue on inuincible ignorance of her being the true Church and VVo be to the man that relying on the perswasion of the inuincibility of his ignorance which in effect is but obstinacy will liue out of her I conclude with that Paper that Mr Sall speakes of wherin he deliuered that a Protestant belieuing the common Principles of Christianity and lieuing acording the rules of his profession being inuincibly ignorant might be saued for which doctrin he complains to haue been censured and cryes Victory because that none of our Clergy did answer though they did censure him He misinforms his Readers it was not that doctrin which was censured and if his Paper did contain no more than it it required no answer it was his indiscretion was censured and I will be iudged by you Reader if he was not indiscreet in this point for if a Preacher were sent to conuert Pagans to Christianity would it be discretion in him to teach them Srs the Christian Religion is the best but you may be very vvell saued in that vvhich you hold if you be inuincibly ignorant The doctrin is very true but a man that goes to conuert them to Christianity from a Religion that he knows is in itself false ought not to encourage them to remayn in that Religion with the hopes of being sauedin it his obligation is to beat them out of their ignorance and not to propose it vnto them as a Medium of saluation would not they answer him well if wee can be saued through our ignorance in the Religion wee haue why do you disturb vs with any other and creat scruples in our minds This is Mr Salls case that was sent to Ireland to conuert Protestants who thought themselues perhaps to be inuincibly ignorant iudge you was it discretion to propose vnto them their inuincible ignorance as an encouragement to remayn in their errors It s not allwayes discretion to declare the truth itself when there is no obligation of declaring it as in this there could be none for the Nobility which he sayes proposed him that question were they Catholiks or Protestants if Catholicks its manifest they needed not to be instructed in that truth it s no fundamental point of Religion If Protestants they were not obliged to know it for the same reason and that the answer was an encouragment to them to remayn as they were and seek no instruction and wheras they made that question it seems they doubted if inuincible ignorance was sufficient and if that answer had not been giuen lykely the would secure their saluation by seeking instruction This is the indiscretion for which he was censured Now wee will descend to the errors which he fixs on the Church of Rome THE SECOND PART OF THE PRETENDED ERRORS of the Roman Church alleadged by Mr Sall. HAuing in the former part shewen the Necessity of an Infallible liuing Iudge and that to be the Roman Catholick Church there needed no other answer to any doubt in Religion though intricat and vnanswerable it might seem to vs but to say the Church vvhich is infallible and Gods Oracle teacheth it therefore it must be true though I do not vnderstand hovv But because our Aduersary confides much in the strength of his arguments wee will descend to examin each point in particular which he impugns and it will appeare that though wee had not the testimony of an infallible Church to rely vpon but only Reason and Scripture as interpreted by Ancient Fathers our cause is better grounded than theirs and if not better at least as well which if it appears then none but will condemn them for forsaking an old Religion and seeking to reuers it by a pretended Reformation when they can shew no better grounds for their Nouelties than wee haue for our Ancient doctrin POP'S INFALLIBILITY AND THE Resolution of Faith expounded HE forsakes the Catholick Church for her errors and which be they the first is the Popes infallibility if this be an error it s not of the Church for as I haue shewen ch 5. it s no Arcicle of Faith that the Pope is infallible if he mislyked that doctrin he might haue denied it and remain a Catholick I can not well perceiue what he thinks of the Church vniuersal whether he belieues her infallible or no for pag. 34. he grants that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3.15 The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth Must be vnderstood of the vniuersal Church but whether he grants that thence she is proued infallible or no I cannot vnderstand thence he inferrs that the Roman Church that is to say the Dioces of Rome is not infallible nor the Pillar and ground of Truth but alas he might haue spared himself that labor for wee do not belieue that the Dioces of Rome is an infallible Church nor that the
Pope is infallible when wee say the Roman Catholick Church is infallible wee mean and all our Aduersaries know that the Church of Rome and all Churchs vniuersally spread throughout the world which are vnited with her in Faith and Communion either as she is diffused or representatiue in a General Council wherin Protestants are not included though a Christian Congregation because they are deuided from her This Church is the true vniuersal Church called Roman because the chief Pastor is in Rome called Vaiuersal because her Members are spread throughout the world of the infallibility of this Church Mr Sall speaks nothing but of the Pop's infallibity which is no Article of Faith which if an error is not of the Church and therefore ought not to leaue the Church for this reason When our Aduersaries are obliged and do promise to proue our errors by plain and vndeniable Scripture from the pag. 29. to 35. and from pag. 39. to 44. where Mr Sall vnder takes to proue this error not one text of Scripture does he alleadge but three so far from being plain and vndeniable that any man of common sense will find them impertinent the first ps 11.1 verities are mâ—imed among the children of Men. And how can this proue the Church to be fallible if it does not proue that the Apostles Euangelists and Prophets are also fallible who were Children of Men and if it does not proue the Church to be fallible also in fundamental points which Mr Sall and all Protestants deny The second all Men are Lyars Fallibility signifies only a possibility of deliuering an vntruth a Lyar is he that actually deliuers an vntruth and that against his own knowledge so that the text if it proues any thing to Mr Salls purpose it proues that the Apostles Euangelists and the Church of England are a company of fourbs that against their mind and knowledg deliuered vntruths for they are all men and all men are lyards The third text is out of S. Io. 16. prouing that the Paraclet was promised to the Church only vpon condition of louing God and keeping his Commandments to which I haue giuen a full answer ch 6â— reade there to saue me and yourself the trouble of a Tatalogy Thus Mr Sall has forsaken our Church and cannot proue by plain Scripture as he is obliged her errors Two reasons he alleadgs that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God and that there must be no such thing as infallibility of the Church wheras our Authors do not agree where to place it if in the Pope alone or in the Council to which reasons I haue sufficiently answered in the beginning of the 5. ch He sayes that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3. the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth must not be vnderstood of the Dioces of Rome and he knowes well that wee do not pretend it should wee pleade for the infallibility of the vniuersal Church as wee said but now He admires that Bellar should proue the Popes infallibility be the two Hebrew words signifying Doctrin and Truth placed by Gods command in the breast plate of the High Priest and thence drawes a consequence very absurd to him that the High Priest also must haue been infallible in the old Law I will not enlarge in this point because it concerns the Popes infallibility which is no Articles of Faith and only such I intend to vindicat but I must aduertise him of his ignorance in admiring it should be pretended that the High Priests of the Ancient Law were infallible wheras though monstrous it seems to him not only Catholick but Protestant Authors do teach it one I produce Doctor Porter a great Clerk in the Protestant Church in his book called Char. Mist pag. 35. The High Friests in cases of moment had a certain Priuiledge from error if he consulted the Diuine Oracle by the iudgment of vrim or by the breast-plate of iudgment vvherin vvere vrim and Thummim vvherby he had an absolut infallible direction And immediatly following if any such promiss made by God to assist the Pope could be produced his Decison might pass iustly for Oracles vvithout examination This blasphemy sayes he of parallelling the Pope with God in the Attribut of infallibility is raysed to a higher degree by their practice of making the Pope the suprem Iudge and Arbiter of Gods Lavvs And how does he proue this calumny Bellarmin l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say that if the Pope did command vices and prohibit virtues the Church vvould be obliged to belieue vice to be good and virtue bad And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be preferred before the institution of Christ vvheras hauing confessed that our sauior did ordain the Communion vnder both kinds to the Layty and that the Apostles did practise it they commanded it should be giuen for the future but in one kind alleading for reason that the precedent Popes and Church did practise it so vvhich is to extoll the Decrees of Popes aboue them of Christ as if the Lavvs of England vvere not to be vnderstood or practifed in Ireland but accordging to the vvill and declaration of the King of France certainly the King of France vvould be deemed of more Povver in Ireland than the King of England and the People more his subiects Answer Bellarmin in that place speaks expresly of vices and virtues when there is a doubt of their being such as for example vsury is a vice of its nature bad per se malum now wee all know it to be such and restitution to be a virtue if there should arryse a doubt of vsury's being a vice and in that case the Pope should command vsury to be practised then wee should be obliged to practise vsury and Bellar. giues the reason quia tenetur Ecclesia in rebus dubys acquiescere iudicio summi Pontificis Because in dubious cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope Behold how Bellar speaks in case of doubt that vice is vice and virtue is virtue for in that case the Pope as being the chief Pastor is in possession of the obligation of being obeyed by Gods command and a doubtfull excuse cannot exempt the subiects from their apparent duty Melior est conditio possidentis The Council of Constance knew that though the Communion was instituted and practised by the Apostles in both kinds yet Christ left it arbitrary to his Church to giue it either in one or both which I will proue in the discourse of Half Communion and therefore finding that Christ himself and his Apostles somtymes gaue it in one and that the precedent Popes for iust reasons had commanded it should be receiued so issued that Decree of receuing it in one kind And it is false what you say that they alleadged no other reason for so doing but the Decrees of precedent Popes they alleadged also for reason the example of Christ and his Apostles who gaue it in one
commits many disorders in adoring I mages y deny any such abuses that may reach to Idolatry and that the Authority which God has giuen to gouern vs and which wee are bond to obey is to take cognisance of that which when they do and prohibit Images wee will obey them in the mean tyme wee will giue you and your Church leaue to bark at the Moon But I must mind you of one mistake for to conclude this discourse Clemens Alexandrinus say you Hom. 7. I pray where haue yow seen or any other Homilies of Clemens Alexandrinus but this is not the mistake that I am to aduertise you of and in his Paraenesis speaking of Images in general declareth thus vvee haue no Images in the vvorld it is apparently forbidden to vs to exercyse that deceitfull art for it is vvritten c. you are mistaken Mr Sall and it cannot be but maliciously if you haue read his Paraenesis for he does not speake of Images in general but of Idols and such as were adored for Gods by the Gentiles to whom he directed that Paraenesis disswading them from Idolatry to the worship of one true God This is a matter of fact let the Reader peruse the Author himself and he will find that you are mistaken Hence wee conclude that Images of Christ and his saints cannot be called Idols For an Idol is a representation of a God that is not or a Deyty that has no being Images of Christ and the saints are representations of things that haue a real Being and to say that Christ his image is an Idol is to say that Christ who is the Prototype has no real Being wee conclude that the making of Images was neuer prohibited for God made man to his own Image commanded many Images to be made the Ark of the Testament the Brasen serpent and seueral others mentioned in Scripture and the Protestants them selues make many Images of Kings Queens and saints wee conclude that all worship to Images is not prohibited for wee worship the King particularly because he represents Gods Power and greatness nor all religious worship of Images is prohibited for wee giue a Religious worship to the Holy name of Iesus to the Bible beyond all other Books because it is the word of God and the Protestants to the Sacrament which they say is but a figure of Christs body Reason proues wee ought to worship the Images of Christ and his saints for it is apparent that there is such a relation and connexion betwixt the image and the thing wherof it is an image that the honor or deshonor don to the image for being a representation of the Prototype is esteemed to be don to the Prototype as when a man is by publick iustice burnt in Effigie his person is branded by the execution don in his image and no man but will think the iniury don to his picture an affront to his own person wee therefore must worship the Images of Christ and the saints because they are their representations and in this vndoubtedly wee worship them for the relation and connection that is betwixt the representation and thing represented this worship resteth not in the Image but passes to the Prototype for whose sake wee worship it And therefore it may be called a transitiue or relatiue worship The adoration of Latria due to God wee deny to Images and detest it as much as you and when wee declare our Doctrin and Faith so cleerly its malice and knowen preiudice to accuse vs of Idolatry which consists in adoring as God what is not God Inuoeation of Saints Mr Sall I hope does not forget that Maxim of the schooles argumentum multum probans nihil probat that an argument which proues more than the disputant pretends or can pretend to proue proues nothing but must be fallacious and doubtless any Christian will say that an argument that proues directly against the Scripture is but a Sophistry Let vs heare his argument against the Inuocation of Saints God sayes he Rom. 8.34 has appointed his son Iesus to make intercession for vs who is more compassionat better able and more willing than any Saint or Angel to helpe vs and his prayers are efficacious for sayeth he Io. 5.16 VVhatsoeuer vve ask the Heauenly Father in his name he vvill giue it vs. This argument proues directly against Scripture for it proues that wee must not ask the Saints on earth to pray for vs nay it proues wee must not pray for ourselues but remit all to Christ who knowes ourwants is more compassionat towards vs than the Saints on earth are nay than wee are of ourselues loues vs better than they loue vs or wee loue ourselues is better able and more willing to help vs than they are and than wee are ourselues on the other syde his prayers are more efficacious why then should wee ask the prayers of Saints on earth or pray for ourselues Yet Scripture commands vs to pray for ourselues and recommends vnto vs that wee should ask the prayer of our Brethren and the Protestant Church also does practice it Therefore this argument proues directly against the Scriprure and against the practice of the faithfull It s certain Christ loues vs better than the Saints or Angels do and is more able and willing but it is also certain that he loues the Saints of heauen better than he loues vs poore sinners on earth I know not what opinion Mr Sall may haue of himself and so what he would not do for vs on earth for our sakes wee may expect he may do it for the sake of those that he loues most which are the Saints and Angels in heauen For wee haue examples in Scripture of some Blessings conferred on the liuing on earth not for the sake of any liuing on earth but of Saints departed 3. Reg. 11.15 God shewen mercy to Salamon in differring the punishment which he deserued sor his Idolatry not for Salamons sake but for Dauid his Fathers sake who was dead 4. Reg. 19.34 God protected Ierusalem against the Assyrians nor for Ezechias the Kings sake though he loued him nor for Isaias his sake that then liued and was a Holy Prophet but for his ovvne sake and Dauids sake his seruant Thus wee see that though God loues vs more than the Saints departed loue vs yet he loues them more than vs and giues vs for their sake what he would not grant vs for our own He brings the words of S. Peter Act. 4.12 that there is no saluation in any other and no other Name vnder Heauen wherby wee may be saued all which wee acknowledge and yet Protestants as well as wee do ask the prayers of their Brethren on earth and why may not wee aske the prayers of the Saints in heauen for what wee expect by their intercession and the value and worth of their prayers is altogether grounded and springs from the Merits of that name of Iesus This is all that Mr Sall alleadges against
this Tenet of ours iugde you what strong considerations moued him to desert our Church He ads the folly of two Spanish fryers that beyond all measure euen of the Catholik Principles as he grants pag. 75. exceeded in the prayses of Saints and he would be no longer a Catholick since there were such madmen amongst vs and perhaps some Protestants will haue the lyke encouragement for to leaue that Church since Mr Sall is entred into their Congregation But if by your acknowledgment these excesses are against our Principles therefore you grant that our Principles do not wrrant any excesses in the Inuocation of Saints why therefore did you leaue the Church whose Principles are sound because some fryers played the foole a pretty reason Now that I haue answered your obiections Mr Sall y pray answer me to this discourse that the Saints in Heauen do pray for vs I proue it thus and if I be not mistaken euidently in the Principles of Religion The Saints in Heauen know euidently that there is a Militant Church on earth for they euidently know that the Resurrection or general Iudgment is not as yet come wheras they know that they haue not assumed their Bodies consequently they know the world is not ended and that there is a militant Church on earth Also they know euidently that this militant Church is in continual warfare still assaulted by Satan with temptations beset with spiritual dangers for this is the Essence of a Militant Church and in this it is distinguished from the Triomphant that This is out of all danger That is in continual battle by this it appeares that the Saints in Heauen are not altogether ignorant of our affaires on earth as our Aduersaries would haue them to be Now I proceed in my discourse can it be imagined that the Saints in Heauen knowing our temptations and battles with so fierce an enemy as Satan should be so deuoid of Charity as not to pray for vs I know not what you may answer but I know what some answer that they can not pray for being rauish'd with the possession of an acomplisht Bliss they cannot mind any thing els but the glory of the obiect which they see But this is in credible that the Deuils in the bitterness of their torments should not forget vs nor the hight of miseries should not allaytheir malice but still tempt vs and the saints and Angels should abate their Charity in the greatness of their glory specially that Christ sayes S. Paul Rom. 8. prayes inessantly for vs the possession therefore of the glory cannot hinder the saints prayers for vs. But I proue that their glory obliges them to pray for vs you cannot deny but that in the possession of that glory they ardently desire the exaltation of Gods name the increase of his glory the confusion of his enemy Satan and what greater confusion of Satan what greater exaltation of Gods name and glory than the victory of men against Satan the victory of those that are tempted by him and finally mens saluation vndoubtedly then wheras they euidently know that the Militant Church is in continual battle against that enemy in continual temptations and dangers of damnation the very possession of that glory makes them desire ardently and wish our victoryes and saluation this wish and desire of theirs you cannot deny but that it is manifest to God and what els I ask you is a Prayer but a pious desire of a thing represented to God it is euident therefore that the saints and Angels pray for vs to God This discourse you will say proues that the triumphant Church and each particular of it knows the wants of the Militant Church in general but not of each particular or of any particular person of the Militant Church therefore wee particular Persons ought not to pray to any of the Triumphant Church wheras they do not know if wee pray or any of our particular affairs But the argument proues at least that the saints departed and Angels are Mediatours for the Militant Church in general and so all Mr Salls discourse for the only Mediatourship of Christ falls to ground more ouer I will proue by Scripture and reason that they know the temptations and dangers of particular Persons of the Militant Church and consequently the former discourse proues that they pray for particular persons and heare their prayers Lu. 15. it s said that the Angels reioyce at and consequently know the conuersion of a sinner the Deuils know the state and condition of particular persons and by their temptations allures them to sin the glorious Spirits therefore who in their natural knowledge are equal to and in supernatural surpasse them do know no less neither is it credible that God should permit the Deuil to know mans condition to tempt him and should not permit the glorious Spirits especially our Angels keepers to help and defends vs the Protestants ought not to question this wheras in their Common Prayer Book they haue this Collect on S. Michael the Archangels day the 29. of Sept God vvho in a vvonderfull manner dispenseths the Ministeries of Men and Angels grant that as they do thee constantly assist in heauen so by thy appointment they may succour and defend vs on earth God therefore vseth the Ministery of Angels to help men and consequently Angels know mens particular affairs That there are witches in the world may not be denyed if wee will not condemn most Commonwealths of folly and iniustice which punish many for such and if wee will not laugh at Scripture which relates 1. Reg. 28. that Saul by the help of a witch raysed the Spirit of Samuel that the witchs inuoke and are heard by the Deuils its out of doubt and shall the Glorious Spirits be deaf to them that inuoke them lastly many examples are recorded in Scripture of the ministery exhibited by Angels to men 3.19.6 Reg. 1. Gen. 48.16 and 16.4 Reg. 19.34 And that saints also departed know our affairs and do assist vs the Scripture doth witness it Saul all fraught with afflictions finding no comfort in the liuing betooke himself to the Spirit of Samuel deceased 1. Reg. 28. this proues that men in those dayes did belieue that the saints departed know our aflairs and can help vs and Samuels answer to him does euidence the same Elias departed this world that 's to say all commerce with human kind the 18. yeare of Iosaphas Reygn as appears 3. Reg. 22. and 4. Reg. 2. and 3. Iosaphat dyed about seauen years after which was the 25. yeare of his reygn as appears 3. Reg. 22. Ioram succeeded to Iosaphat and Elias that departed from all human commerce seauen years before writ a letter to him rebuking him for his wickedness and threatning him with Gods indignation can there be amore manifest proof that the saints departed know our affairs and do help vs S. Peter 2. epist c. 1. tells the Christians to whom he writ that his death was at
is it not the dayly practice of Preachers to exhort sinners euen the reconciled sinners to do pennance for their sins what pennance did not Magdalen do euen after that Christ had told her that her sins were forgiuen what great pennance did not Dauid S. Peter and other reconciled sinners do this shews that the Faithfull were allways perswaded that pennance must be don though the sin be forgiuen and it is no aswer to say that these austerityes practised by them were not for the sins they committed and were forgiuen but for to arm them against future temptations for wee haue many passages of Scripture which shews punishments inflicted by God on the reconcilied sinners for their sinns after they were forgiuen For example original sin is forgiuen by Baptism yet the corporal death which is a punishment inflicted on mankind for that sin as S. Paul sayes Rom. 6. and 5. is not forgiuen but inflicted on all The Prophet Nathan declared to Dauid that his sin of Adultery was forgiuen him yet in punishment of that sin the Child got by that Adultery should dye 2. Reg. 12 Iask was that puuishment iustly due of Dauid after his sin was forgiuen or no If not why should God inflict it for that sin if it was due let vs suppose that Dauid had dyed before that punishment was inflicted which might haue happened and dayly happens to others who dye before they do any pennance for the sins that by the Sacrament were forgiuen surely he must haue paid that debt in the other lyfe before he could enter into Heauen where no soul guilty of any thing can enter Therefore there must be some other place where sinners whose sins haue been forgiuen and that haue not don sufficient pennance in lyfe must be punished in the other world A Prison I say where the last farthing may be paid and that being paid the prisonner may get out for our Sauiour mentions such a prison after this lyfe Mat. 5. and Luc. 12. but the last farthing cannot be paid in the Hell of the damned for the debt is due there for Eternity therefore there must be some other prison for souls departed besids the Hell of the damned Now if you read Mr Salls discourse vpon this subject you shall not find that he brings any text of Scripture that as much as seemingly sayes there is no Purgatory and yet the Reformers did separate themselus from the Church of Rome wherof they were members vpon pretext of errours wherof Purgatory is one which they would proue by cleer Scripture to be errours and contrary to Gods written word and not one text does Mr Sall nor can he bring any cleer text to proue no Purgatory much less will you find any euident or conuincing reason in his discourse to impugn our Tenet what he does is to answer som texts the chief he sayes but he is mistaken wherwith Bellarmin proues it and giues only Bellarmins own answers and thus he would perswade vs out of our Doctrin But first allow those texts that Bellarmin brings do not conuince the existence of a Purgatory allow that texts which I heere alleadge do not manifestly proue it This no man of iudgment will deny but that these texts and glosses vpon them haue as much probability as much appearance of truth as any that you bring or can bring against Purgatory that your answers to those texts are not euidently true for they are Bellarmins own answers for the most part at least and he reiects them very plausibly since therefore wee were for so many ages in the actual belief of the doctrin before you and your Reformers came to the world why shall wee be bet from it if you cannot shew stronger reasons or texts against it than wee haue for it Nay though wee brought no reasons at all to proue our doctrin but this that we receiued it as the word of God from so many precedent ages is it reason that for you or your Reformers pleasure without a conuincing text or reason to proue it false wee must disclaim it allow that those texts do not cleerly proue Purgatory that 's nothing wee are not Actors but Defendants it s not our obligation to proue but yours wee will defend ourselues against your proofs and so hold our old doctrin But now I proue that those texts which Mr Sall iudges inconclusiue do proue what Bellarmin intended the first is out of 2. Mach. 12. a collection being made he sent 12000. drachmas of syluer to Ierusalem to haue sacrifice offered for the sins of the dead because he did consider that these who receiued death with piety would haue a very good reward it is therefore a holy and holsom thought to pray for the dead that they may be deliuered from sinns This is the text though these Books were Canonical Scripture sayes he yet the text proues not Purgatory for prayers for the dead may be made for other ends than that of drawing souls out of Purgatory first because that God being still present to all spaces of Eternity foreseeing now what prayers will be made many years and ages hence for persons that are now at this present dying and being a good Paymaster that oftentyms giues before hand the rewards of what seruices will be don for the future may now giue to the person dying the assistance of his grace and mercy which he foresees will be in future tymes asked for them by friends that will pray for them which Doctrin sayes he is taught by the Romish writers and acording to this Doctrin wee may say that the effect of those prayers made for the Iewes by Iudas Machabeus was not do draw them out of Purgatory after thy were dead but that God should haue giuen them for reward of those prayers a Good death Obserue Reader what is it that Bellarmin intended to proue by that argument l. 1. de Purg. c. 3. § ad sextum dico he speaks thus Our consequence proceeds not thus they prayed for the slain therefore there is Purgatory but thus They praied for the remission of the sins of the dead therefore they iudged that after their death they might be in Purgatory that they might after death haue some sins that needed expiation and this praying for the dead to deliuer them from sin after their death is commended by Scripture consequently sins may be forgiuin after death consequently there is a Purgatory after death otherwyse the Scripture would haue erred in praysing prayers for the remission of the sins of the dead And what man of common sense does not see that these conclusions follow out of that text For what Bellarmin pretended and wee pretend to proue out of that passage is that it was the practice of the Iewish Church and the belief of the People of God and consequently no new inuention of the Catholick Church that sins may be expiated and forgiuen after death and that prayers were vsed to be made for the dead not only for to
forgiuen him but he that vvill speake against the H. G. it shall not be forgiuen him either in this vvorld nor in future I argue thus the text denies to a blasphemy against the H. G. what it grants to a blasphemy against the son of Man But what it denies to That is remission in this lyfe and the other therefore what it grants to This is remission in this lyfe and the other The text sayes again in this place Euery sin and blasphemy shall be forgiuen to men but a blasphemy against the H. G. Is it nor an euident sequele out this text that as a blasphemy against the Spirit is vnpardonable so all other sins are pardonable but a blasphemy against the Spirit is vnpardonable in this world and in the future therefore other sins are pardonable in both You will reply that this argument proues too much for it proues that as a blasphemy against the H.G. is vnpardonable in the other lyfe not only as to the punishment due to the sin but also as to the guilt or fault so other sins are pardonable in the other lyfe not only as to the punishment due to sin which is what wee pretend but also as to the fault or guilt of sin which is more than wee pretend for wee teach that Mortal sins are not forgiuen as to the guilt or fault in the other world therefore this argument proues too much Answer that a sin may be said vnpardonable its requisit that Nothing of it be pardonable for as the schoole Maxim sayes Negatio totum destruit wheras therefore the text imports that a blasphemy against the H. G. is vnpardonable in this lyfe and the future it follows that nothing either the guilt or fault of it or the punishment due to it be pardoned either in this lyfe or the future But that a sin may be said pardonable it suffices that some part of it at least may be pardoned wheras therefore our argument proues that sins are pardonable in the other lyfe its requisit that some part of it be pardoned or pardonable in the other lyfe either the guilt of sin or the punishment due to it Not the guilt or fault as wee belieue and proue by many euident arguments therefore the punishment due to it He tells vs the doctrin of Purgatory makes men negligent of true repentance and satisfaction for their sins in this lyfe for the hopes it giues of the Remission of them in Pugatory But this is incredible that men being instructed of the bitterness of the torments of Purgatory far exceeding all that can be suffered in this world should be encouraged to omit the smale pennance and pains of this lyfe for to fusser the far greater and more excessiue pains of Purgatory It giues quoth he occasion to pittifull abuses of Simony in the valuation of Masses of cruelty and iniustice and what is there in the world so sacred and Holy but the malice of man may abuse is it therefore all sacred things must be renounced and abolisht wee condemn the abuses as well as you but wee must not therefore condemn the Doctrin but correct the malice of man that abuses it From this of Purgatory he descends to exclaim against Indulgences which he pretends to be groundless because Suarez l. de Defen fid c. 15. sayes that Indulgences is a remission of the pains of Purgatory and most falsly auers that Suarez doubts if this power be in the Church wheras in that place he affirms it is vndoubtedly certain the Church has it and grounds this certainty on the infinitness of Christs Merits which euen our Aduersaries grant and on the power giuen to the Church Mat. 18.18 of binding and vnbinding which power sayes he cannot be doubted but it extends to the Remission of the pains of Purgatory for which in that place he brings no other proof but the constant practice of the Church which he sayes is an vnquestionable proof and remits the more ample proof of this doctrin to To. 4. in 3. p. disp 48. Mr Sall iudges the doctrin not sufficiently proued because Suarez alleadges in this place no other warrant but the ancient custom of the Church which Suarez and wee hold to be an vndoubted proof This proof and no other does S Augustin bring to proue Infants Baptism serm 4. de verbis Apost c. 18. This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strenght against this inuincible vvall vvhosoeuer rusheth shall be crushed in peeces By the same he proues the validity of Hereticks Baptism l. 1. contr Crescon c. 32. and 33. for which he sayes No examples is brought out of Canonical Scripture but that vvhich recommends vnto vs the Authority of the Church vvho teacheth it S. Chrysost vpon the words of S. Pauls 2. Thes 2. Stand and hold the Traditions c. Hom. 4. speaks thus Let vs account the Tradition of the Church vvorthy of belief it is a Tradition seeke no more And again S. August Epist 118. If the Church through out the vvhole vvorld practise a thing to dispute vvhether such a thing can be don is a most insolent madness I conclude then that Suarez sufficiently proued the truth of the doctrin of Indulgences hauing grounded it on the constant practise and custom of the Vniuersal Church You say the doctrin of Indulgence is not so Ancient and that the first who began to giue these Grants was Gregory the seauenth to the Emperour Henry the fourth to encourage him and the Christians to warr against the Sarazens as Baronius relates an Dom 1084. if all this were true it s older notwithstanding than Protestancy by many hundred years But if you haue no more skill in Diuinity or Moral Theology your Treatise shews well what you know in Controuersy than you seeme to haue in History you are but a fresh water scholler That Indulgence you speake of nor no other to any such purpose was not granted by Gregory the seauenth but by Vrban the second nor to Henry the fourth who made no warr against the Sarazens but to Henry the Third not in the yeare 1084 but 1095. Neither is this the first grant of Indulgences which you could meet if you had read the Histories Baronius related by you tells vs that Indulgences were granted by Leo the third the yeare 847. and by Iohn the Eight the yeare 878. Nor is it a good argument vve do not read that Indulgences vvere giuen before therefore the Povver of granting Indulgences vvas not in the Church before You add that priuat Bishops granted Indulgences for gathering of Monies to build Churches that is very true but if Nostre-Dame of Paris was built vpon that account is not so certain by that you may see Indulgences are not so slightly granted as your Ministers do perswade their flock but on Condition that the Receiuers endeauor to put them selues in the state of Grace by true repentance of their sins and that they exercyse some pious works of fasting Prayers
do not they reape any benefit by your publick Prayers because they cannot vnderstand what is said And if a Hugonot of France came to Dublin who did not vnderstand your language would not you admit him to your Communion and publick seruice by this you see its lawfull of its self to make publick Prayer in an vnkwnowen language You will say and I belieue the Protestant Church will pretend no more that it is not so conuenient for the edification of the people but more needfull it should be in the language that is commonly vsed To this I answer that the Publick Prayer of the Church may be in any language which is thought the most conuenient for the glory of God and spiritual profit of the flock but I say also that it is not you or I or this or that kingdom or Prouince must be the iudge to determin in which language is it most conuenient it should be God has giuen vs a Church who will gouern vs it s to her it belongs to iudge what Rites Ceremonies and manner of Diuin worship wee must practise and as the particular subiects of each Kingdom cannot question the Customs Lawes or Decrees of the Gouernment so the Christian Kingdoms and Prouinces must not question nor iudge of the conueniency of what Rites or practice the Church does establish let vs suppose that in relation to this kingdom of Ireland it might be thought and realy may be som what more aduantagious for the flock to haue the Publick seruice in English or Irish is it therefore it must be lawfull for this kingdom without the approbation of the Church or suprem Pastor of it to vsurp that practice no but you are to represent that conueniency to the Church and acquiesce to her resolution But say you why would the Church of Rome stick on so inconsiderable a thing as that but rather than to be a cause of Schism or separation grant the publick seruice may be in vulgar language and I ask also why would not you or this Prouince or that rather becontent to want that particular comfort which you propose to yourself in doing this or that which is not conformable to the approued practice of the Church rather than to run in desobedience against the Church whose command and Authority is a sufficient warrant for you to allay what scruples your reason may suggest against it The Church ought not to condescend with you and dispense with you in the obseruance of the publick practice and Ceremonies though they be but bcclesiastical and human institutions for if it shoud grant you lycence to say Mass in English why should it not grant France leaue to Communicat in both kinds if France did ask it and if Spaine did ask to Christean with three immersions of the Body and not otherwyse why should not the Church grant it and if Germany did ask the validity of Clandestin Marriages why should it be denyed and so each Kingdom desiring their respectiue priuiledge the vniformity in Diuin seruice Administration of Sacraments and Ecclesiastical Rites so much commended in the Church would be quite ouerthrowen It s the Church therefore must iudge and determin in what language is it most conuenient to worship God by Publick Prayers and wee are to acquiesee to the Decree and commands of the Church And therfore Luther who vnder pretence of greater conueniency and spiritual comfort of the congregation condemned Publick seruice in vulgar languages against the practice of the Church schismatically separated himself from her in which separation you continue by adhering to his Doctrin The Church established Publick seruice in the Latin language behold why because it is the common language of the Church as in respect of England English is the common language and spanish in respect of spaine so in relation to the Church spred throughout all Nations the Latin is the most vniuersal and common Therefore it was conuenient the Publick Prayer of the Church which is said in all parts should be in the publick and most vniuersall language which is the Latin And as each kingdom has a language proper to it self so the Church which is the kingdom of Christ has its proper language which is Latin which is so vniuersally knowen Secondly for to preserue vniformity in the manner of Diuin worship if the Mass had been in English three hundred yeare agon how different would the Mass be now from what it was then the language being wholy an other from what then is was doubtless it would haue caused great alteration in the publick seruice Thirdly if the Mass were not in Latin or som language vniuersally knowen throughout the world but in the particular language of each kingdom when Priests would come from their own Countries to ours in Pilgrimage or for other occasion they would not be premitted or not without great difficultie to say Mass and so would be depriued of that spiritual Comfort Scripture prohibited I pray Sr what do your People learn in their houses by reading the Bible is it not Rebellion against their Church and contempt of all Spiritual Authority each one obstinatly adhering to that sense of the text which he iudgeth the best and thus your Church is deuided into a numberless number of sects this is smale encouragement for vs to permit to our common people the vse of the Bible iudging it better to knovv to sobriety as S. Paul counsels than by pretending to know more than behoueth to run into those inconueniencies wherin you haue fallen You accuse the Catholick Church for exposing Images to the adoration of the flock for the danger of falling into Idolatry and this is the reason that Caluin also giues you haue liued many years in Spain where Images are in great veneration you haue been much acquainted with the Inquisition as you would haue vs belieue you know the seuerity of that Tribunal against Hereticks Iewes and Idolaters how many haue you seen in spain that by adoring Images came to fall into Idolatry doubtless had there been any the Inquisition would haue taken holt of him for though the Inquisition permits Images it would neuer leaue Idolatry occasioned by the adoration of Images vnpunished And not one I dare say did you euer see or heare of to haue been punished on this account Now consider how many haue fallen into Heresies and errours quite opposit euen to your Church by the liberty granted for reading of Scripture hence has proceeding all the Sects that are in our kingdoms and elswhere Does not this demonstrat that there is far greater danger of Heresy in the vsual reading of the Bible than of Idolatry in adoring of Images ought not you rather therefore to decry the liberty of reading the Bible than the adoration of Images But reply you this proues that euen the Priests and fryers ought to be kept from reading it for it s they that haue abused it and broached all heresies and things must not be prohibited that are
Tim. 3. as being written for our comfort and instruction That is not denied but the Apostle speaks to Timothy and the Pastors of the Church and so of the rest of the texts alleadged by Mr Sall which are directed only to the Pastors and Prelats or at most to such of the Layty as are knowing in the Fathers and Interpreters with a total submission to the sence of the Church For if euen the very learned themselues are puzl'd with the difficulties of Scripture and often do wrest them to their perdâ—tion as S. Peter sayes 2. Epis 3.16 what will the vulgar people do THE IMMACVLAT CONCEPTION of the B. Virgen and the Sacrament of Confession IT 's not my intention to discourse at large of the Immaculat Conception of the B. Virgen but neither can I omit to speake somwhat of it wheras Mr Sall in the Conclusion or Third part of his sermon accuses our Church of Tyranny in forcing the belief of this Doctrin vpon the Faithfull they force them to the belief and defence of Doctrins repugnant to their Iudgment and not establisht by Catholick Faith as may appear in their violence in forcing all to belieue and declare for the Conception of the Virgen Mary vvithout Original sin so many clear testimonies of Scripture being against it as affirm that all Men did sin in Adam that Christ vvas vniuersal Redeemer from sin and Sauiour of all mankind And pursues complaning that none is permitted to preach in Churchs or receiue Degrees in vniuersities but such as will protest publickly for the immaculat Conception I admire Mr Sall that you so confidently auerr that many cleer testimonies of Scripture are against the immaculat Conception and mention none what did you expect wee would belieue a Bankrrupt in Religion only vpon his bare word you should haue produced those cleer testimonies and if you call that a cleer testimonie against this Doctrin which S. Paul has Rom. 5. all haue sinned in Adam as if the B. Virgen were also included in that vniuersal Proposition All haue sinned it s rather a cleer testimony of your little insight in Scripture which if you had you might know that very often such vniuersal Propositions admit exceptions because they are not Logically vniuersal signifying euery Indiuiduum or Particular of the kind but Morally vniuersal signifying the greatest part or number of the kind That Proposition All men haue sinned in Adam is true because generally men did sin in Adam though Christ who is a Man nor Mary did not wee could giue many instances of the lyke Propositions in Scripture these will suffice Christ Io. 10. saying himself was the true Pastor ads all that euer came before me vvere theeues and Robbers but the sheep did not hear them Does not this General Proposition admit no exception was the Baptist Moyses and Elias theeues and Robbers when Iesus was in the house of Simon and Andrew the text sayes they brought vnto him all that vvere diseased and possessed vvith Diuils And in the next verse All the Citty vvas gathered together at the door what think you was there none Man woman nor child of the whole town but was there it's morally certain some was absent yet the Proposition is still true because that vniuersall Proposition signifies that the Generality of the town flockt thither Christ you say is the vniuersal Redeemer from sin whence you would infer that the Virgen Mary was in sin or could not be Redeemed but you ignore or affect to ignore that there are two manners or wayes of redeeming the one deliuering a man from the sin wherinto he has fallen the other preseruing him from falling into the sin Marie was redeemed by the Merits of Christ from sin because by his Merits she was preserued from falling into sin wherinto she had fallen had she not been preserued by him and this is the most noble way of Redemption as it is a greater benefit to saue a man from being wounded then to permit him to be wounded and afterward to cure him Now Mr Sall to shew you that our Church is not cruel in this Doctrin of the Immaculate Conception I hope you will not say its a sin to profess publickly that Doctrin for at least you cannot deny but that it is very probable though it be not an article of Faith as it is no sin to profess publickly the Doctrin of the Thomists or that of the Scotists nor will you deny but that its lawfull to any Community to require certain conditions such as they think fit so they be not vniust and sinfull from any that will pretend to be a member of that Community or partake of their fauors or priuiledges does not the Colledge of Dublin require som conditions from them that are to be admitted to their Community and is it cruelty to deny them admittance if they will not embrace those conditions why then will you censure it to be cruel that some vniuersities will not admit to Degrees nor Churchs admit to preach but those that will protest for the Conception why will not you also accuse of cruelty some vniuersities which will admit none to Degrees but such as will profess and teach the Doctrin of Thomist But say you they oblige men to protest for the Conception against their Iudgment and dare you to condemn this to be cruelty when the Church of England obliges to sweare the spiritual supremacy of the King which in opinion of Caluin as I haue shewen aboue is a Blasphemy in the iudgment of most learned Protestants is false an in the opinion of Catholicks which you obâ—ige to sweare is an Heresy The opinion of the Immaculat Conception is notheretical euen in the iudgment of those who appose it and when an opinion or Doctrin is not heretical a Spiritual or Temporal Prince or any Community may lawfully oblige their subiects for reason of state and the peaceable gouernment of their People to conform themselues exteriourly and profess that Doctrin leauing them the Liberty of iudging interiourly what they please and such as makes that exteriour profession it s their part to correct their iudgment and conform it to their exteriour profession which they can lawfully do when the Doctrin is not heretical or erroneous why may not the vniuersities and Churchs exact the outward profession of the imaculat conceptioÌ„ which without heresy or error a man may in wardly iudge to be true and why can the Protestant Church exact the swearing of the spiritual Supremacy of the King from them who cannot in conscience submit their iudgment inwardly to that Doctrin In the Conclusion of his Sermon also Mr Sall accuses our Church of cruelty in the exercyse of the Sacrament of Confession And I obserue that he does not condemn the Doctrin of Confession which our Church belieues to be a Sacrament necessary for such as haue fallen into sin perhaps he was conuinc'd to belieue the necessity of it by that vnanswerable text Mat. 18.18 vvhat soeuer