may say what S. Paul said of the Lords supper This if worthily taken is life and saluation if vnworthily is damation if Scripture be vnderstood in the true sence intended by the Holy Ghost it leads to true Religion if vnderstood in the wrong sence it leads to perdition as S. Peter sayes 2. cpist 3.16 speaking of the Epistles of S. Paul the vnlearned and vnstable depraue them as the rest of the Scripture to their perdition by misunderstanding them Grant this volum to be the word of God the words of it may be and are interpreted in diuerse and quite opposit sences as that command of Christ he that vvill not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud shall not haue lyfe in him it is interpreted in three opposit sences by Lutherans Catholiks and Protestants and it is euident that Christ intended only one of the three sences wee are bound vnder pain of damnation to eat his flesh and drink his blood in that sence which he intended and no other will suffice the Scripture alone does not assure vs which of those three sences is that which Christ intended for wee haue all the Scripture wee read it wee study wee pray and wee cannot agree in the sence of those words either therefore there must be somwhat else beseids Scripture for to assure vs of the true sence of it or God has left vs with an obligation of belieuing and not afforded vs the sufficient means for to ascertain vs what he will haue vs to belieue To say that God giues an inward light and testimony of the spirit to the humble and well disposed harts which assures them the sence which they hold of the Scripture is the true sence is a groundless fancy exploded euen by the modern Protestants wheras those illuminated persons cannot be assured if that inward light be an illumination from God or an illusion of Satan often transfigured into an Angel of light our Controuersists haue fully refuted this foolish fancy I only add that if the means appointed by God to assure us of the true sence of Scripture be that inward light and testimony of the priuat spirit God has afforded no means for to keepe vs in vnity of Faith for there are as many different lights and testimonies of the spirit as there be men almost and so his house will not be a house of peace but of confusion and if that be the true sence of Scripture which the inward light and testimony of each mans spirit does suggest those lights and inward testimonies of the spirit being quite contradictorily opposit one to the other it follows that the H. G. intended quite opposit sences in each text of Scripture Nor could any man reasonably pretend to persuade an other to be of his religion for since he has no assurance of the truth of his Religion but what he has by that inward light and spirit how can he in reason go about to persuade me that his light and spirit is true rather than that which I haue my self so each man must be content to haue his Religion to himself and seeke no other to be of it S. Iohn 1. Epist 4.11 bids vs not to belieue euery spirit but to try it and in that very ch directs vs to a touch stone wherat to try our spirits He that knovveth God heareth vs he that is not of God heareth vs not in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth and the spirit of Error If your spirit heares and obeyes the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of Truth in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth in hearing vs not in reading vs. If your spirit will not heare the Church but prefer it self before the spirit of the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of error The means therefore to distinguish spirits to know the truth and the true sence of Scripture is not Scripture it self nor your inward light but the Church which is the approuer or reprouer of spirits The Modern Protestants haue found out an other way for to defend the sufficiency of Scripture for to vnderstand by it alone the true sence of it for say they though some text or texts of Scripture be obscure yet comparing them with other texts they are expounded and the true sence found by the scripture alone comparing one text with an other especially in what concerns the fundamental points of Religion necessary for saluation which are easily found and cleerly set down in Scripture Mr Sall pag. 105. of his discourse seems to be of this opinion saying that all necessary knovvlegde for Faith in God to serue and prayse him is fully contained in vvhat is cleer of Scripture There is nothing more cleer than that the Holy Scriptures are most obscure euen in points necessary for saluation the obscurity consisting in the hight of the Misteries it contains in the difficulty of its phrases in the seemingly contradictions it contains that the most learned men that euer were in the Church found it a task too great for their vnderstandings to expound it learned Protestants themselues do confess it and our Controuersists haue so euidenced it that it were a superfluous labor to proue it that only text of saint Peter 2. epist 3. ch which I quoted but now sufficiently proues it and that no text nor texts of scripture compared doth declare sufficiently euen the fundamental points of our Religion two instances do cleerly euidence First Gods Vnity in Nature and Trinity in Persons in all Christians acknowledgment is a fundamental article of Religion wee belieue he is One not in Person but in Nature wee belieue he is Three not in Nature but in Persons And what text or texts compared one with an other can you bring to shew this Mistery Let the dispute be betwixt a Protestant an Arrian and a Pagan suppose the Pagan confesses and agrees with both that the scripture is the word of God but will not admit that either the Protestant or Arrian is infallible in the interpretation of it how will the Protestant proue against the Pagan that God is One in Nature and Three in Persons He will alleadge out of saint Iohn 1. ep 5. the Father the son and the spirit and these Three are One the word One signifies Vnity in Nature and the word Three Trinity in Persons But sayes the Pagan that is against all reason and the principles of Philosophy that Three distinct Persons should haue but One Nature and though I do belieue the word of God to be infallibly true euen in what surpasses my reason yet I will not belieue against my reason but what the word of God does assuredly say and that text which you alleadge does only say they are One but does not express if that Vnity be in Nature or in Person nor doeth the text express that the Trinity is in Persons and not in Nature nay the Arrian who is a Christian as well as you saieth
that text signifies no such Vnity of Nature and Trinity of Persons and in your own confession Christ is One suppositum or Hypostasis his Vnity is not in Nature for he has Tvvo Natures one Human and the other Diuine but in Person why may not wee also say that the father son and spirit are One and that their vnity is not in Nature but in Person whither will the Protestant go now to proue against the Pagan this great and fundamental article He will quote out of saint Iohn an other text for to expound the former My father and I are one Io. 10.20 where it is expressed that the Father and son who are tvvo different Persons are but One in Nature But replieth the Pagan neither does that text say more but that they are One and does not express either that they are tvvo distinct Persons or one Nature And sayes the Pagan bring you as many texts as you please you will neuer bring any which expresly declares the Vnity to be in Nature and Trinity in Persons and I must not renounce reason so far as to belieue a Mistery which no human reason can vnsterstand particularly when you require of me to belieue only what the word of God expressy declares and the word of God which you alleadge does not expresly declare that Mistery nor doeth the word of God oblige me to belieue your interpretation of those texts I heare the Arrians and Sabellians who are Christians as well as you and they with their Abettors who are not fewer in number nor inferiour in learning to you say those texts which you alleadge do not at all import any Vnity in Nature or Trinity in Persons for the Sabellians say the word One in those texts signifies Vnity in Person as well as in Nature and the word Three signifies not Three distinct Persons but one and the same Person called by three different names for three seueral Offices which he does exercise Father because he is the Author of all things Son because he was born to redeem vs and Holy Ghost because he sanctifies vs euen as say they these three seueral names Immense Omnipotent and Eternal signify One and the same God who includes the perfections signified by those names Arrius and his partizans vnderstand those texts in a far different sence from you Protestant the word Three saies Arrius signifies three different Natures which Arrius proues with a text far more pertinent in appearence than that which you Protestants alleadge to proue the Vnity of Nature S. Io. 14.28 My father is greater than I which text deliuered without any restriction saies Arrius proues the son to be of a different and inferior Nature to the Father The word One saies he does not signify the Vnity of Three Persons in Nature but their Vnity by perfect conformity of VVill and Charity which exposition he proues by S. Io. 17.11 where Christ praying for his Elect asketh his Father they may be one as vvee are One but certainly the Elect cannot be One in Nature nor did he ask any such Vnity for them but that they should be One by perfect Charity and conformity of vvill therefore the Father and the Son are not otherwise One Thus the Pagan to the Protestants and adds I belieue the Scripture to be the word of God because he has reuealed it vnto me I am resolued to be a Christian but I know not which party to embrace the Protestant or the Arrian you will haue me belieue Gods Vnity in Nature and Trinity in Persons and though that Mistery surpasses human reason I am content to submit vnto it if I did find it expresly in Scripture but those texts either singlely or all together do not expresly declare it as I iudge and as the Arrians and Sabellians who are Christians as well as you iudge and on the other side you do not require of me to belieue but what is expresly contained in Scripture what shall I do in this case You say it is expresly contained in those texts but am I bound to belieue it is contained in them because you think it is the Scripture does not tell me that I am bound to belieue what you think rather than what the Arrians think is contained in it if I syde with the Arrians you say I am damned if I syde with you the Arrians say I am damned and why to syde with one rather than the other I know not for you are of equal authority as to me both learned pious wise people and well versed in Scripture You tell me the Arrians are condemned by General Councils Arrians and Sabellians also tell me you are condemned by seueral Councils in the points you hold in opposition to the Catholicks you say the Councils and Ancient Fathers who condemned you did err and were mistaken in the sence of Scripture the Arrians and Sabellians also say the Councils which condemned them did err you say the Mistery of the Trinity is vnanimously belieued by Protestants and Roman Catholiks but I ask what credit hath the Roman and Protestant Church haue you the credit of infallible Oracles by which God speakes or haue you only the credit of wise learned pious men if the first that indeed is somewhat and ends all Controuersy if only the second the Arrians Sabellians Heathen and Pagan Philosophers are as numerous as you as learned wise and as to moral honesty as good as you and they all deny that Mystery Can any man of reason say this Pagan in this occasion is obliged to side with the Protestants rather than with the Arrians they both haue Scripture they are all Christians they reade and study it they are both fallible in the interpretation of it and that either of both is effectually mistaken in this case its manifest and which of them it is this Man has no imaginable means to be assured of Now if God has appointed a liuing infallible Iudge to interpret and deliuer the true sence of Scripture this Pagan could not but be obliged to acquiesce to his interpretation whence it s is manifest that Scripture alone is not sufficient for to ascertain vs of the true sence of Scripture euen in fundamental points An other instance to proue this truth there is a point of Faith which we are obliged to belieue vnder pain of damnation which is not expressed in any text or texts compared of Scripture alone whitout an infallible interpreter I do not meane the Necessity of Infants Baptism nor the Validity of Heretiks Baptism belieued by both Churches and for which saies S. Augustin l. 1. cont cresc c. 32. there can be no example brought out holy of Scripture I proue it thus Wee Catholiks and you Protestants dispute if Purgatory be a fundamental point of Religion or not If it be it s a damnable error to say it is not both for that errors against fundamental points are damnable as you confess and for that to deny for fundamental that which is a
without feare of being mislead that rest of mind in the assurance of the truth for you may err by belieuing fallibility as I haue by belieuing infallibility my condition then is still better than yours and my doctrin to be prefered before yours Your Church as you confess may err in points of Religion whence it manifestly follows that it is not the true sence of Scripture that leads you in the road to Religion for the true sence of Scripture is absolutly infallible I ask you therefore on what do you ground your Faith You tell me that vpon the Scripture as interpreted by your Church and comparing one text with an other but it may happen that your Church may err in the interpretation that you confess for you say the true Church may err now I argue thus whoeuer may err relying vpon a Principle can neuer be sure that he does not err whylst he relyes only on that Principle this proposition is vndeniable for if he can err relying on that Principle it s because the Principle is fallible and if the Principle be fallible it alone without the help of some other can neuer giue any assurance that you do not err for example you belieue the King is in London because an honest Man tells you so that is a fallible ground which you rely on and you may err by relying on that ground and as long as you rely only on that mans testimony and haue no other you will neuer be assured of the Kings being at London You belieue the Church fallibility and on what ground do you rely on Scripture as interpreted by the Church you may err relying on this Principle as you confess therefore as long as you rely on this Principle only and haue no other you can neuer be assured that you do not err the Church of England has no other nor will admit no other Principle to ground their Faith vpon but the Scripture interpreted by her and comparing one text with an other therefore she can neuer be assured of the doctrin she belieues consequently cannot be assured of the fallibility of the true Church What will you say in this case there is a Man accused of Murther before your tribunal he does not only deny the fact but many circumstances fauours his innocency and the very Person that accuses him saies he is not sure he is the Murtherer surely you would not condemn this Man to death it being against all the maxims of iustice to punish a man that is not conuicted criminal This is the very matter in hand the true Church is accused of fallibility and falshood in her doctrin the circumstances of hauing florished for so many ages in the credit of an infallible Oracle fauors her innocency and her Accuser which is the Church of England does confess that she may err in her accusation and consequently must confess as wee proued that she cannot be sure she does not err for she grounds her accusation on the Scripture interpreted by her in which she may err and whylst she has no other Principle but that she can neuer be certain she does not err will not you then acquit the Church of whose crime her accuser is not sure as you would that Man accused of Murther Add this discourse to the former it is a Principle in all well gouerned Commonwealhs that a preacable Possessor is not to be disturbd from his possession vntill that by vnquestionable proofs he be conuicted an vniust vsurper or detainer no coniectures nor probable reasons will put him out of possession he will still with a safe conscience maintain it and the law will continue him in it vntill that by euident proofs he be conuicted The true Church was in all ages in peacable possession of this prerogatiue of infallibility neuer denyed to her but by some few condemned Heretiks what euident vnquestionable proofs can you bring to conuince her an vniust vsurper or detainer of it Reason affords you none for to say that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God is impertinent wheras she clayms no other infallibility but such as you grant to the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists but say you in a General Council which is a multitude of Men where a point of Religion is to be resolued by the maior part of Votes and where passion and interest somtymes may sway it may happen that an errour may haue more Abettors and truth be out voted This is to say that God has no Prouidence ouer his Church since he has promised the conduct of his infallible spirit to her for to lead her into all truth and keep her vnspotted from all errours let each particular of that multitude be euer so corrupt in himself God who can as easily gouern the harts of many as of one will not permit them to determin an errour nor truth to be out voted Was not the Council of the Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem a multitude Were not the first four General Concils multitudes which the Protestants confess to haue been infallible and guided by Gods spirit which was as necessary to the Councils of succeeding ages the emergent Controuersyes being no fewer in number nor less in weight Neither does Scripture afford you any match if you can these texts I am vvith you all the dayes untill the consummation of the vvorld Math. 28.20 and if the Church did teach an vntruth would Christ be with her then He vvill give you an other Paraclet the Spirit of Truth that vvill abyde vvith you for euer vvho vvill leade you into all truth Io. 14.16 vvhen the Paraclet vvill come vvhom I vvill send from my Father the Spirit of truth he vvill giue testimony of me and you vvill giue testimony Io. 15.26 the Paraclet and the Chruch are ioynt Witnesses of the truth Nor does experience fauor you all that you can shew is that some Pope did err or that some Council did err but that 's not to the purpose if you do not shew which you will neuer do thal a Pope and Council together has erred wheras therefore neither scripture Reason nor experience doth afford you any vnquestionable evident proofs that the Chruch is an vnuist vsurper or detainer of that prerogatiue of infaillibility which she has en ioyed in all ages why will you pretend to disturb her peacable possession Let vs heare what the scripture suyes Lu. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Christ spoke to his Apostles and Disciples on whom he layd the charge of teaching and preaching and who were the Church representatiue whateuer therefore wee heare from the Chruch representatiue wee heare it from Christ whateuer the Church speaks Christ speaks otherwyse wee should not heare Christ speak when wee heare the Church speake the Church therefore is the Mouth by which Christ speaks and as we cannot heare an vntruth from him as he cannot speak any so she cannot speake nor be heard to speake an vntruth this is de clared by S. Paul 1.
pell is sufficient at least as to the points it contains These instances shew that reason to be very friuolous and if it proued any thing at most it can proue that the Church infallibility is not necessary for our instruction but it might be-necessary for other ends of Gods prouidence who might haue left still that gift of infallibility to his Church for a mark of his loue to her wee find he did promise the conduct of his infallible Spirit to his Church wee de not find he should haue limited this grace to any tyme nay to the contrary wee find that he sayd it should be for euer all dayes to the consummation of the vvorld why should wee therfore limit that fauor vnto à tyme to conclude wee haue proued in the 2 and 3 chap. that Scripture is not sufficient to instruct vs and consequently an infallible Church is still necessary An other reason no less silly to proue that the Church after few ages became fallible for the Popes Prelats and People became very vicious and from the debauchery of manners they came by Gods iust iugdment to fall into errours in doctrin which Mr Sall pretends to proue by Scripture pag. 32. the promise made by Christ of the Paraclet for to lead the Church into all truth vvas a conditional promise as appears by Christ his vvord Io. 14.16 if you loue me keep my commandmens and I vvill ask my father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet that he may abyde vvith you for euer euen the Spirit of Truth vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue The Paraclet is promised on condition they Keepe the commandments and by the later words vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue the Paraclet is flatly denied to all those the Scripture styles by the name of vvorld that is to say the wicked and wordly men Hence sayes Mr Sall wee can be no more sure that the Pope and his Council are infallible than wee are that he liues in Gods loue and obseruance of his commandments and wheras it is manifest by our own Historyes that the Pope Pastors and flock haue fallen into many crimes it followes they haue forfeited the conduct of Gods infaillible Spirit If from the lewdness of manners wee might conclude the Churches corruption in doctrin what Ghospell could the world expect from Luther and the other pretended Reformers for whose wickdness there are as good Records as for the debauchery of Popes and Prelats the sinns of Prelats did deface the Ghospell and did the Apostasy of Luther and the Sodomy of Caluin restore it to its splendor Christ did foresee that they who should sit on the chayre of Moyses would be wicked in their lyues and yet commanded vs to obey and belieue their doctrin The conduct of Gods Spirit promised to them for to leade them into all Truth was not a personal gift giuen to them for their own sakes but for the flock for to keepe them in vnity of Faith and therefore though God does permit them to fall into wickedness of lyfe his Prouidence will not permit them to fall into errors of doctrin that the flock which it obliged to obey them may not be mislead To proue that the Promiss was only conditional you corrupt the text for as well your Bible as ours sayes thus if you loue me keepe my Commandments and there puts a punctum Then ads a distinct verse or section And I vvill ask my Father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet c. which makes an absolut sence independent of the former That this is the true interpretation of that text it appears for in seueral other texts That assistance of as Mat. 28 20 behold I am vvith you all dayes euen to the consummation of the vvorld Mat. 16. the Gates of hell shall not preuayle agaiust her Io. 16 13. vvhen the Paraclet shall come the Spirit of Truth he shall teach you-all truth And is it not strang Mr Sall should auerr the Paraclet was promised vpon condition of Gods loue and obseruance of his Commandments wheras the Church remayns still infallible infundamental points notwithstanding that it has fayled in that condition as Mr Sall and all Protestants do deknowledge But what he will neuer answer is that if that Promiss was conditional it folloues wee cannot be sure the Ghospell is infallible if wee be not sure that the Euangelists when they wrote it haue been in the loue of God and obseruance of his Commandments for if they were not they had not the Paraclet sayes Mr Sall but no text of Scripture tells vs that the Euangelists were in the state of Grace when they writ the Ghospell nor nothing else giues vs assurance of it Therefore wee are not assured the Ghospell written by the Euangelists is infallible nay which is worse in the common doctrin of Protestants wee are assured it is not infaillible for the common doctrin in their Church is that it is impossible to keepe Gods commandments the Euangelists therefore when they writ did not keep Gods Commandments consequenly they could not haue the Paraclet to lead them into truth consequenly the Ghospell is not infallible and so Mr Sall ouerthrows all-Christian Religion Let vs consider what inducements had the primitiue Christians to belieue the Apostles infallible was it not the testimony of the Apostles confirming their doctrin with many Miracles look into the Historyes of all succeding ages and you will find that the Church which affirmed herself to be infallible did confirm her doctrin with many and great Miracle as wee will euidence in the ensuing Chap. And on what do you ground your beliefe when you say the Apostles were infallible You say that vpon the Scripture but I defy you to shew any text of Scripture which declares the infallibility of the Apostles that relates not to the Church in succeeding ages as well as to them either therefore they proue the Church to be infallible in succeeding ages or they do not proue the Apostles to be infallible For example wee proue the infallibility of the Apostles by the words of Christ he that heareth you heareth me Lu. 10. whence followes that the words of the Apostles were the words of Christ But Christ himself Mat. 18. declares that text must be vnderstood of his Church whereuer it be if he vvil not heare the Church let him be to you as a Heathen and Publican We proue it out of S. Iohn 14.18 He vvill giue you an other Paraclet the spirit of truth that vvill a byde vvith you for euer but this text playnly declares that the Promiss was made also to the Church in succeeding ages by the word for euer for the Apostles were not to be for euer in their own persons but in their successors and to remoue all occasion of cauilling vpon the word for euer saying that it signifyes only the tyme of the Apostles lyues Christ declares himself in a cleerer expression Mat. 28. I am vvith you all dayes to the consummation of the
vvorld giuing vs to vnd erstand that the Paraclet was not sent to his Apostles alone but to their successors to the words end Wee proue it by the text of S. Io. 16.26 vvhen the Paraclet vvill come vvhom I vvill send from my Father the spirit of Truth vvho proceedeth from the Father he vvill giue testimony of me and you vvill giue testimony But there is nothing more cleer than that the whole Chapter speakes all a long of the Church reade y pray the text consequently that text is to be vnderstood of the Church as well as of the Apostles Wee proue it because the Apostles were the fundation S. Paul Eph. 2.20 whervpon the Church was built But S. Paul calls the the Church also the Pillar and foundation of Truth 1. Tim. 3. Wee proue it because S. Paul commands vs in seueral places to belieue his doctrin for that his vvord is not the vvord of Man but indeed of God and consequently infallible 1. Thes 2. buâ— Christ also Mat. 23 commands vs to obey and belieue the Church in succeeding ages on the chayr of Moyses haue sate the scribes and Pharisees vvhateuer they bid you do obserue and do obliging vs to obey and belieue not only Moyses but those that succeede in his chayr Thus not a text shall you meet for the infallibility of the Apostles but proues lykwise that of the Church Doubtless you will not deny but that Christ his Command of teaching all Nations preaching the Ghospell that the Bishops should rule the Church was layd not only on the Apostles but on their successors for future ages other wyse the Prelats and Pastors of future and this our age would not be obliged to teach preach and rule vs. You will not deny also but that Christ his command of hearing the Church vnder payn of being esteemed Heathens and Publicans of obeying them that sit on Moyses his chayr of being subiect to our Prelats was layd on the flock of all succeeding ages as well as on that of the Apostles dayes it follows therefore that the Pastors of our age are as much obliged to teach vs as the Apostles were to preach to them of their age and that wee are as much obliged to obey and belieue the Church in our age as the flock was in the Apostles tyme to belieue and obey them who can doubt them but that as the Authority iurisdiction and obligation of teaching descended to succeeding ages the infallibility also giuen to the Apostles for to acquit that obligation did descend it being giuen by God for the loue and gouernment of the flock that they should not be mis lead And heere enters the argument that I proposed in the former Chapter Whoeuer does as Christ bids him do and belieues as Christ bids him belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour but Christ bids vs do and belieue as the Church in succeeding ages bids vs do and belieue therefore wee cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour consequently they cannot mislead vs. But saies our Aduersary the Paraclet was to remayn with the Church vntill all truth was taught necessary for saluation but it cannot be doubted but that the Paraclet taught the Apostles all truth and they deliuered those Truths in their written word Therefore after that word was deliuered to vs the Paraclet was to remayne no longer This obiection well vnderstood will giue light to our doctrin and manifestly confirm its truth Christ saies Io. 15.15 that he taught his Apostles all whateuer he had heard from his Father it 's manifest therefore he taught them all truths necessary for saluation this was before his Passion and yet after his Resurrection S. Luke c. 24. tells vs that ie his iourny to Emaus with the two Disciples he interpreted the passages of Scripture to them which signifyes that through inaduertency or forgetfullness wee may come to doubt euen of what truths were already taught nay he saies Io. 16.12 that he had as yet things to deeclare to them and that the Holy spirit when he came would teach them all truth Behold how Christ hauing sayd he taught all things yet he sayes that he had many things to open to them which they could not then learne vntill the Paraclet came This might seeme a contradiction but is none for when he sayd that he taught them all he had heard from his Father that is to be vnderstood that he taught and deliuered to them the General Principles and Truths of Faith wherin all truths of Religion were contained and what he had yet to say to them were the consequences and particular Truths of Faith contained in those general Principles which the Paraclet would disclose to them it s therfore that the Holy Ghost is called by the Fathers Basil 5. cont Eunom and Mar. vict 3. contra Arium the Interpreter and Voyce of the Son because the interpreter sayes nothing of his own but deliuers in expresser terms what the Author has already sayd and the text cleerly sayes the Paraclet taught nothing of the new but what he had heard Non enim loquetur à semetipso sed quaecunque audierit loquetur because he did but expound in particular what Christ had taught in general Principles and opened to the Apostles the consequences that were contained in them Now its manifest out of the text that the Paraclet when he descended did not of a sudain open to the Apostles all the Truths and consequences included in those General Principles deliuered by Christ or if he did that he did not so cleerly as that they should haue vnderstood all for after that descent wee read Act. â—0 that Peter doubted if the Ghospell ougth to be preached to the Gentiles and he was instructed by a heauenly vision it ought also Act. 15. it was doubted if besids Baptism the Faith full were to be circumcided But wee do freely grant that the Apostles had at length a full and perfect knowledge of all truths of our Faith and all the consequences included in those general Principles deliuered to them by Christ consequently there is no Truth of Faith which now is belieued by us or shall be belieued by future Ages but the Apostles did distinctly and particularly know for as Tertul. sayes l. de praeser c. 22. quis integrae mentis credcre potest aliquid eos ignorasse quos Magistros Dominus dedit vvhat man of a sound vvit can belieue that they vvere ignorant of any thing vvhom the Lord gaue vs for Masters wee confess also that the Apostles did teach and deliuer all those truths to their disciples either by their written word or by word of Mouth to be handed to Posterity by Tradition whence S. Paul 2. Thes 2. commands hold the Traditions vvhich ye haue learned vvheter by Epistles or by vvord of Mouth some of these truths in succeding ages either through forgetfullness or through inaduertency of their Disciples and their successors who minded chiefly those Articles that were opposed by
to be called damnably vnbelieuers They would not belieue that corporal eating of his real flesh as you do not for the difficulties which reason dictated against the lyke expressions such as you and your fraternity proposes against them and therefore wee say that you are damnably vnbelieuers as they were and you and they are checkt by those wordes of Christ the flesh profiteth nothing it s the spirit that quickneth c which were not to check their vnderstanding for apprehending a corporal eating but to check their obstinacy that for the difficulties which natural reason did suggest against his expressions they would not belieue what he spoke and they vnderstood him to haue spoken the flesh profiteth nothing that was to say to them and to you that they must not iudge of this Mystery by the senses of the flesh nor by natural reason which is adquired by the help of the fleshy senses They cannot vnderstand how that can be It s the spirit that quickneth that 's to say it s the Diuine grace that must enlighten your vnderstandings to know and belieue how this can be Euen as when S. Peter confessed Chist to be the son of the liuing God Christ added it s not flesh and blood that reuealed that vnto thee but my Father that is in heauen Mat. 16 17. which was to say that it was not natural reason nor any knowledge of the senses of flesh or gotten by them but the grace of the heauenly Father that discouered that Mystery to him If you reade that passage in S. Io. 6. you will find that Christ as wee haue euidently proued proposed a corporal eating of his real flesh but did not at all then which is to be obserued propose the manner how he would giue his flesh to be eaten The obligation of the Iews was to belieue that he would giue it and not to dispute hovv that could be or in what manner but they began to think how it could be quomodo potest c. and their natural reason which only they consulted not vnderstanding that it could be otherwyse than by cutting his flesh in morsels to be giuen to them this appearing so absurd to human reason they absolutly denyed the possibility of the Mystery If Christ when he proposed to them his flesh for food had also proposed the manner that he intended of giuing it perhaps they would haue belieued but then he did not but only the eating of his flesh Their error was two fold the one that they denyed the possibility of giuing his flesh to be eaten for which they were called vnbelieuers the other was the cause why they denyed it because the manner of eating it which their natural reason proposed vnto them appeared absurd and therefore not conceiuing how it could be they denyed it therefore Christ checkt this their vnderstanding that the manner of giuing his flesh really to be eaten was in a spiritual way aboue what their natural reason could apprehend and sayd its the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing as wee haue expounded but they either because they did not vnderstand this expression or that they obstinatly adheared to their first denyal flincht from him I conclude with this reason you will not deny but that God might if he were pleased haue conuerted the substance of that bread which he took in his hands into his real flesh and Body as by his omnipotent word he created all things of nothing as he conuerted the water into wyne and as the bread which wee eat is by the heat of our stomacks conuerted into our flesh and blood suppose I pray that he intended at the last supper to make such a change or that now he descended from heauen to make it what words could he vse more significant to let vs vnderstand that he gaue vs his real and true Body vnder the Accidents of bread than those take eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you this is truly my flesh if in a serious discourse I promised you a horse would not you vnderstand that I intended to giue you a true horse would I perform my promomiss by giuing the figure of one since then that he might haue giuen vs if he had been pleased his true and real Body and that he spoke as if really he did intend it for he could not speake otherwyse if he did wee must vnderstand that he did intend it and gaue it If he did intend it when he spoke those words what could hinder him if he did not intend it was it sincerity and honesty to speake otherwyse than as he intended no more than if you hauing promised a horse would giue only the picture of one Let vs heare Mr Salls arguments he begins as the Iews with difficulties that reason proposes against so great a Mystery that the Accidents of bread should be without any substance to rest on that a Body would be at one tyme in many places that a well proportioned body should be confined to the smale compass of a wafer that the Accidents conuerted into vermin should produce a substance I would tyre my Readers patience if I did scan each triuial objection of these that has been a hundred tymes answered and our answers neuer replyed vnto You would haue shewen more wit Mr Sall and got more credit by replying to the answers that our writers giue to these obiections and especially Bellarmin from whom you borrow them than by repeating again a parcel of thrid bare tryfles against so great a Mystery in homage of which wee must captiuat our sence and reason as wee do to the Mystery of the Trinity which surpasseth all created intellects far more than this Mystery and yet not so cleerly expressed in Scripture as this is And if you must haue natural reason for to belieue this Mystery tell me what reason haue you for to belieue that the Bread and wyne giueth lyfe and grace to the worthy eater what proportion can reason find betwixt bread and Diuin grace what proportion betwixt the water of Baptism and spiritual Regeneration none if you do not appeale to the omnipotency of God by he same wee answer you also to shun tedious Tatalogyes that those difficulties you represent be impossible to Nature but they are possible to the omnipotent word of God But for the satisfaction of the Reader I will deliuer this argument in the terms of an ingenious man which once I discoursed with This Mystery said he is repugnant to sense and reason consequently it is not to be imposed on man if God will not haue him to renounce both It s repugnant to sense for what wee see tast and feel is but bread repugnant to reason for this ought prudently to conclude that the substance of bread is there vpon the testimony of the senses which perceiue the Accidents that by natural course are inseparable from the substance of bread I answer Reason prudently ought to conclude the substance of bread is there
assured this is our case in the adoration of the Host And hence wee cannot but condemn your intollerable rashness in saying that it s an intollerable boldness to auer that there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host as there is for the adoration of Christs Diuinity for if you vnderstand our Doctrin which is that there is as much reason for adoring an Host truly consecrated as there is for adoring the Diuinity of Christ it is most manifestly true wheras Faith teacheth vs that the Host truly consecrated is God and man Iesus Christ really present If you do not vnderstand our doctrin its intollerablerashness in you to censure what you do not vnderstand Half Communion We will declare our Tenet by a comparison of the Communion with the Sacrament of Baptism both are commanded by Christ if one be not born again by vvater and the Spirit he shall not enter into the King dom of Heauen Io. c. 6. and in the same chap. if you do not eate the sllesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you In the Sacrament of Baptism you must distinguish the substance and essence of it from the circumstances and manner of receiuing it The substance and essence of it consists in being regenerated by water for that is required by Christ expresly in the text the manner how this regeneration is made is by one total immersion of the Body in water or by three distinct immersions or without any total immersion but by sprinkling some principal part of the Body with water what concerns the essence of this Sacrament to be by vvater is indispensably requisit cannot be altered what concerns the manner of receiuing it Christ left that arbitrary to the Church and did not oblige either to one total immersion nor to three nor to sprinkling but to either of the three wayes Hence it is that though Christ did baptize the Apostles with a total immersion of their Bodyes as Ancient Authors do auerr if by three or one immersion wee know not though this manner of Baptizing by a total immersion was practised by the first age and some ages of the Church and that wee do not reade that Baptism should haue been administred in those ages by a sprinkling of the Body with water yet the Church in succeeding ages for iust reasons requiring it has seueral tymes altered this manner some tyme they ordained that Baptism should be giuen with three total immersions in hatred of the Heresy of them that denyed three persons in God and to signify that there was in God but vnity as well in Person as in Nature would not baptize but with one immersion Some tyme the Church commanded Baptism to be giuen with one immersion in opposition of Hereticks that would not baptize but with three to signify that the three Persons were of different Natures Thus you will find that in the 50. Canon of the Apostles three immersions are commanded in the 4. Council of Toledo but One S. Gregory writing to S. Leander sayes it may be administred either of both wayes and lastly the Church in consideration that many Infants especially in the Northren Kingdoms through the Coldness of the Climat dyed by the total immersion of their Bodyes commanded the Sacrament should be administred with the sprinkling of some principal part of the Body with water and this manner is vsed also by the Protestants who do not rebuke the Church for omitting the triple immersion practised by the Apostles Thus in the Eucharist wee must distinguish the essence of it from the circumstances That consists in eating and drinking the Body and blood either vnder Accidents of bread alone or wine alone or bread and wine together this is indispensably requisit to neither in particular did Christ oblige vs but left it arbitrary to the Church to determin as tymes and iust occasions required and that Christ did not oblige vs to any of those different manners in particular but left it arbitrary to the Church first the text it self declares it for when he gaue the Cup he did not absolutly command the vse of it saying Do this in commemoration of me but Do this as often as you shall drink in commemoration of me which is not a command of Drinking but when wee shall drink to do it in commemoration of him Secondly wee haue a positiue example of Christ himself that once gaue the Communion in the accidents of bread alone to his disciples in the way towards Emaus wee haue no positiue example in Scripture that Christ should baptize som tymes by sprinkling the Body with water sometymes by one total immersion and yet wee confess that Baptism may be administred any of these three wayes as the Church shall ordain wee haue no positiue example that Christ should haue giuen the Eucharist sometymes in Leuen sometymes in Azim bread and yet the Church may giue it in either and hauing a positiue example that he gaue the Sacrament once in bread and wyne and once at least in bread alone why cannot wee conclude that the Church may do so also Christ gaue the Sacrament at night is it therefore it cannot be giuen in the morning Christ gaue it after the corporal repast is it therefore it cannot be receiued fasting Christ washed his Apostles feet when he gaue it is it therefore needfull to wash the receiuers feet That non obstante of the Council of Constance that so much surprises poore Mr Sall as if the Council had been presumptious in prohibiting the vse of the Chalice hauing confessed that Christ and the Apostles gaue it to the faithfull argues nothing of presumption for as the Council knew that Christ and the Apostles gaue the Cup to the Layty so it knew also that sometymes they gaue only the Bread and therby did vnderstand that it was left in the power of the Church to giue the Sacrament in either of both kinds Vpon this ground did the Council of Constance and does the Church now prohibit the Chalice iust reasons mouing them to it First that if the Cup should be giuen that would hinder the frequent Communion to which the Church doth exhort vs much for wherethe wine is scant and deere and the Communicants thousands in number the expences would be great secondly People would conceiue a horror against the Communion if they were obliged to drink out of the same Cup with sickly Persons perhaps with contagious diseases Thirdly the Communion would be morally impossible to many that can not endure the tast of wyne Fourthly the danger of the effusion of some drops in a great multitude of Communicants these and many other reasons haue moued the Church to command the vse of the bread alone Heere indeed comes very pertinently Mr Salls argument against the real Presence The Communion vnder both kinds is not needfull neither for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament nor for the effects which by it
hand and that he would be mindfull of them after his departure from lyfe and help them to be mindfull of his Doctrin Can it then be doubted but that wee may prudently and ought to pray to them by whose means the Scripture assures vs that others did receiue Gods blessings either directing our prayers immediatly to God praying that for his B. Mothers sake for S. Peters sake for Dauids sake this prayer is often made by the ancient Prophets in Scripture Propter Dauid seruum tuum non auertas faciem Christi tui Psal 131. Memento Domine Dauid omnis mansuetudinis eius ps 131. he would haue compassion of vs or directing our prayers immediatly to the saints and Angels beseeching them to help vs and pray for vs as Iacob Gen. 48. prayed that God in whose sight he walked and the Angel who deliuered him from euils should bless his children This is it that 's vnderstood in that Article of our Creed The communion of saints that the saints of the Triumphant Church in heauen of the Militant on earth and the Patient in Purgatory haue a Communication of prayers and merits betwixt them that those of heauen pray for vs and wee by our prayers and suffrages do help them in Purgatory Mr Sall thinks it extrauagancy that wee call the B. virgen our Sauioress and Redeemer and if he be impartial he must call the Prophet Dauid extrauagant also when he sayes speaking of the saints Psal 81. I haue said ye are Gods and the sons of the highest all And perhaps he will not stick to blame God himself who sayes to Moyses Ex. 7.1 behold I haue made thee a God to Pharaoh wee call the B. V. so because those names may be giuen in an improper sence to the chief Instrument of our Redemption as she was being the Mother of him who is truely our Redeemer wee build more Churches sayes Mr Sall and say more prayers to som saints than to God wee answear that all the honor we exhibit to saints is giuen to God for whose sake we honor them To them we build Churchs for his sake because they are his great seruants He assures vs in the Ghospel that what wee do to one of his little ones wee do it to him much more wee may be assured wee do to him and for him what wee do to and for his saints in heauen wheras himself tells vs Io. 12 26. if any vvill serue me my Father vvill honor him Much more ought they to be honored by vs. Purgatory and Indulgences Mr Sall rallyes about the situation of Purgatory and the nature of the torments that there are suffered if cold heat rain or tempest c all which is to no purpose for what is controuerted betwixt Protestants and Catholicks is not what place is Purgatory in or what are the payns inflicted there but if there be any such thing as Purgatory the Protestants deny any third receptacle of souls departed but must go either to heauen or Hell for vvhere the tree falls there it remayns The orthodox Doctrin is that there is a Purgatory where souls departed with venial sins only or that after the remission of their mortal sins in this lyfe by the Sacrament of Confession or by an act of Contrition haue not don sufficient pennance in this lyfe for their transgressions must suffer vntill they satisfy Gods iustice to the last farthing This is an Article of Faith but the Church has not determined in what place is Purgatory that is a schoole question as for the Nature of the torments there inflicted it s an Article of Faith that they are tormented with the priuation or banishment from Gods sight also it s of Faith that they are tormented by fyre but the Church has not determined what kind of fyre is that or how it torments and though Diuins and Fathers speake of other torments yet it s no Article of Faith that they suffer this or that of Cold snow or tempest To proue our Catholick Tenet I will first proue that there is some other receptacle of Souls departed besids Heauen and Hell of the Damned secondly I will proue that there is a Purgatory The first is proued by the Article of our Creed he descended into hell which cannot be vnderstood to be the Hell of the damned for all Christians abhorr the blasphemy of Caluin that sayes Christ his soule suffered the payns of the damned the Protestants giue a most obscure interpretation to that cleer text by the word Hell say they is vnderstood the Graue and the sense of the Article is that Christ his Body descended into the graue This is most absurd for in the next word before this Article the descent of his Body to the Graue is expresly declared He vvas crucified dead and buried to be buried what elss is it but his Body to descend into the Graue and after telling vs in the word buried that his Body was put in the graue would they again repeat the same in a distinct Atticle when they pretended ro giue vs a brief abridgment of the article of Faith S. Peter expounds that Article 1. ep 3.19 Being dead in flesh he descended in Spirit to the Spirits that vvere detained in prison to preach to them that vvere incredulous in the dayes of Noe. Behold the Article of our Creed expounded his Spirit descended after his death surely it did not descend into the graue to the Spirits that vvere detained in prison there was a prison therefore where Spirits were detained and preached to them certainly he did not preach to them that were in the prison of the damned therefore there was some other prison besids that of the damned where spirits were detained Wee find Gen. 37.35 that Iacob perswaded by his children that his son Ioseph was killed and deuoured by a Beast lamented and said I vvill descend mourning vnto my sonne to Hell Certainly he did not intend to descend vnto him to the graue for he was persuaded he had none but was deuoured by a Beast neither can it be imagined that he intended to descend vnto him to the Hell of the damned or belieued that his son descended thither Iacob therefore belieued that there was an other Hell where his son descended and he expected to goe after his death This shocks the whole fabrick of the Protestant dostrin of no Purgatory grounded chiefly on the perswasion of no other receptacle of souls but Heauen and Hell of the damned Now that there is a Purgatory I proue it the Protestants deny it because that if the sin be forgiuen in this lyfe then all the punishment due of man for that sin is also forgiuen and so there is no Purgatory if the sin was not forgiuen then it carries the soul to Hell for in the other world no sin is forgiuen But I proue that though the sin be forgiuen by the Sacrament or Contrition yet some temporal punishment is due of the sinner to God to satisfy his iustice