vvorld giuing vs to vnd erstand that the Paraclet was not sent to his Apostles alone but to their successors to the words end Wee proue it by the text of S. Io. 16.26 vvhen the Paraclet vvill come vvhom I vvill send from my Father the spirit of Truth vvho proceedeth from the Father he vvill giue testimony of me and you vvill giue testimony But there is nothing more cleer than that the whole Chapter speakes all a long of the Church reade y pray the text consequently that text is to be vnderstood of the Church as well as of the Apostles Wee proue it because the Apostles were the fundation S. Paul Eph. 2.20 whervpon the Church was built But S. Paul calls the the Church also the Pillar and foundation of Truth 1. Tim. 3. Wee proue it because S. Paul commands vs in seueral places to belieue his doctrin for that his vvord is not the vvord of Man but indeed of God and consequently infallible 1. Thes 2. buâ— Christ also Mat. 23 commands vs to obey and belieue the Church in succeeding ages on the chayr of Moyses haue sate the scribes and Pharisees vvhateuer they bid you do obserue and do obliging vs to obey and belieue not only Moyses but those that succeede in his chayr Thus not a text shall you meet for the infallibility of the Apostles but proues lykwise that of the Church Doubtless you will not deny but that Christ his Command of teaching all Nations preaching the Ghospell that the Bishops should rule the Church was layd not only on the Apostles but on their successors for future ages other wyse the Prelats and Pastors of future and this our age would not be obliged to teach preach and rule vs. You will not deny also but that Christ his command of hearing the Church vnder payn of being esteemed Heathens and Publicans of obeying them that sit on Moyses his chayr of being subiect to our Prelats was layd on the flock of all succeeding ages as well as on that of the Apostles dayes it follows therefore that the Pastors of our age are as much obliged to teach vs as the Apostles were to preach to them of their age and that wee are as much obliged to obey and belieue the Church in our age as the flock was in the Apostles tyme to belieue and obey them who can doubt them but that as the Authority iurisdiction and obligation of teaching descended to succeeding ages the infallibility also giuen to the Apostles for to acquit that obligation did descend it being giuen by God for the loue and gouernment of the flock that they should not be mis lead And heere enters the argument that I proposed in the former Chapter Whoeuer does as Christ bids him do and belieues as Christ bids him belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour but Christ bids vs do and belieue as the Church in succeeding ages bids vs do and belieue therefore wee cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour consequently they cannot mislead vs. But saies our Aduersary the Paraclet was to remayn with the Church vntill all truth was taught necessary for saluation but it cannot be doubted but that the Paraclet taught the Apostles all truth and they deliuered those Truths in their written word Therefore after that word was deliuered to vs the Paraclet was to remayne no longer This obiection well vnderstood will giue light to our doctrin and manifestly confirm its truth Christ saies Io. 15.15 that he taught his Apostles all whateuer he had heard from his Father it 's manifest therefore he taught them all truths necessary for saluation this was before his Passion and yet after his Resurrection S. Luke c. 24. tells vs that ie his iourny to Emaus with the two Disciples he interpreted the passages of Scripture to them which signifyes that through inaduertency or forgetfullness wee may come to doubt euen of what truths were already taught nay he saies Io. 16.12 that he had as yet things to deeclare to them and that the Holy spirit when he came would teach them all truth Behold how Christ hauing sayd he taught all things yet he sayes that he had many things to open to them which they could not then learne vntill the Paraclet came This might seeme a contradiction but is none for when he sayd that he taught them all he had heard from his Father that is to be vnderstood that he taught and deliuered to them the General Principles and Truths of Faith wherin all truths of Religion were contained and what he had yet to say to them were the consequences and particular Truths of Faith contained in those general Principles which the Paraclet would disclose to them it s therfore that the Holy Ghost is called by the Fathers Basil 5. cont Eunom and Mar. vict 3. contra Arium the Interpreter and Voyce of the Son because the interpreter sayes nothing of his own but deliuers in expresser terms what the Author has already sayd and the text cleerly sayes the Paraclet taught nothing of the new but what he had heard Non enim loquetur à semetipso sed quaecunque audierit loquetur because he did but expound in particular what Christ had taught in general Principles and opened to the Apostles the consequences that were contained in them Now its manifest out of the text that the Paraclet when he descended did not of a sudain open to the Apostles all the Truths and consequences included in those General Principles deliuered by Christ or if he did that he did not so cleerly as that they should haue vnderstood all for after that descent wee read Act. â—0 that Peter doubted if the Ghospell ougth to be preached to the Gentiles and he was instructed by a heauenly vision it ought also Act. 15. it was doubted if besids Baptism the Faith full were to be circumcided But wee do freely grant that the Apostles had at length a full and perfect knowledge of all truths of our Faith and all the consequences included in those general Principles deliuered to them by Christ consequently there is no Truth of Faith which now is belieued by us or shall be belieued by future Ages but the Apostles did distinctly and particularly know for as Tertul. sayes l. de praeser c. 22. quis integrae mentis credcre potest aliquid eos ignorasse quos Magistros Dominus dedit vvhat man of a sound vvit can belieue that they vvere ignorant of any thing vvhom the Lord gaue vs for Masters wee confess also that the Apostles did teach and deliuer all those truths to their disciples either by their written word or by word of Mouth to be handed to Posterity by Tradition whence S. Paul 2. Thes 2. commands hold the Traditions vvhich ye haue learned vvheter by Epistles or by vvord of Mouth some of these truths in succeding ages either through forgetfullness or through inaduertency of their Disciples and their successors who minded chiefly those Articles that were opposed by
without feare of being mislead that rest of mind in the assurance of the truth for you may err by belieuing fallibility as I haue by belieuing infallibility my condition then is still better than yours and my doctrin to be prefered before yours Your Church as you confess may err in points of Religion whence it manifestly follows that it is not the true sence of Scripture that leads you in the road to Religion for the true sence of Scripture is absolutly infallible I ask you therefore on what do you ground your Faith You tell me that vpon the Scripture as interpreted by your Church and comparing one text with an other but it may happen that your Church may err in the interpretation that you confess for you say the true Church may err now I argue thus whoeuer may err relying vpon a Principle can neuer be sure that he does not err whylst he relyes only on that Principle this proposition is vndeniable for if he can err relying on that Principle it s because the Principle is fallible and if the Principle be fallible it alone without the help of some other can neuer giue any assurance that you do not err for example you belieue the King is in London because an honest Man tells you so that is a fallible ground which you rely on and you may err by relying on that ground and as long as you rely only on that mans testimony and haue no other you will neuer be assured of the Kings being at London You belieue the Church fallibility and on what ground do you rely on Scripture as interpreted by the Church you may err relying on this Principle as you confess therefore as long as you rely on this Principle only and haue no other you can neuer be assured that you do not err the Church of England has no other nor will admit no other Principle to ground their Faith vpon but the Scripture interpreted by her and comparing one text with an other therefore she can neuer be assured of the doctrin she belieues consequently cannot be assured of the fallibility of the true Church What will you say in this case there is a Man accused of Murther before your tribunal he does not only deny the fact but many circumstances fauours his innocency and the very Person that accuses him saies he is not sure he is the Murtherer surely you would not condemn this Man to death it being against all the maxims of iustice to punish a man that is not conuicted criminal This is the very matter in hand the true Church is accused of fallibility and falshood in her doctrin the circumstances of hauing florished for so many ages in the credit of an infallible Oracle fauors her innocency and her Accuser which is the Church of England does confess that she may err in her accusation and consequently must confess as wee proued that she cannot be sure she does not err for she grounds her accusation on the Scripture interpreted by her in which she may err and whylst she has no other Principle but that she can neuer be certain she does not err will not you then acquit the Church of whose crime her accuser is not sure as you would that Man accused of Murther Add this discourse to the former it is a Principle in all well gouerned Commonwealhs that a preacable Possessor is not to be disturbd from his possession vntill that by vnquestionable proofs he be conuicted an vniust vsurper or detainer no coniectures nor probable reasons will put him out of possession he will still with a safe conscience maintain it and the law will continue him in it vntill that by euident proofs he be conuicted The true Church was in all ages in peacable possession of this prerogatiue of infallibility neuer denyed to her but by some few condemned Heretiks what euident vnquestionable proofs can you bring to conuince her an vniust vsurper or detainer of it Reason affords you none for to say that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God is impertinent wheras she clayms no other infallibility but such as you grant to the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists but say you in a General Council which is a multitude of Men where a point of Religion is to be resolued by the maior part of Votes and where passion and interest somtymes may sway it may happen that an errour may haue more Abettors and truth be out voted This is to say that God has no Prouidence ouer his Church since he has promised the conduct of his infallible spirit to her for to lead her into all truth and keep her vnspotted from all errours let each particular of that multitude be euer so corrupt in himself God who can as easily gouern the harts of many as of one will not permit them to determin an errour nor truth to be out voted Was not the Council of the Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem a multitude Were not the first four General Concils multitudes which the Protestants confess to haue been infallible and guided by Gods spirit which was as necessary to the Councils of succeeding ages the emergent Controuersyes being no fewer in number nor less in weight Neither does Scripture afford you any match if you can these texts I am vvith you all the dayes untill the consummation of the vvorld Math. 28.20 and if the Church did teach an vntruth would Christ be with her then He vvill give you an other Paraclet the Spirit of Truth that vvill abyde vvith you for euer vvho vvill leade you into all truth Io. 14.16 vvhen the Paraclet vvill come vvhom I vvill send from my Father the Spirit of truth he vvill giue testimony of me and you vvill giue testimony Io. 15.26 the Paraclet and the Chruch are ioynt Witnesses of the truth Nor does experience fauor you all that you can shew is that some Pope did err or that some Council did err but that 's not to the purpose if you do not shew which you will neuer do thal a Pope and Council together has erred wheras therefore neither scripture Reason nor experience doth afford you any vnquestionable evident proofs that the Chruch is an vnuist vsurper or detainer of that prerogatiue of infaillibility which she has en ioyed in all ages why will you pretend to disturb her peacable possession Let vs heare what the scripture suyes Lu. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Christ spoke to his Apostles and Disciples on whom he layd the charge of teaching and preaching and who were the Church representatiue whateuer therefore wee heare from the Chruch representatiue wee heare it from Christ whateuer the Church speaks Christ speaks otherwyse wee should not heare Christ speak when wee heare the Church speake the Church therefore is the Mouth by which Christ speaks and as we cannot heare an vntruth from him as he cannot speak any so she cannot speake nor be heard to speake an vntruth this is de clared by S. Paul 1.
pell is sufficient at least as to the points it contains These instances shew that reason to be very friuolous and if it proued any thing at most it can proue that the Church infallibility is not necessary for our instruction but it might be-necessary for other ends of Gods prouidence who might haue left still that gift of infallibility to his Church for a mark of his loue to her wee find he did promise the conduct of his infallible Spirit to his Church wee de not find he should haue limited this grace to any tyme nay to the contrary wee find that he sayd it should be for euer all dayes to the consummation of the vvorld why should wee therfore limit that fauor vnto à tyme to conclude wee haue proued in the 2 and 3 chap. that Scripture is not sufficient to instruct vs and consequently an infallible Church is still necessary An other reason no less silly to proue that the Church after few ages became fallible for the Popes Prelats and People became very vicious and from the debauchery of manners they came by Gods iust iugdment to fall into errours in doctrin which Mr Sall pretends to proue by Scripture pag. 32. the promise made by Christ of the Paraclet for to lead the Church into all truth vvas a conditional promise as appears by Christ his vvord Io. 14.16 if you loue me keep my commandmens and I vvill ask my father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet that he may abyde vvith you for euer euen the Spirit of Truth vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue The Paraclet is promised on condition they Keepe the commandments and by the later words vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue the Paraclet is flatly denied to all those the Scripture styles by the name of vvorld that is to say the wicked and wordly men Hence sayes Mr Sall wee can be no more sure that the Pope and his Council are infallible than wee are that he liues in Gods loue and obseruance of his commandments and wheras it is manifest by our own Historyes that the Pope Pastors and flock haue fallen into many crimes it followes they haue forfeited the conduct of Gods infaillible Spirit If from the lewdness of manners wee might conclude the Churches corruption in doctrin what Ghospell could the world expect from Luther and the other pretended Reformers for whose wickdness there are as good Records as for the debauchery of Popes and Prelats the sinns of Prelats did deface the Ghospell and did the Apostasy of Luther and the Sodomy of Caluin restore it to its splendor Christ did foresee that they who should sit on the chayre of Moyses would be wicked in their lyues and yet commanded vs to obey and belieue their doctrin The conduct of Gods Spirit promised to them for to leade them into all Truth was not a personal gift giuen to them for their own sakes but for the flock for to keepe them in vnity of Faith and therefore though God does permit them to fall into wickedness of lyfe his Prouidence will not permit them to fall into errors of doctrin that the flock which it obliged to obey them may not be mislead To proue that the Promiss was only conditional you corrupt the text for as well your Bible as ours sayes thus if you loue me keepe my Commandments and there puts a punctum Then ads a distinct verse or section And I vvill ask my Father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet c. which makes an absolut sence independent of the former That this is the true interpretation of that text it appears for in seueral other texts That assistance of as Mat. 28 20 behold I am vvith you all dayes euen to the consummation of the vvorld Mat. 16. the Gates of hell shall not preuayle agaiust her Io. 16 13. vvhen the Paraclet shall come the Spirit of Truth he shall teach you-all truth And is it not strang Mr Sall should auerr the Paraclet was promised vpon condition of Gods loue and obseruance of his Commandments wheras the Church remayns still infallible infundamental points notwithstanding that it has fayled in that condition as Mr Sall and all Protestants do deknowledge But what he will neuer answer is that if that Promiss was conditional it folloues wee cannot be sure the Ghospell is infallible if wee be not sure that the Euangelists when they wrote it haue been in the loue of God and obseruance of his Commandments for if they were not they had not the Paraclet sayes Mr Sall but no text of Scripture tells vs that the Euangelists were in the state of Grace when they writ the Ghospell nor nothing else giues vs assurance of it Therefore wee are not assured the Ghospell written by the Euangelists is infallible nay which is worse in the common doctrin of Protestants wee are assured it is not infaillible for the common doctrin in their Church is that it is impossible to keepe Gods commandments the Euangelists therefore when they writ did not keep Gods Commandments consequenly they could not haue the Paraclet to lead them into truth consequenly the Ghospell is not infallible and so Mr Sall ouerthrows all-Christian Religion Let vs consider what inducements had the primitiue Christians to belieue the Apostles infallible was it not the testimony of the Apostles confirming their doctrin with many Miracles look into the Historyes of all succeding ages and you will find that the Church which affirmed herself to be infallible did confirm her doctrin with many and great Miracle as wee will euidence in the ensuing Chap. And on what do you ground your beliefe when you say the Apostles were infallible You say that vpon the Scripture but I defy you to shew any text of Scripture which declares the infallibility of the Apostles that relates not to the Church in succeeding ages as well as to them either therefore they proue the Church to be infallible in succeeding ages or they do not proue the Apostles to be infallible For example wee proue the infallibility of the Apostles by the words of Christ he that heareth you heareth me Lu. 10. whence followes that the words of the Apostles were the words of Christ But Christ himself Mat. 18. declares that text must be vnderstood of his Church whereuer it be if he vvil not heare the Church let him be to you as a Heathen and Publican We proue it out of S. Iohn 14.18 He vvill giue you an other Paraclet the spirit of truth that vvill a byde vvith you for euer but this text playnly declares that the Promiss was made also to the Church in succeeding ages by the word for euer for the Apostles were not to be for euer in their own persons but in their successors and to remoue all occasion of cauilling vpon the word for euer saying that it signifyes only the tyme of the Apostles lyues Christ declares himself in a cleerer expression Mat. 28. I am vvith you all dayes to the consummation of the
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
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
Thes 2.13 vvhen you receiued from vs the vvord of the hearing of God you receiued it not as the vvord of Man but as indeed it is the vvord of God And therefore sayes he 1. Thes 4. S. he that despeiseth these things despeiseth not man but God Could a man speake more pertinently to signify that the doctrin of the Church is the doctrin of God that when wee heare her we heare him and that her words are infaillible wheras they are the words of God Observe that the Council of Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem Act. 15.28 deciding the Controuersy concerning Circumcision delivers their sentence thus It seemeth good to ihe Holy Ghost and to vs. Signifying that the resolution proceeded ioyntly from both from the Holy Ghost by his inward inspiration and direction from the Council by its outward declaration can wee doubt therefore but that the resolution of Controuersyes by that Council was infallibly true and not only of that but also of all succeeding Councils wheras the Apostles pronounced their sentence in those words grounded on the words of Christ He that heareth you heareth me grounded on the words of Christ Io. 15.26 vvhen the Paraclet vviâ—l come he shall giue testimony of me and you shall give testimony in which words Christ did speak to his Church which was the witness which ioyntly with the Holy Ghost was to giue testimony of him and grounded on the Promiss of his Paraclet which was made by Christ not only to the Apostles but to his Church for euer vntill the consummation of the vvorld This is yet more cleerly proved by the following discourse Christ commands vs to heare the Church that he that despeiseth her despeiseth him Lu. 10.16 to obserue and do what those that sit on Moyses his chayre bids vs do Mat. 23.2 commands them to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans that will not obey her S. Paul commands vs Heb. 13.17 not to be carried away with various and strang Doctrins but obey the Church wherin sayes he Eph. 4. God has placed Apostles Evangelists Doctors and Pastors to teach vs out of these and the lyke texts which are frequent in scripture largue thus He that does what Christ bids him do and belieues what he bids him belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour but Christ bids vs belieue and do what the Church commands vs to belieue and do as appeares by these texts therefore he that does what the Church commands him to do and belieues what she commands vs to belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour consequently what teuer the Church teachs is no errour To conclude S. Io. 1. epis 4.6 hauing warned vs to try our Spirits if from God or Satan he gives vs a rule wherby to try them he that knovveth God heareth vs he that knovveth not God heareth vs not In this vve knovv the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of errour This is the way prescribed by S. Iohn to ascertain vs of the nature of our Spirits if our Spirit be conformable to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of Truth if it does not conform itself to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of errour but if the Spirit of the Church de fallible it can give me no assurance of my Spirit whether it be of truth or of errour for what assurance can you haue that the Cloath which you measure is of a yard in length if you be not assured that the yard wherwith you measure it is an exact yard neither therefore can you be assured that your Spirit is of truth by trying it with the Spirit of the Church if you be not assured that the Spirit of the Church is of Truth But because our Aduersaries will still reply that all this is to be vnderstood of the Apostles who were infallible whylst they liued and are now infallible in their written word I haue already shewen that the written word is not sufficient to ascertain vs of the truth or vntruth of our Spirits and will now proue in this VI. CHAPT THAT NOT ONLY THE APOSTLES and Church in their dayes but that the Church in all succeeding ages is infallible THe Church of England confesses that the Apostles and Church in their tyme nay and for some ages after if you ask how many they do not agree was infaillible this is not consequent to their Principles that say only God is infallible but howeuer it s their Doctrin as appears in Mr Salls discourse pag. 18 professing to belieue the Holy scripture the Apostles Creed and S. Athanasius his Creed parallelling this wth the other two vvith the heauenly gift of faith and if the Council of Nice which deliuered vnto vs the doctrin contained in Athanasius his Creed had not been directed by the Holy Ghost as the Writers of the scripture were it were à Blasphemy to belieue that Creed and the doctrin of the Council with the same Faith with which wee belieue the scripture Now the Protestants all agree in this that now nor in these many ages the Church is not infallible for which assertion you must expect no scripture from them nor no reason but their bare word But let vs see what reason they pretend God say they having giuen vs an infallible written word sufficient to instruct vs Church infallibility was for the future needless what school boy but sees the weakness of this reason first after the scripture was written the Church continued infallible for some ages Mr Sall must confess by what I haue now said as generally all Protestants say and as all must say otherwyse Arrius and other Heresiarks might have questioned the truth of their doctrin if they had been fallible and could not be obliged in conscience to acquiesce to their iugdment nor ought not tobe held for Hereticks nor excommunicated for not submitting to them if they were fallible as yon do not esteem yourself an Heretick for not submitting to the Catolick Church on te same account S. Gregory l. 1. c. 24. sayes of the first four Councils I do embrace and reuerence the four General Councils as the four Books of the Ghospell which had been rashly and impiously said if they had not been infallible Secondly if Church infallibility was needbess because the scripture which is infallible was written then it was also needless that the Church should be infallible in fundamental points of Religion and yet Protestants do constantly auer that the Church is still infallible in fundamental points thought he scripture be infallible also in them Thirdly the Apostles remayned still infallible after the Scripture was written and why not the Church fourthly if infallibility is needless because the Scripture is infallible wee may say also that S Iohn is not infallible in is Ghos pell at least as to those points which were al ready mentioned in Mathew Mark and Luke or that these three lost their infallibility by the writing of S. Iohns Ghos pell because one infallible Ghos
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