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
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
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
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.
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
Miracles he wrought Mat. 11.3 The blind see the lame vvalk the Leapers are made cleane the deafe heare and the dead ryse again S. Paul 2. Cor. 12.12 calls the Miracles which he wrought the signs of his Apostle ship and S. Mar. last ch saies that the Apostles preaching euery where wrought Miracles in confirmation of their doctrin Christ to proue against the Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 9.6 that he had power of forgining sins which they denied cured the sick Man of the Palsie That you may knovv that the son of Man hath povver of forgining sins saith he to the sick of the Palsie Aryse take up thy bed and go to thy house Therefore if the Catholik Church does work Miracles in proof of the doctrin she teaches t is an vnquestionable truth that she is the true Church as Nicodemus concluded Io. 3.2 No man could do those things if God vvere not vvith him and that no man can deny or doubt her doctrin to be from God wherefore Christ Mat. 11.21 pronounced VVo against Corozain and Betsaida because they did not beliue his doctrin to be diuine which they did see confirmed with so many Miracles you say they were no true Miracles but Sorceries and Enchantments or that the Authors were mistaken in iudging them to be Miracles which were but Natural effects of natural causes But I answer that nothing can be said against those Miracles wrought by the Professors of our Religion and related by S. Augustin S. Bernard and other Saints of the Church which may not be also obiected against the Miracles of our B. Sauiour and Apostles Could not the inhabitants of Corozain and Bethsaida say that the Miracles which Christ alleadged were but Sorceries or effects of natural causes did not the Scribs and Pharisees say it to conclude if thy were true Miracles T is euident the doctrin in whose confirmation they were wrought is diuine and all things considered you will find its rashness to deny that they were true Miracles if you read carefully this Chap. Now it is impossible that God who is infinitly True and to whose infinit Veracity it is as repugnant to speake a smale vntruth as a great one should confirm any vntruth euerso smale with a Miracle consequently a Church that would deliuer a mixt doctrin of some great Truths and some smale vntruths it is impossible that God should work Miracles by that Church in confirmation of her doctrin for that would be to own that doctrin for his own and owne smale vntruths to be reuealed by him wheras he giues his commission and his seale and Marks of his authority for to teach them And as it is not credible that the King of England should giue his commission vnder the broad seale of England to any man to induce his subiect into a Rebellion so it s less imaginable that God should giue his commission with his broad seale which are Miracles and supernatural signs to teach an vntruth euer so smale his infinit veracity being so auerse to all vntruth By no other means did he confirm the doctrin of the Trinity to be his doctrin by no other signs did he moue men to belieue than by working Miracles by the Church that taught it if therefore he works miracles by the Church that teachs Purgatory real Presēce and others which you call inferiour points and smale errours he confirms that doctrin to be his and so approues and ownes smale vntruths to be reuealed by him Therefore S. Paul when he preached as well great as inferiour Truths or articles could cōfidently say that his words were indeed the words of God because God did cōfirm his doctrin by Miracles and supernatural signs particularly Mr Sall auerring that the doctrin of Purgatory and real Presence are damnable errours if ignorance doth not excuse the Professors certainly God would not giue the Marks of his Commission which are Miracles to teach them It remayns that wee proue God has wroutght Miracles by the Roman Catholik Church euen in those ages wherin the Protestants affirm that she was plung'd in errours and in confirmation of those Tenets which they say are errors Secondly that wee are bound to belieue them to haue been true Miracles thirdly that the doctrin in whose confirmation they were wrought must be true reuealed doctrin As to the first wee speake not of forged Miracles which haue been and are still condemn'd by the Church and their Authors punisht as impostors wee speake of vncontrolled Miracles wrought in the presence of the very Authors and Authors of an vnspotted credit Holyness and learning euen in the opinion of our Aduersaries who relate them in their works left to Posterity S. Augustin l. 22. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. relates that in his own tyme many miracles were wrought and som in his own presence by the Sacraments of the Church by the intercession of Saints and their Relicks especially of saint Stephen of saint Geruase and Protase when he being then in the towne their Bodies were by a heauenly reuelation discouered to saint Ambroise at Milan by the sign of the Holy Cross by the sacrifice of Mass and Earth of Christ's sepulcher and mentions in particular besids others that a woman called Palladia was sudainly cured by praying to S. Stephen Ad sanctum Martyrem orare perrexerat quae mox vt cancellos attigit sana surrexit S. Bernard in saint Malachy's lyfe relates many Miracles wrought by this Saint and that he himself after the Saint expired took his hand and layd it vpon the withered and vseless hand of a boy then present who was presently restored to perfect health The Miracles wrought by S. Bernard himself in confirmation of the Catholick doctrin of Transubstantion and Inuocation of Saints opposed in his tyme by the Henricians and VValdenses are recorded by God fred in vita S. Bern. l. 3. c. 5. and particularly that stupendious Miracle of Sarlatum a village neer Toulouse when the Saint blessing som loaues of bread he said to the multitude that were present In this you shall knovv that these things meaning those Tenets opposed by thē foresaid Hereticks are true and those false vvhich the Heretiks endeuour to persvvade you that vvhosoeuer of your diseased persons shall tast of these loaues they shall be healed and the Bishop of Chartres his freind then present adding that the promise was conditional prouided they did eat of that bread with Faith the Saint replyed that he did speak vvithout any such restriction that his meaning vvas that vvhosoeuer did tast of them loaues should bo cured of his sickness And effectualy as many sick persons as did eat of the loaues were cured and this Miracle being publisht such a multitude flockt to meet the Saint from all parts that he was forct to decline the common road No less authentick is that passage of S. Damascen related by Iohn Hierosolymitanus in the lyfe of Damascenus his own scholler and priuy to all his lyfe Leo Isauraus thar
these are your Parents therefore you are obliged to belieue that doctrin is true in whose confirmation those Miracles were wrought You reply this makes our Faith of that doctrin but fallible Faith for if I haue no more assurance of the truth of those Tenets than I haue of the Miracles that were wrought in confirmation of them of the truth of those Miracles I only haue a moral assurance grounded vpon the testimony and iudgment of those saints which relate them all which is but fallible for it might happen they were deceiued consequently all the certainty I haue of the truth of the Tenets is but a moral and fallible certainty and so our Faith is not infallibly true I answer the motiue of my Faith and ground wher vpon it is bottom'd is only the voyce of God pronounced by the Church which deliuers that doctrin of God which Motiue and ground is infallibily true But because this Motiue is obscure and does not appeare euidently and certainly to the vnderstanding that it does exist the vnderstanding cannot assent vnto it vntill it be made more knowen and the way to make is more knowen is not to make it euident that it exists for the Motiue of Faith must be obscure and it is against the essence and nature of Faith to be euident or the Motiue of it to be euidently proposed to the vnderstanding as Mr Anderton does most solidly and learnedly demonstrat in his Treatise of a soueraign remedy against Atheism and Heresy The way therefore of making it more knowen is to make it euidently credible and lykely in the iudgment of any rational man that such a voyce of God speaking by the Church is extant and this is don by the Miracles and supernatural signs which the Church works in confirmation of her Doctrin which are vndeniable inducements to any man of reason to iudge it most credible and lykely that it is God who speaks by that Church and our vnderstanding being thus confirmed by this iudgment of credibility then follows our obligation of belieuing the Doctrin the credibility of the existence of Gods voyce by the Church and our obligation of belieuing being thus proposed by our vnderstanding The vnderstanding is still able to deny an assent to Gods voyce speaking because nothing can force the vnderstanding to an essent but the euidence of the obiect and it s not euident to the vnderstanding that God speakes but euidently credible therefore the will must enter which assisted with the preuious iudgment of the credibility of the doctrin and a pious inclination from God for to resolue commands the vnderstanding to assent to Gods voyce speaking in which command of the will determining the vndersting to Assent the Merit of Faith doth consist So that the whole and only Motiue of our assent of Faith is Gods voyce speaking by the Church the Miracles and other supernatural signs are not the Motiues of our Faith but of our Iudgement of credibility and of our obligation of belieuing a Doctrin so credibly proposed which Iudgment of credibility and obligation of belieuing need not to be absolutly and Metaphisically euident but morally euident in the highest degree of Moral euidence as it is in this case that true Miracles haue been wrought in many or most ages by the Catholick Church in confirmation of her Tenets Reade the Resolution of Faith in the 2. part of thise Treatise Your obligation of belieuing the Miracles of the Church being thus proued your obligation of belieuing her infallible in all points of Doctrin is most apparent for God whose veracity is infinit cannot speake the least vntruth nor deliuer it as his Doctrin nor giue his commission to teach it nor confirm it with the markes and scale of his Commission for that would be to owne it te be his Doctrin reuealed by him wheras therefore he has confirmed the Doctrin of the Catholick Church with so many Miracles its impossible it should contain the least vntruth And when you would be so obstinat as to doubt of all other Miracles you cannot be so blind as to doubt of the conuersion of all Nations that euer were conuerted to Christianity by the Catolick Church what Nation was there euer yet conuerted to Christianity by the Protestant Church or in what History do you read that euer you sent Preachers to conuert Pagans it was S. Austin a Massing Priest sent by Pope Gregory the Great that conuerted England to Christianity if you belieue the Chronicles of England it was S. Xauerius a Iesuit to whom Sectaries haue no relation if you will not make him Father of the Quakers that conuerted the Indies it was S. Patrick sent by Pope Celestin that conuerted Ireland they were Priest and fryars and Monks that propagated the Ghospell in whom Protestants haue no Interest but what their reuolt from the Church has giuen them in their Lands and estates what Miracles what conuersion of Nations to Christianity what succession of Pastors since Christ his tyme what General Councils that condemned Heresyes can the Protestant Church shew And is it possible that God should haue giuen those glorious Marks of a true Church to the Catholick Church if it were not the true Church and giue no visible Mark at all of a true Church to the Protestant if it were the true one both Churchs pretends to be the true and sereual other Congregations pretends to the same has God giuen no visible marks wherby to distinguish his true Church from fals ones otherwyse why should wee be obliged to belieue This to be the true Church rather than That other and can it be imagined that he should haue giuen Miracles and supernatural signs to the Catholick Church if it were the false one and giue none to any other if any other were the true Church Lastly I proue that the Roman Catolick Church is infallibly true in her Doctrin Purgatory real Presence and any Doctrin though smale and inferiour you call it The Catholick Church as you confess is infallible in fundamental points of Religion you say if you be a Protestant that the Roman Church is still a true Church because it has not erred in the fundation or essential points of Faith But if it did in any point whateuer though smale you iudge it it would etr in fundamental articles of Religion therefore it has not nor cannot err in any whateuer I proue the Minor It s a fundamental article of Faith that God is infinitly true that he cannot tell an vntruth but if the Doctrin of Purgatory were untrue the Catholick Church would teach that God deliuers an vntruth for the Church teacheth that Purgatory is a Doctrin teuealed by God if therefore Purgatory be an vntruth she teachs that God deliuered an vntruth and consequently she errs in a fundamental article of Faith Now its tyme wee examin that impious Position of our new Minister Mr Sall he follows much the tract of Luther his Grand Reformer not in that he should
differēce from vs to be bottom'd on the word of God that their figuratiue Presence is cleer in the Scripture that they will proue the pretended errors for which they forsook vs by Scripture they amuse the poore People with the specious pretext of Scripture no Rule of Faith but Scripture no Iudge of Controuersy but Scripture no warrant for Diuin worship but Scripture and after all its manifest by my former discourse that no Article of Protestancy as it is a particular Doctrin distinct from Catholecism can without sacrilege be sought for in Scripture If the Protestant Church be not The Church of Christ it can be no part of it for the same reason which but now I proposed for that no Article of Protestancy is the Doctrin of Christ being all but fallible Doctrin if they will not pretend to be a part of the Church because they belieue the chief and fundamental Articles wherin they agree with vs and that 's ridiculous because in so much they are not Protestants it s not for them Articles that they departed from vs and set vp a distinct Church this is to be a part of the Church in as much as they can pretend to be of the Roman Catholick Church and if they might be called a part of the Church for that reason Pelagians Eutychians and other Heretick Congregations may be called so also and thus the Church of Christ insteed of being the House of Peace and vnion be a house of confusion Out of this discourse also wee may vnderstand how vain is the pretence of Protestants and seueral other sects to vnity of Faith with the Roman Catholicks for when wee vrge them with this argument There is but One Faith as there is but one God S. Paul Eph. 4. without that one Faith its impossible to please God the Catholick Church has that Faith for you ackowledg its a true and a sauing Faith that holds all Articles necessary for saluation if therefore there be but one sauing Faith no other will saue but the Roman Catholick Faith they are so grauel'd with this discourse that they are glad to claim kinred with vs and say that wee all Catholicks Lutherans Presbiterians and Protestants haue but one and the same Faith as to the substance and Essentials of Faith because wee all belieue the Prime and chief Articles of Chlistianity Christs Incarnation Passion c. which with a good moral lyfe is sufficient for saluation nor is it possible that God will condemn a man that belieues those Articles and liues a good lyfe for denying Purgatory a tryfle nothing material if there be any or not This Omnifidian Doctrin of the Latitudinarians is now in great vogue and cryed vp for a charitable Doctrin that excludes none from saluation but lycenceth you to change Religions as your Interest or conuemency requires Out of this Principle follows that if they haue not the same Faith with the Roman Catholicks they haue not a sauing Faith otherwise there would be two sauing Faiths But they are not of the same Faith nay they are of a far different for it s not enough for vnity of Faith with the Catholicks to belieue the Prime fundamental Articles but all and euery particular Article though inconsiderable it may seeme to you which the Catholick Church proposes to be a reuealed truth any one Article that you deny though smale it be for example Purgatory breaks vnity of Faith with the Roman Catholick Church The Church belieues the Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament and belieues the Lawfullness of Marriage and the lawfullness of eating any victuals You cannot iustly say that one of these Articles is more Fundamental than the other why should the Lawfullness of Marriage be a Fundamental point of Religion more than the real Presence by your sence of Fundamental and not fundamental Articles they are of a seyse And what think you would he that agreeth in all other Articles and deny only the Lawfullness of Marriage would he I say haue vnity of Faith with the Catholick Church by your rule he would because he agrees in all fundamental and Prime points he only differs in an inferior truth a smale matter Yet S. Paul expresly sayes that he would not 1. Tim. 4.3 in the lather dayes certain vvill depart from the Faith obserue the word depart attending to the Spirit of errors and Doctrin of Deuils for bidding to Marry and abstain from meats Doth not this proue that the denyal of smale Articles breaks vnity of Faith you cannot therefore pretend to haue the same Faith with the Roman Catholicks that deny many Articles of their Faith Secondly the resurrection of the flesh is indeed a fundamental Article contained in the Apostles Creed but if it be to come at the end of the world or already past to such as are dead each soule after mans death reassuming again his body in a short tyme as Hymenaeus and Philetus said it s no fundamental Article as you Protestants vnderstand fundamentals for the chief and prime Articles yet S. Paul sayes of these two 2. Tim. 2.18 their speech spreadeth lyke Canker of vvhom is Hymenaeus and Philetus vvho haue erred from the truth saying that the Resurrection is past and haue subuerted the Faith of some Behold the denyal of smale and inferiour truths is called by S. Paul a spreading canker an erring from the truth a subuersion of the Faith it breaks therefore vnity of Faith and hence conclude that you haue not vnity of Faith with the Roman Church though you belieue with her the Trinity Incarnation and other chief Articles because you deny many others vnder the pretence of being smale and inferour Truths and deceiue not your self with that distinction of fundamental and not fundamental Articles wher with your Leaders do amuse you No article whateuer is man obliged to belieue if it be not sufficiently proposed to him that God has reuealed it and any article whateuer which is sufficiently proposed vnto vs to haue been reuealed by God wee are obliged vnder pain of damnation to belieue it so that as to our obligation of belieuing all Articles are equally fundamental if they be sufficiently proposed It s true som Mysteries of Faith are of their own Nature more requisit and needfull and on that account may be called fundamental as the Mystery of the Trinity and Christ his Incarnation but that is nothing to our purpose what obliges me to belieue them is not that they are so absolutly or greatly needfull for no such absolut nor great necessity of Christ his death can be proued he could haue redeemed vs with one tear he shed yet it is a fundamental Article because it is sufficiently proposed to me to be a truth reuealed so that in order to my obligation of belieuing all Articles sufficiently proposed as reuealed truths are equally fundamental And since that wee own our obligation of belieuing the Scripture to be Scripture Trinity and Incarnation vpon the testimony of the Church
Pope is infallible when wee say the Roman Catholick Church is infallible wee mean and all our Aduersaries know that the Church of Rome and all Churchs vniuersally spread throughout the world which are vnited with her in Faith and Communion either as she is diffused or representatiue in a General Council wherin Protestants are not included though a Christian Congregation because they are deuided from her This Church is the true vniuersal Church called Roman because the chief Pastor is in Rome called Vaiuersal because her Members are spread throughout the world of the infallibility of this Church Mr Sall speaks nothing but of the Pop's infallibity which is no Article of Faith which if an error is not of the Church and therefore ought not to leaue the Church for this reason When our Aduersaries are obliged and do promise to proue our errors by plain and vndeniable Scripture from the pag. 29. to 35. and from pag. 39. to 44. where Mr Sall vnder takes to proue this error not one text of Scripture does he alleadge but three so far from being plain and vndeniable that any man of common sense will find them impertinent the first ps 11.1 verities are mâ—imed among the children of Men. And how can this proue the Church to be fallible if it does not proue that the Apostles Euangelists and Prophets are also fallible who were Children of Men and if it does not proue the Church to be fallible also in fundamental points which Mr Sall and all Protestants deny The second all Men are Lyars Fallibility signifies only a possibility of deliuering an vntruth a Lyar is he that actually deliuers an vntruth and that against his own knowledge so that the text if it proues any thing to Mr Salls purpose it proues that the Apostles Euangelists and the Church of England are a company of fourbs that against their mind and knowledg deliuered vntruths for they are all men and all men are lyards The third text is out of S. Io. 16. prouing that the Paraclet was promised to the Church only vpon condition of louing God and keeping his Commandments to which I haue giuen a full answer ch 6â— reade there to saue me and yourself the trouble of a Tatalogy Thus Mr Sall has forsaken our Church and cannot proue by plain Scripture as he is obliged her errors Two reasons he alleadgs that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God and that there must be no such thing as infallibility of the Church wheras our Authors do not agree where to place it if in the Pope alone or in the Council to which reasons I haue sufficiently answered in the beginning of the 5. ch He sayes that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3. the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth must not be vnderstood of the Dioces of Rome and he knowes well that wee do not pretend it should wee pleade for the infallibility of the vniuersal Church as wee said but now He admires that Bellar should proue the Popes infallibility be the two Hebrew words signifying Doctrin and Truth placed by Gods command in the breast plate of the High Priest and thence drawes a consequence very absurd to him that the High Priest also must haue been infallible in the old Law I will not enlarge in this point because it concerns the Popes infallibility which is no Articles of Faith and only such I intend to vindicat but I must aduertise him of his ignorance in admiring it should be pretended that the High Priests of the Ancient Law were infallible wheras though monstrous it seems to him not only Catholick but Protestant Authors do teach it one I produce Doctor Porter a great Clerk in the Protestant Church in his book called Char. Mist pag. 35. The High Friests in cases of moment had a certain Priuiledge from error if he consulted the Diuine Oracle by the iudgment of vrim or by the breast-plate of iudgment vvherin vvere vrim and Thummim vvherby he had an absolut infallible direction And immediatly following if any such promiss made by God to assist the Pope could be produced his Decison might pass iustly for Oracles vvithout examination This blasphemy sayes he of parallelling the Pope with God in the Attribut of infallibility is raysed to a higher degree by their practice of making the Pope the suprem Iudge and Arbiter of Gods Lavvs And how does he proue this calumny Bellarmin l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say that if the Pope did command vices and prohibit virtues the Church vvould be obliged to belieue vice to be good and virtue bad And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be preferred before the institution of Christ vvheras hauing confessed that our sauior did ordain the Communion vnder both kinds to the Layty and that the Apostles did practise it they commanded it should be giuen for the future but in one kind alleading for reason that the precedent Popes and Church did practise it so vvhich is to extoll the Decrees of Popes aboue them of Christ as if the Lavvs of England vvere not to be vnderstood or practifed in Ireland but accordging to the vvill and declaration of the King of France certainly the King of France vvould be deemed of more Povver in Ireland than the King of England and the People more his subiects Answer Bellarmin in that place speaks expresly of vices and virtues when there is a doubt of their being such as for example vsury is a vice of its nature bad per se malum now wee all know it to be such and restitution to be a virtue if there should arryse a doubt of vsury's being a vice and in that case the Pope should command vsury to be practised then wee should be obliged to practise vsury and Bellar. giues the reason quia tenetur Ecclesia in rebus dubys acquiescere iudicio summi Pontificis Because in dubious cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope Behold how Bellar speaks in case of doubt that vice is vice and virtue is virtue for in that case the Pope as being the chief Pastor is in possession of the obligation of being obeyed by Gods command and a doubtfull excuse cannot exempt the subiects from their apparent duty Melior est conditio possidentis The Council of Constance knew that though the Communion was instituted and practised by the Apostles in both kinds yet Christ left it arbitrary to his Church to giue it either in one or both which I will proue in the discourse of Half Communion and therefore finding that Christ himself and his Apostles somtymes gaue it in one and that the precedent Popes for iust reasons had commanded it should be receiued so issued that Decree of receuing it in one kind And it is false what you say that they alleadged no other reason for so doing but the Decrees of precedent Popes they alleadged also for reason the example of Christ and his Apostles who gaue it in one
a greater credit for him to haue been in that imployement than to haue been cast out of it before the yeares end when others continued it for three years at least and commonly for 6. or eight years As for other things that might be said I will take no notice of them And euen from this moderat reprehension of his vanity I would haue willingly abstained did he not oblige me to it For I appeale to the Protestant Reader whether it be not fit that when he pretends by fictitious Titles to gain credit to his cause and to his arguments with the vulgar People I should open their eyes to see that he is not what he sayes he is The Priests and Leuits sent by the Iews to the great Baptist to know what he was 10.1 made him two very different questions VVhat are you VVhat do yo say of yourself Knowing that often tyms there is a vast difference betwixt vvhat a man really is and vvhat hè sayes he is And this neuer appeared more apparently than in the great difference that is betwixt what Mr Sall is and what he sayes he is And it is very important for the truth of the cause which I defend that the Reader take notice of this difference for wyse men dot not so much consider the quality of the person that speakes as what he speakes and value not an argument for his sake who proposes it but for its own merit But Men of vulgar capacity who do not vnderstand the strength or weakness of an argument value it not for what it is in itself but for the learning and credit of the Person that proposes it whence it is that men of common vnderstanding who know not the weakness of Mr Salls arguments will not withstanding belieue them to be very pregnant because they are of a man of that vogue and credit which he most vniustly vsurpes of a great Diuine a Venerable Rector and Professor of Diuinity so that the most dangerous weapon wherewith he attacks vs is his credit and Authority which belongs not to him If he were content to fight vs with his arguments wee would be content with a bare answer for vpon the learned men they would neuer make any impression nor vpon the vnlearned who to value an argument only looks on the Proponent but when he comes to fight vs in the shape of a very learned Diuine and a great Master in Sciences wee must vnmask his ignorance and vanity least his arguments which in themselues haue no force assisted with that vsurped credit and authority may work on the Spirits of ignorant People Perhaps this Treatise may seeme larger than might be thought necessary for an answer to Mr Salls discourse I confess it is and were I to consider only what his discourse deserues it required no answer for it contains nothing but what has been said twenty tymes and answered so many more though this being the first Essay of this great Diuine in fauor of Protestancy its strang if he were so learned as he would haue vs belieue him to be but that it should be an exquisit peece yet I haue thought fit to answer it and do intend not only an answer to him which could haue been don in fewer lynes but an exact discussion of the Points he toucheth and particularly of that prime and great Controuersy of which depends the resolution of all others The infallibility of a liuing Iudge of Controuersies which is the Church Therefore for a full satisfaction of those that desire to know and embrace truth I diuide this Treatise into two Parts in the first I will proue the Necessity of a liuing infallible Iudge of Controuersies and proue it to be the Roman Catholik Church In the second I will examin those pretēded Errors which he fastens on our Church and will endeauor to leaue nothing vnanswered that he obiects against vs though I may prepone or postpone his arguments as the Methode of my discourse requires If my labor Proue to your spiritual aduantage I am sufficiently rewarded if not I shall not want a reward from him that erowns good desires fare well Your friend in Christ Iesus I. S. THE FIRST PART PROVING the necessity of an infallible liuing Iudge I. CHAPTER BVT ONLY ONE TRVE RELIGION The need full Means afforded by God to come to the knovv legde of it THAT God is to be adored it 's the voice of Nature pronounced by all Nations Reason proues it for were you yourself the chiefest in Power the highest in Dignity the Richest and most adorned in virtues in the Common wealth you would expect an Homage and it could not be denied vnto you by your Inferiors Confess then that a far greater is due from you to God whose Power is supereminent his Wisdom transcendent his Goodness vnlimited his Perfections innumerable But it is not arbitrary to Man to adore God with what manner of Worship his fancy suggests vnto him or his priuat spirit inclins him vnto God as he requires a Worship at our hands so he has himself reuealed what manner of Worship he requires Perdiscamus sayes S. Chrysost hom 51. in Mat. Christum ex sua voluntate honorare nam qui honoratur eo maxime honore laetatur quem ipse vult non quem nos optamus What sacrifices Rites and Ceremonies God would be adored with in the old law he declared it to his People by Moyses Leuit. from the first to the 7. chap. and declared that he would not be otherwise worshipped Leuit 10. In the law of Grace his son Incarnated abolished that Ceremonial law and reuealed to Mankind a new manner of diuine worship a new Sacrifice Sacraments Rites and Ceremonies by which he will be worshipped and by no other in so much that by S. Paul Gal. 1.9 he commands that if an Angel from heauen should recommend vnto vs an other manner of diuine worship wee should not heed him This worship of God reuealed by him to Man is true Religion worship him euer so much if you do not adore him as he has reuealed he would be worshipped you haue not true Religion That there is a true Religion extant it 's doubtless both for that wee pretend each of vs his own Religion to be the true one and that God has laid a command vpon vs and wee are obliged to worship him in spirit and Truth this is Religion which command and obligation supposes the Existence of a Religion That among all those Religions wherwith the world abounds there is but one true Religion whateuer and whereuer it be it s also manifest for true Religion is that manner of diuine worship which God has reuealed but God has not reuealed those seueral manners of diuine worship which do oppose and contradict one another if it be he that reuealed wee should worship him by denying the Messias as the Iewdoes certainly it must not be he that reuealed wee must worship him by belieuing in the Messias as the Christians
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
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
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
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
nay Scotus in that place brings for example the Creed of the Nicen Council which sayes he was no new doctrin of the Council but a more explicit declaration of the sence formerly belieued by the Church so the Decree of the Lateran Council was but an explicit declaration of the sence that was held by the Church in all ages in this point of the real Presence Suarez indeed tells vs that Caietan but speaks nothing of Bassoly so much you add of your own spoke rashly of this Mystery but tells vs also that his expressions were censured by the Church and all that Mr Sall can proue by this is that Caietan did err and what then But fayes he Bellarmin and the Roman writers do agree that in that text this Cup is the nevv Testament of my blood the word Cup is taken by a Trope not for the material Cup but for the thing it contains and why will wee not also admit a Trope in the words relating to the bread consecrated Mr Sall playes the Catholick vndoubtedly vnder the mask of Protestancy for this argument proues manifestly our Doctrin wee confess that in the text alleadged the word Cup must be taken by a Trope for what it contains not for the material Cup so wee desire him that in this text the bread vvhich I vvil giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld the word bread may be taken by a Trope not for the material bread but for what it contains which wee proue to be in the Cup the true blood of Christ because of it and not of the material Cup it can be verifyed that it was shed for vs in the bread the true flesh of Christ for of it and not of the material bread that Predicat can be verifyed giuen for the lyfe of the vvorld He concludes with a discourse which shocks the Hierarchy of the Church of England Mr Anderton has lately proued in his iudicious Treatyse stiled a Soueriagn Remedy against Atheism and Heresy the Nullity of the Protestant Clergy and Mr Sall not sufficiently as yet engaged in the defence of that cause as wee may iudge by his so weake opposition of our Tenets and defence of theirs that he has not as yet got so great aduantages by his Reuolt as he expected that should edge his wit to plead with more vigor I know not with what design strengthens this Assertion with his following argument against our Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament How can you sayes he giue Diuin Adolration to the wafer wheras in your own Principles you cannot be sure that Christ is there present for in your Principles That depends of the intention of the Priest who consecrats and of his true ordination this depends of the intention and due ordinatiō of the Bishop that ordained him and this Bishop depends of the true ordination of others that consecrated him and so vpwards of endless requisits impossible to be knowen certainly consequently you cannot certainly know that Christ is present in that wafer how then are you so desperat as to adore it Answer its question less on both sydes yours and ours that som things are essentially requisit for the validity of a Sacrament the defect of which or any one thing of them nullifyes the Sacrament as for the validity of Baptism water is essentially necessary and the form of words I baptize you in the name of the Father son and Holy Ghost This you belieue as well as wee now who doubts but that it depends of the free will of the Minister to vitiat the form for since that the validity of the Baptismdoes not require that he vters the form in aloud voyce he may pretend to speak the form and vtter som what els in lieu of it or if he should pronounce some words of it with an audible voyce he may with an vnder voyce omit some word or add som word that would destroy the form this may happen through malice or ignorance and wee cannot possibly be certain that it does not or has not happened and consequently wee can haue no assurance if Mr Salls discourse be good of the truth of any mans Baptism The ordination of your Ministers depends essentially in your Principles also as well as in ours of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop for if he be no true Bishop he can giue no orders and of the exact form or words essentially requisit for a due ordination the Iurisdiction of the Bishop depends of the due ordination of the Consecrators for he must be consecrated by the imposition of hands of true Bishops and the vttering of the form of Consecration the due ordination of the Consecrators depends of the like requisits in those from whom they receiued their Caracter now since that the defect either of the true form of the Consecration or of the true Ordination of the Consecrators nullifies your Hierarchy and that there is no possible means for vs to know certainly that neither of those two was wanting in any one of the whole trayn of your Ordainers for if it was wanting in any all the Ordinations deriued from him are Null what assurance haue you or can you haue of the truth of your Hierarchy and but that you are all buth meer laymen without any authority or iurisdiction for preaching or administring Sacraments Thus Mr Sall obliges his Church in opening a way to question the Iurisdiction of the Clergy let him make his peace as he can with his Church and Clergy wee will answer his obiection thus Wee can without hazard of Idolatry and ought in conscience to adore the wafer consecrated though wee be not infallibly assured of the Priests intention for our obligation of adoring is grounded on and guided by that General Principle of Faith which is infallibly true that Christ is really present in the wafer duely consecrated this General Principle applied to this particular case of this vvafer consecrated by this Priest obliges me to adore this wafer though that application of the said general Principle be not infallibily sure or I am not infallibly ascertained that it is applyed in this particular case it is sufficient for my obligation of adoring that I am morally assured that it is applyed As in this case this General Principle of Nature Parents are to be honored by their children is infallibly true and iust and grounds an obligation in all children to honor their Parents in virtue of this general Principle applyed this particular Man and woman that are your Parents you are obliged to honor them but are you infallibly assured that these are your Parents not at all are not you not withstanding obliged to honor them is it rashness or folly in you to honor them for though the general Principle that Parents must be honored be infallibly true and iust yet you are not infallibly assured that this general Principle is duely applyed to these in particular but for your obligation that is not requisit its sufficient that you are morally
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