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
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
true but what Mr Sall might well condole is the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the oath of supremacy that the King of England is head of the Church and let him consider if it be not cruelty against soules to oblige them to sweare a thing that not only Catholicks but all sectaries out of England denies nay Caluin in cap. 6. Amos Prophetae sayes Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae fuerunt homines inconsiderati erant enim Blasphemi cum eum vocarent summum Caput Ecclesiae And the very Protestant Doctors themselues not agreeing in what sence and how far is it true that the King is supream Head of the Church the poore People must be forced to sweare it Then say you the Council of Lateran erred in assuming that Power when it decreed Princes who did not purge their Territories from Heresies should be depriued of their Lands You abuse the Council neither it nor any other Council did no assume that Povver as you say but finding that is was that the probable and perhaps as they supposed the most probable opinion of Diuins that the Church had that power grounded their fact vpon that opinion and issued their Decree of that punishment against such Princes And the Catholicks who deny any such Power in the Church do not nor any man cannot say the Council erred formally that 's to say blameably in that Decree because it was grounded vpon a probable opinion and it is not requisit in any Tribunal for the iustice of a Decree or sentence that it be grounded vpon infallible grounds And the Catholicks who deny that power do say that Decree was Materially erroneous because the opinion vpon which the Council was grounded was false whence you can only gather that the Council may err Materially only in matters of fact such as that was but in Doctrina fidei morum in Doctrin of Faith and Manners it cannot err neither formally nor Materially because it is assisted in that Doctrin constantly by Gods infallible Spirit Transubstantiation How strangly Mr Sall is blinded in calling vs Idolaters for belieuing Christs real personal Presence in the Sacrament and pag. 116. sayes wee will be damned for this and orher Tenets if ignorance does not excuse vs and yet the Lutherans who are the Elder Brethren of the pretended Reformation whom Protestants do embrace and receiue to their Communion belieue that real personal Presence of Christ as well as wee are they Idolaters also and will they be damn'd if ignorance does not excuse them or will it be pardonable in them and damnable in vs He sayes wee haue no pertinent text of scripture for it pag. 21. and 28. but I defy him with all his Diuinity to answer me to these two following syllogism grounded vpon most cleer texts first Luk. 22.19 eate this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you The text declares he gaue them somwhat what to eat wee say it was his Real Body and proue it He gaue to them that which he gaue for them the text sayes it eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you But what he gaue for them was not a figure but his real and true Body therefore what he gaue to them was not a figure but his true and Real Body it will be no answer to say that he gaue to them figuratiuely what he gaue for them really for the text makes no distinction betwixt what he gaue to them and what he gaue for them and if you presume to say that what he gaue to them was but a figuratiue why may not wee as well say that what he gaue for them was but a figure and so fetch from Hell again the Heresy of Marcion that what suffered for vs was but a Phantastical Body For to leade you the second syllogism obserue that when the Multitude Io. 6. said This saying is hard hovv can this man giue vs his flesh to eate Christ called them Vnbelieuers There be som of you vvho do not belieue nay sayes they are damnable vnbelieuers v. 54 He that vvill not eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood shall not haue lyfe in him Obserue secondly that what the Iews though hard and impossible was that Christ should giue them to eate his true and real flesh for no man could apprehend any difficulty in that Christ should giue the figure of his Body wheras they did eat yearly the Paschal Lamb which they belieued to be the figure of the Messias Christ promised what they iudged hard and impossible what they iudged hard and impossible was not that he should giue a figure of his flesh but his true and real flesh therefore what Christ promised was not a figure but his real and true flesh and Mr Sall himself pag. 63. does acknowledge that the Iews did vnderstand Christ to haue spoken of his true and real flesh The Ievvs vnderstood him to haue spoken of a corporal and fleshy eating as the Papists do Now answer me I pray to this syllogism A damnable vnbelieuer is he who denies a Truth sufficiently proposed to him to be reuealed by God The Iewes in this occasion were damnable vnbelieuers and what they denied was a fleshy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it therefore Christ in this occasion did sufficiently propose vnto them a fleashy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it Pag. 63. he rayses an argument vpon this text for the figuratiue presence for sayes he the Ievvs vnderstood him to speake of a corporal and fleshy eating of his Body as Papists do and so represented difficulties that reason dictated against the lyke expressions as vvee did in the beginning of this discourse but he did correct their vnderstanding by his subsequent vvords v. 63. it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the vvords that I speak are spirit and lyfe by vvhich he dravveth them from the apprehension of a corporal eating to that of a spiritual feeding consequently Christ did meane a figuratiue spiritual eating of his flesh thus Mr Sall. By this you acknowledge that the Iews did not apprehend or think of any figuratiue eating consequently they could not either belieue it or deny it for how can a man deny that which neuer fell into his apprehensions tell vs therefore what is that which they denyed and denyed damnably they could not deny but that which they apprehended was spoken and what they apprehended as you confess was a corporal fleshy eating That therefore they must haue denyed therefore they were called vnbelieuers but how were they damnably vnbelieuers if Christ did not sufficiently and credibly propose vnto them a corporal and fleshly eating For none is bound to belieue if the reuealed Truth be not sufficiently and credibly proposed to him either therefore Christ his words My flesh is truly meat my Blood is truly drink did sufficiently and credibly propose a corporal eating of his real flesh or they ought not
Hereticks and laboured in declaring them and neglected the others came to be only confusedly knowen and not so exactly as they were deliuered by the Apostles and this occasions and has in all ages occasioned disputes in Religion When therefore the Church in Ceneral Councils declares an Article of Faith it does not as our Aduersaryes calumny vs coyn a new Article it ads nothing to what the Apostles deliuered but it declares to the Disputants in Religion what was antiently taught and belieued by the Apostles and was forgotten or misvnderstood by others Doubts in Religion are but Doubts of what the Apostles did teach some say onething others an other what wee pretend is that wheras these doubts haue been in all ages and euer will be there has been and euer will be an infallible Church to ascertain vs which is the true Doctrin for though the Apostles knew all Truths and taught them either by vvord of Mouth or in vvriting what Doctrin they deliuered verbally or by vvord of Mouth is doubted of by Posterity if This or That be of Apostolicall Tradition alsoe the vvritten vvord is questioned if This or That Part of Scripture be truely Canonical what wee pretend is that as though Christ taught all Truths to his Apostles yet he sent an infallible interpreter the Paraclet after his Ascension to assist and direct them in case of any Doubts arising of those Truths to declare vnto them the true sence of the Truths which he taught them That as though the Paraclet taught all Truths to the Apostles yet he still remayned with them to direct them if any doubts should occurr against those Truths and as though the Apostles taught to their Disciples all those Truths yet the Protestants themselues confess it was needfull they should haue left an infallible vvritten vvord to inform and ascertain vs what Doctrin the Apostles did teach so wee pretend that though the Apostles haue taught verbally and by their vvritten vvord all Truths of Religion yet since that wee see T is douted what the Apostles did teach verbally and which is their vvritten Doctrin it was absolutly needfull there should be left to vs after their departure an infallible Guide and Instructor for to ascertain vs which is the Doctrin and vvritten vvord of the Apostles and the true sence of that vvritten vvord which infallible Guide and instructor wee say is the Church constantly assisted by Gods infallible Spirit So long therefore shall the Church be assisted with that Spirit to direct vs as there shall be doubts against Religion which will be for euer VII CHAPTER THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLICK Church is the true Church appointed to teach vs Infallible in all Points of Religion BY the Roman Catholick Church wee do not vndestand the Dioces of Rome as Mr Sall willfully mistakes but the whole Congregation of Faith full spred troughhout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Pope as their Head and because he resides in Rome this Congregation takes the de nomination of Roman as though an Army be quartered twenty myles round the Camp takes its denomination from the head-quarter where the General lodges This Church wee say is the Church which Christ established to teach vs what Truths he reuealed for that Church established by Christ which florished in the Apostles tyme is it now extant or not if not wee all labour in vayn in prouing each of vs that his won Church is the true and Primitiue Church if it be it must be infallible as that was but no other Church but the Roman Church pretends to be infallible nay they lowdly disclaym infallibility therefore no other is the true Church but the Roman Catholick Yow say the True Church is infallible in Fundamental Points that Your Church is so far infallible and no other Church can iustly claym to any more consequently that yours is the true Church But I reply the Scripture sayes the Church is infallible and you now in some measure do consess it the Scripture does not limit that infallibility to points fundamental nay sayes the Paraclet shall leade her to all Truth by what Authority do you make that restriction the Apostles and Church in their tyme was infallible in all Points Fundamental and not Fundamental they taught as well the chiefe and prime Articles of Faith as the inferiour Truths they writ the new Testament which contains both kind of Articles Fundamental and not Fundamental and which is infallibly true in whateuer it contains and they were no less infallible in what they taught verbally then in what they vvrit wheras S. Paul commands vs to hold fast the Traditions receiued from them whether by vvritten Epistles or by speech 2. Thes 2. Now I ask were the Apostles infallible in the Points not fundamental and inferiour Truths that they taught or not if not Scripture is not infallible in those points nor could S. Paul say when he preached points not fundamental that their vvord vvas indeed the vvord not of men but of God for the word that is not infallibly true is not Gods word If they were infallible then the Church in the Apostles tyme was infallible in all points fundamental and not either that Church therefore is not now extant and so wee labour in vayn in pretending it is or there is a Church now extant infallible in all doctrin of Religion fundamental and not which can be ne other but the Roman Church wheras Protestants and all other sectaryes-owns themselues to be fallible You answer again it s the same Church as to the substance and essence of a Church which requires only to be infallible in fundamental points as yours is but I will proue that it is as repugnant to the essence of the true Church to be fallible or fals in smale articles of Faith as in great ones I say in smale articles of Faith for to teach a doctrin to be an article of Faith is to teach it is reuealed by God but it is impossible the true Church should teach any doctrin smale or great to be a reuealed Truth which is an vntruth and not really reuealed by God because the Church is commissioned by God to teach vs his doctrin what he has reuealed and for that purpose has giuen her the Mark and Seale of his Commission which are Miracles wherby to confirm their doctrin by which God moues men to embrace and belieue the Church which teacheth No proof more certain and strong of the true Faith Church and Religion than Miracles wrought in confirmation of it when Moyses Ex. 4.1 said They vvill not belieue me nor heare my voyce God gaue him the gift of Miracles as a mark and sign that he was sent by him When Elias raysed the dead Child to lyfe 3. Reg. 17.24 the Mother cryed out novv in this I haue knovven thou art a man of God and the vvord of our Lord in they mouth is true Christ being asked if he was the Messias proued himself to be such by the
kind Though Christ washed his Disciples feet before he gaue the Communion Might not the Council say Notvvithstanding that Christ did vvash the Receiuers feet yet vvee do not require that ceremony because that though he did so he did no oblige vs to it it s so in this case though in the institution he gaue both kinds he did not oblige to giue both and therefore the Council might haue commanded to giue but one which was not to prefer their Decrees to his institution but to make vse of the Power he gaue them Your example of the King of France proues against you for if the King of France had the Power and command from him of England to interpret the Laws and the Irish were commanded by him to vnderstand and practise them as the King of France should interpret them and not otherwse certainly you would not say in that case that the King of France woul haue more command and Prower in Ireland than the King of England if to flatter his Excellency you haue not a mind tn say that the Lord Lieutenant has more Prower in Ireland than the King and so bid fayre for a haulter Another example to proue wee extoll the Papal Laws aboue the Diuine Costerus sayes he c. 15. 17. he sould haue said prop. 9. doubts not to auerr that it is a greater sin in a Priest to Marry which he confesses is but a transgression of a Papal Law than to keep a Concubin which is against the Law of God You belye Costerus in saying that the Marriage of a Priest is but a transgression of a Papal Law Though it be but a Papal Law that any who receiueth Priesthood shall make a vow of Chastity yet the vow being once made it s a transgression against the Diuine Law to violat it a breach of vow a sacriledg sayes Costerus And this being euident it s no less that it is agreater sin for him to marry first because he shews by marrying that he is an Heretick belieuing that to be a marriage which really is none Secondly by marrying he testifies a steddy resolution of perseuearing in the sin Canus sayes he and others cited by him do auer that the Church can err materially and consequently allows no more infallibility to the Church than to a priuat Doctor Answer Canus and other Diuins say that the Church an err materially in matters of fact as I will declare in the next ensuing Point but in Points of Doctrin no Catholick sayes that the Church can err nor materially and Priuat Doctors can err not only materially but formally Lastly he impugns our Doctrin of infallibility with an argument as old as the Reformation because wee cannot proue it but by Scripture and wee proue Scripture again by the infaillibility of the Church and this again by Scripture and so go still round in circle which is ridiculous in the schools and hence he takes occasion to pick aquarrel with Becanus to no other effect but that his Auditory should vnderstand that he was acquainted with the works of great Diuins But I will declare how wee can easily expound the Resolution of our Faith without any Circle which I am sure the Protestants will neuer do An act of Faith is an Assent to a truth which is obscure and reason cannot comprehend an argument of things not appearing sayes S. Paul only because it is sufficiently proposed to vs that God reuealed it and therefore S. Paul calls it a captiuating of our vnderstanding which is to say sumission of our Reason By Resolution of Faith the Diuins vnderstand To declare the Motiue why I belieue or the ground whervpon our Faith doth rest God doth not require of vs to belieue suddainly that a doctrin is reuealed by him because the Proponent tells vs so S. Peter calls Faith a Reasonable Obsequy wee must haue strong reasons to moue vs for to belieue a Truth to be reuealed before wee giue our Assent therefore before the Act of Faith and in human Faith also it s so wee haue som inward dispositions preuious to the Assent a good opinion of the Proponent for his lyfe for his actions and conuersation which prepare our vnderstanding representing it reasonable to belieue what is proposed Christ himself when he came to preach did not oblige the Iews to belieue abruptly that he was the son of God but began with a Holy lyfe admirable doctrin miracles and supernatural signs and these were preuious dispotions to prepare them that hauing such strong and credible Motiues for to iudge him a Person aboue the rank of Ordinary men they should belieue him when he should teach them that he was the son of God wheras it was incredible that God should credit him with such supernatural works and continual marks of his beneuolence if he were an impostor This appears in the passage of the Blind man cured by Christs Io. c. 9. the Scribs and Pharisees said Christ was a sinner the Blind Man argued No in as much as he worked so great a miracle in him Nisi hic homo esset à Deo non poterat facere quid quam if this man vvere not from God he could do nothing all this whyle he did not belieue that Christ was God but a man from God extraordinarily fauored by him He being thus prepared with these external Motiues and iudgment of credibility wherby he iudged Christ to be somwhat more than ordinary Christ meets him again and bids him belieue in the son of God yea said he vvho is he behold how he was ready and prepared by that precedent iudgment for to belieue He that speaks to you is he said Christ and presently he belieued Credo Domine You see the Motiue of his Assent was the testimony of Christ which he thought he was bound to belieue hauing formerly seen his works which made it euidently credible to him that he must speake but truth wheras they proued him to be a man from God Thus the People of Samaria belieued him to be the son of God when they did heare him because they were preuiously disposed by the words of the Samaritan and the miracle she related of him Thus the Prophets and Apostles proceeded preparing their Auditory with the Holyness of their lyues secret energy of their doctrin miracles and supernatural signs which moued men to iudge that they were sent by God and that they could not be Cheats and the People which is to be obserued would be iudged obstinat and were iudged obstinat such as did not belieue their doctrin when they did see them or though they did not see them but were credibly informed by those that did see them Wee haue in the former part of this Treatise shewen the great inducements and Motiues wee haue to iudge that the Roman Catholick Church beyond all Congregations in the word is particularly fauored by God the sanctity of her doctrin the conuersion of Nations by her vnto a doctrin so seemingly contrary to reason and
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
Alms deeds and such others as they who giue the Indulgence require and that the Alms which are enioyned in such cases though by the malice of some they may be turned to sinister vses are designed for pious vses You mention some words of the 92. Canon of the Council of Lateran vnder Innocent the Third and that Council has but 70. Canon in all nor does the Council speake any thing in any Canon of Indulgences it s no new practice of your fraternity to coyn new Canons and texts as you want them You cite S. Thom. and S. Bonauen who relate some were of opinion that Indulgences were but a pious fraud of the Church to draw men to charitable Acts its true those saints relate that opinion but relate not who were the Authors of it but only that some did say so and they condemn it as impious and iniurious to the Church S. Bon. in 4. dist 20. q. 6. sed hoc est Ecclesiae derogare dicendo eam sub specie mentiri quod abhorret mens recta Thus you only proue by this argument that there were some impious people that accusâ—d the Church of being a cheat And do not you do the lyke wee embrace most willingly the aduertisment of Bellar de amiss Gratiae l. 6. which you relate but nothing to your purpose that in things depending of the freewill of God wee must affirm nothing but what he has reuealed in his Holy Scripture but you are mistaken in asserting that God has not reuealed the Doctrin of Indulgence in the Scripture for that text Mat. 18.18 vvhateuer ye shall vnbind on earth shall be vnbinded in Heauen signifyes the Power of vnbinding from the pains of Purgatory you say it does not and you cite Durandus and Maior who say it does not and that Indulgences are not found expresly in Scripture but I say that though they be not expresly found in scripture they are implicitly found there and you confess in the beginning of your discourse that wee are bound to belieue not only what is contained in Scripture but the vndeniable consequences out of it out of that text the Power of vntying from the pains due to sin is an vndeninable consequence the Church declares it and interprets the text so to whose Authority Dur. and Maior must yeild And though there were no text in Scripture that either explicitly or implicitly did import Indulgences in particular yet by Scripture it self wee are bound to belieue it it being the Doctrin of the Church as S. August said of Hereticks Baptism l. 1. cont Crescon c. 32. and 33. oBserue his words which comes very appositly to our present subiect Although verily there be brought no example for this Point he means the validity of Heretick Baptism for which he sayes there is no text in Scripture yet euen in this Point the truth of the same Scripture is held by vs vvhile vvee do that vvhich the Authority of Scripture doth recommend vnto vs that so because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs vvho soeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the Church CoÌ„cerning it vvhich vvithout ambiguity the Holy Scripture doth recommend vnto vs. By which sentence of S. Augustin you find that wee follow Scripture whylst wee follow the Doctrin of the Church which the Scripture commands vs to heare and obey You will perhaps infer out of this discourse a consequence which may seem to you absurd thus therefore wee are bound to belieue as an Article of Faith what Doctrin the Church proposeth to vs though that point in particular be not contained either explicitly or implicitly in any text of Scripture only vpon the testimony of the Church This consequence is true and the reason is that the Church being Gods infallible Oracle caÌ„not propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but only that Doctrin which truly is reuealed by God God reuealed all Truths of Religion to the Apostles as wee haue discoursed in the 6. Chap. the Apostles deliuered all those truths to the Church to be handed from age to age to Posterity the Apostles did not deliuer all those Truths in writing as wee haue discoursed in the 2. and 3. ch but part in writing and this is Scripture part by vnwritten Tradition and this is the Depositum that S. Paul speaks of to Timothie the Church is the keeper of this Depositum and as by the Scripture wee know what written Truths the Apostles deliuered so by the Church wee know assuredly what vnwritten Truths they deliuered Now wee say that the Church cannot propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but what was deliuered by the Apostles who doubtless knew and taught to their Disciples all truths of Religion to the Church for wee do not say nor belieue that the Church can coyn new Articles of Faith but only deliuer the Old that through carelessness came to be confusedly knowen and almost forgotten wee do not pretend that the Church has new reuelations of new Doctrin which God did not deliuer to his Apostles but that she has the assistance of Gods Spirit to know certainly and find out the truths that were formerly reuealed and taught by the Apostles not only in writing but by word of mouth what truths therefore the Church proposes vnto vs wee are obliged to belieue them as reuealed truths though they be not in Scripture particularly mentioned for if they be not there they were taught verbally by the Apostles they are of Apostolical tradition and if the tradition be obscure or doubtfull the declaration of the Church renders it certain Thus it matters not that Indulgence is not expressed nay nor implicitly contained in Scripture if it be not it must of necessity haue been taught verbally by the Apostles since that the Church proposeth this Doctrin as a reuealed Truth and no truth is a reuealed truth but has been reuealed to them and by them deliuered vnto their Disciples Publick Prayer in an vnknovven Language Ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam your own position is the strongest argument I can alleadge for Publick seruice in an vn knowen language you say thus the purpose of Nature by speaking is to communicat the sense of him that speaketh to the hearer but hovv can that be if the hearer perceiueth not the meaning of the vvords he speaketh Therefore wee must speake in a knowen language I ask to whom do wee speake in the Liturgy or Publick seruice of the Church Sure it s not to the congregation but God it s to him wee direct our Prayers for to prayse him and implore his Mercy The Hearer is God properly and not the Cougregation and therefore where there is no Congregation present the Psalms are sung in the Oyre and Publick seruice don if therefore wee communicat our fence when wee say Mass or publick seruice to God who is the hearer wee satisfy the purpose that Nature intends by speaking and wheras God vnderstands our fence in
this or that vvas not don in the gouernment of the vvorld vvhich seemeth to vs good to be don the Modesty of the Proponent added such vveight to this aduertisment that it touched me to the quick and reflecting on this point in my solitudes I savv saies he vvee might as vvell say that it belongeth to the goodness of God not to permit that his holy lavves should be transgressed by vile creatures nor that the Pastors of souls especially the Pope should scandalize their flock and as vvee do not iudge it a failure in his goodness to permit sins so vvee ought not vvauer in our opinion of his goodness and VVisdom if he has not appointed a visible Iudge for our direction hauing giuen us the holy Scriptures vvhich a bound vvith all light and heauenly doctrin to such as are not vvillfully obstinat Briefly Sr heere are three different opinions of Christ's presence in the Sacrament Catholik Lutheran and Protestant of the three quite opposit one to the other God has reuealed but one as I for merly discoursed and obliges me vnder pain of damnation to belieue that sence and no other I say under pain of damnation for said he if you vvill not eate the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Io. 6. must I not expect of Gods goodness that he will afford vnto me what is absolutly need full to acquit this obligation he absolutly requires of me to belieue that sence and no other of those three which he reuealed must I not then expect of his goodness some means to ascertain me which of those three different opinion is that which he reuealed would it be consistent with his goodness to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to flye to the Moon and afford me no wings which wee suppose are indispensably need full for to acquit that obligation The Assent which he requires at my hands is not a probable and dubious one but an Assent which renders me assured in the highest degree of certainty of the Truth I profess such and no other is diuine Faith such an Assent is impossible if there be not an infallible Authority on which it is grounded which you Protestants cannot deny for it s therefore you reiect Tradition and will admit no other Test of Faith but the written word of God because Faith must be grounded vpon an infallible Authority you say and Tradition is fallible and nothing infallible but Gods written word if Scripture were not written by the Apostles could not you say without any iniury to God that it became his wisdom to afford you some other infallible Authority wheras without such an authority it 's impossible to haue the Assent of Faith which he requires and was it not therfore that he gaue to his Apostles who preached to the primitiue Christians the credit of infallible Oracles because then there was no Scripture written nor any other Authority wherupon to bottom their Faith but the testimony of the Apostles Since therfore wee do manifestly proue that Scripture alone is not sufficient to determin Controuersies and instruct vs what wee are bound to belieue let not your instructors Modesty take it ill that wee say it becomes the goodness of God to appoint a liuing infallible Iudge on whose testimony and authority wee may rely and ground our Faith Vvee say with St Augustin l. de vtil cred ad Honorat Si Prouidentia Dei non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Si autem praesidet non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam esse qua velut gradu certo attolamur ad Deum If Gods Prouidence gouerns not the vvorld vvee need not be sollicitous of Religion but if Prouidence rules all it cannot be doubted but that God has appointed an authority by vvhich as by a certain assured vvay vvee may be lead to God Vvee must therefore grant such an Authority which is not Scripture as wee will proue or deny Prouidence Your instance is very weake and vn becoming so great a diuine as you profess to be Gods goodness cannot be questioned for permitting sins and the scandals of Popes nay it 's becoming his goodness to permit them for hauing created Man with perfect liberty for to work well or ill it becomes his goodness to giue him all that is needfull for the exercyse of that liberty and Man could not exercyse it if wee did not pretend to some extraordinary miraculous Prouidence for which wee haue no ground in Scripture nor reason and to which his goodness cannot oblige him if he did not permit him to sin and to question God why his goodness doth permit sin is to ask why he created Man with perfect liberty which if you do I answer because he gaue him liberty that he might vse it well and if he vses it ill it s his own fault VVee ought not say you to vvauer in our opinion of Gods goodness for not appointing a Liuing infallible Iudge vvheras he has afforded us the Scriptures vvhich abound vvith all heauenly light to them that are not vvillfully obstinat and this you proue 2. Tim. 3.16 Holy Scriptures are able to make us vvyse vnto saluation that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good vvorks But I infer to the contrary wheras the Scriptures though replenished they be with heauenly light are not sufficient for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to belieue wee might wauer in our opinion of Gods goodness if he did not appoint an infallible liuing Iudge for to instruct vs and that the Scriptures are not sufficient for the instruction of them that are not vvillfully blind Mr Sall himself proues it for pag. 17. he tells vs that doubting of the Tenets of our Religion his wit not content with an ipse dixit lyke Pythagoras his scholler demanded Reason for what he belieued he betooke himself to the frequent reading of Scripture but Sr if you be not content with an ipse dixit you are as vnfit for Christ's schoole as for that of Pythagoras and if your wit demands reason for what you belieue Scripture is no place to seeke for it which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit After reading the Scriptures he was so far from being sufficiently instructed that he confesses they made him doubt whence it appears that Scripture alone is not sufficient euen to those that are not vvillfully blind he was no such for he did read with a real desire of being instructed The text of S. Paul sayes that Scripture is able to make us vvyse to salvation but does noy say that Scripture alone is able if you will haue text to be for your purpose you must follow the example of Luther who to proue his error of iustification by Faith only corrupted the text of S. Paul Rom. 2.8 vvee account a man to be iustified by Faith vvithout the vvorks of the lavv and foisted
fundamental Truth reuealed by God is to diminish of the word of God by which you deserue to be blotted out of the Book of life Apoc. 22. If it be not a fundamental point it is a damnable error to say it is for that would be to add to the word of God which also deserues to be blotted out of the Book of life consequently in this our contest wee are indispensably obliged to belieue either that it is or that it is not nor can wee suspend our Iudgment but must resolue absolutly on either side but no text or texts of Scripture do declare if it be or be not a fundamental article of Faith if not expounded by some infallible interpreter therefore Scripture alone is not sufficient for to assure vs what wee are obliged to belieue III. CHAPT THE SAME ASSERTION proued LOoke back to the Infancy of the Church for the first eight or tenn years there was not a word of the New Testament written and the last part whateuer that part was wherin the Doctors do not agree was not written in 40. years after Christ his Ascension part of the Scripture after it was written did perish for example an Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians mentioned 1. Cor. 5.9 by which wee vnderstand that he writ three epistles to them whereof two only are extant also part of the old Testament was lost as appears Chron. 9.12 and 29. Nay this very Scripâ—ure that now is extant and owned by vs all to be Canonical for the first 402. was not a good part of it owned to be such for the Fathers of the Church disputed and many denyed S. Pauls epistle to the Hebr. Iudes epist second of saint Peter second and Third of saint Iohn to be Canonical consequently they could not be the Test of Faith because they were not belieued to be Scripture all this tyme as there was an obligation vpon Christians to belieue so they had the sufficient means for to know what they were obliged to belieue which was not Scripture because either it was not written or if written it was not all as now it is belieued to be Scripture therefore God must haue appointed some other means besids Scripture for to instruct vs in Religion And if you insist that the Scripture as now it is extant is the needfull and sufficient means for our instruction I infer therefore wee had not the needfull and sufficient means vntill all this Scripture now extant was written consequently the Church was for many years without the sufficient means for instruction I infer again therefore vntill the last text of Scripture was written wee had not the sufficient means and wheras you are bound to proue by a cleer text that Scripture alone is the sufficient means it must be with the last text of all scripture you must proue it for then and no sooner was the scripture the sufficient means when the whole Canon was completed and the last text was written and this is impossible to be proued also it follows that you must not pretend to proue the sufficiency of scripture by any text of the new or old Testament written before the last text wheras the whole Canon was not completed when those texts were written and consequently they could not proue the sufficiency of scripture which in your acknowledgment did not begin to be the sufficient means vntill the Canon was finisht Moreouer if the scripture as now it is extant be the needfull and sufficient means then the Lutherans whom you receiue to your Communion and embrace as Brethren haue not the sufficient means for diuine Faith and consequently nor Faith itself wheras they deny many parts of Scripture to be Canonical which you belieue But what most cleerly proues that Scripture as now it is extant is not the sufficient and needfull means is this discourse first its not the needfull means for if a very considerable part of this Scripture did perish wee would still haue the sufficient means in what would remain of Scripture to instruct vs in what wee are bound to belieue for what wee are bound to belieue vnder pain of damnation are only the essential and fundamental points of Religion whoeuer belieues them though he denies other points not fundamental and inferior Truths in the doctrin of Protestants belieues what is sufficient for his saluation but there are many chapters or at least half chapters or at least many verses of Scripture which do not in the least mention any essential and fundamental point of Religion therefore all those chapters and verses are not needfull for to know what wee are bound to belieue and if they did all perish wee would in what remained haue the sufficient means Now that Scripture as now it is extant is not the sufficient means I proue it for if any part of Scripture be the sufficient means it must be that part which contains the fundamental and essential articles of Religion and wheras you do not know nor could any of your Doctors euer yet though often desired by vs giue a Catalogue of those which you call fundamental points which they be and how are they distinguisht from not fundamental points its impossible that you can tell which part of Scripture is that which contains the the fundamental points of Religion and consequently you cannot tell which part of scripture in the sufficient for our instruction That the Church was the means appointed by God for our instruction before the scripture was written the Protestant do not nor cannot deny and if they will not wauer in their Principles they must confess it continued so vntill the whole Canon was finisht which was not vntill many years after Christ his Ascension But say they scripture being written which doubteless God gaue vnto vs for no other end than to be our guide and rule of Faith the Church surceased from that office and is not to be regarded further than as she agrees with that written word so that after scripture was receiued for Gods written Oracle the Church was casheered out of those glorious offices which formerly she enioyed because as our Aduersaries pretend there was no need of any other infallible Oracle but the scripture which in the iudgment of all is such If this discourse be good it proues also that the Apostles ceased to be our instructors and infallible Oracles after the scripture was written and that the Church ceased to be infallible in fundamental points because the scripture is an infallible oracle contains all points and one infallible Oracle is sufficient yet our Aduersaries confess that the Apostles remained still infallible and the Church in fundamental points And wheras all scripture was not written at once but successiuly by parts the Church was not deuested of teaching vs but by degrees as the parts of scripture were written which paradox though ridiculous follows out of the former discourse But what if part or all the scripture did perish which is not impossible both because that
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
pell is sufficient at least as to the points it contains These instances shew that reason to be very friuolous and if it proued any thing at most it can proue that the Church infallibility is not necessary for our instruction but it might be-necessary for other ends of Gods prouidence who might haue left still that gift of infallibility to his Church for a mark of his loue to her wee find he did promise the conduct of his infallible Spirit to his Church wee de not find he should haue limited this grace to any tyme nay to the contrary wee find that he sayd it should be for euer all dayes to the consummation of the vvorld why should wee therfore limit that fauor vnto à tyme to conclude wee haue proued in the 2 and 3 chap. that Scripture is not sufficient to instruct vs and consequently an infallible Church is still necessary An other reason no less silly to proue that the Church after few ages became fallible for the Popes Prelats and People became very vicious and from the debauchery of manners they came by Gods iust iugdment to fall into errours in doctrin which Mr Sall pretends to proue by Scripture pag. 32. the promise made by Christ of the Paraclet for to lead the Church into all truth vvas a conditional promise as appears by Christ his vvord Io. 14.16 if you loue me keep my commandmens and I vvill ask my father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet that he may abyde vvith you for euer euen the Spirit of Truth vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue The Paraclet is promised on condition they Keepe the commandments and by the later words vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue the Paraclet is flatly denied to all those the Scripture styles by the name of vvorld that is to say the wicked and wordly men Hence sayes Mr Sall wee can be no more sure that the Pope and his Council are infallible than wee are that he liues in Gods loue and obseruance of his commandments and wheras it is manifest by our own Historyes that the Pope Pastors and flock haue fallen into many crimes it followes they haue forfeited the conduct of Gods infaillible Spirit If from the lewdness of manners wee might conclude the Churches corruption in doctrin what Ghospell could the world expect from Luther and the other pretended Reformers for whose wickdness there are as good Records as for the debauchery of Popes and Prelats the sinns of Prelats did deface the Ghospell and did the Apostasy of Luther and the Sodomy of Caluin restore it to its splendor Christ did foresee that they who should sit on the chayre of Moyses would be wicked in their lyues and yet commanded vs to obey and belieue their doctrin The conduct of Gods Spirit promised to them for to leade them into all Truth was not a personal gift giuen to them for their own sakes but for the flock for to keepe them in vnity of Faith and therefore though God does permit them to fall into wickedness of lyfe his Prouidence will not permit them to fall into errors of doctrin that the flock which it obliged to obey them may not be mislead To proue that the Promiss was only conditional you corrupt the text for as well your Bible as ours sayes thus if you loue me keepe my Commandments and there puts a punctum Then ads a distinct verse or section And I vvill ask my Father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet c. which makes an absolut sence independent of the former That this is the true interpretation of that text it appears for in seueral other texts That assistance of as Mat. 28 20 behold I am vvith you all dayes euen to the consummation of the vvorld Mat. 16. the Gates of hell shall not preuayle agaiust her Io. 16 13. vvhen the Paraclet shall come the Spirit of Truth he shall teach you-all truth And is it not strang Mr Sall should auerr the Paraclet was promised vpon condition of Gods loue and obseruance of his Commandments wheras the Church remayns still infallible infundamental points notwithstanding that it has fayled in that condition as Mr Sall and all Protestants do deknowledge But what he will neuer answer is that if that Promiss was conditional it folloues wee cannot be sure the Ghospell is infallible if wee be not sure that the Euangelists when they wrote it haue been in the loue of God and obseruance of his Commandments for if they were not they had not the Paraclet sayes Mr Sall but no text of Scripture tells vs that the Euangelists were in the state of Grace when they writ the Ghospell nor nothing else giues vs assurance of it Therefore wee are not assured the Ghospell written by the Euangelists is infallible nay which is worse in the common doctrin of Protestants wee are assured it is not infaillible for the common doctrin in their Church is that it is impossible to keepe Gods commandments the Euangelists therefore when they writ did not keep Gods Commandments consequenly they could not haue the Paraclet to lead them into truth consequenly the Ghospell is not infallible and so Mr Sall ouerthrows all-Christian Religion Let vs consider what inducements had the primitiue Christians to belieue the Apostles infallible was it not the testimony of the Apostles confirming their doctrin with many Miracles look into the Historyes of all succeding ages and you will find that the Church which affirmed herself to be infallible did confirm her doctrin with many and great Miracle as wee will euidence in the ensuing Chap. And on what do you ground your beliefe when you say the Apostles were infallible You say that vpon the Scripture but I defy you to shew any text of Scripture which declares the infallibility of the Apostles that relates not to the Church in succeeding ages as well as to them either therefore they proue the Church to be infallible in succeeding ages or they do not proue the Apostles to be infallible For example wee proue the infallibility of the Apostles by the words of Christ he that heareth you heareth me Lu. 10. whence followes that the words of the Apostles were the words of Christ But Christ himself Mat. 18. declares that text must be vnderstood of his Church whereuer it be if he vvil not heare the Church let him be to you as a Heathen and Publican We proue it out of S. Iohn 14.18 He vvill giue you an other Paraclet the spirit of truth that vvill a byde vvith you for euer but this text playnly declares that the Promiss was made also to the Church in succeeding ages by the word for euer for the Apostles were not to be for euer in their own persons but in their successors and to remoue all occasion of cauilling vpon the word for euer saying that it signifyes only the tyme of the Apostles lyues Christ declares himself in a cleerer expression Mat. 28. I am vvith you all dayes to the consummation of the
vvorld giuing vs to vnd erstand that the Paraclet was not sent to his Apostles alone but to their successors to the words end Wee proue it by the text of S. Io. 16.26 vvhen the Paraclet vvill come vvhom I vvill send from my Father the spirit of Truth vvho proceedeth from the Father he vvill giue testimony of me and you vvill giue testimony But there is nothing more cleer than that the whole Chapter speakes all a long of the Church reade y pray the text consequently that text is to be vnderstood of the Church as well as of the Apostles Wee proue it because the Apostles were the fundation S. Paul Eph. 2.20 whervpon the Church was built But S. Paul calls the the Church also the Pillar and foundation of Truth 1. Tim. 3. Wee proue it because S. Paul commands vs in seueral places to belieue his doctrin for that his vvord is not the vvord of Man but indeed of God and consequently infallible 1. Thes 2. buâ— Christ also Mat. 23 commands vs to obey and belieue the Church in succeeding ages on the chayr of Moyses haue sate the scribes and Pharisees vvhateuer they bid you do obserue and do obliging vs to obey and belieue not only Moyses but those that succeede in his chayr Thus not a text shall you meet for the infallibility of the Apostles but proues lykwise that of the Church Doubtless you will not deny but that Christ his Command of teaching all Nations preaching the Ghospell that the Bishops should rule the Church was layd not only on the Apostles but on their successors for future ages other wyse the Prelats and Pastors of future and this our age would not be obliged to teach preach and rule vs. You will not deny also but that Christ his command of hearing the Church vnder payn of being esteemed Heathens and Publicans of obeying them that sit on Moyses his chayr of being subiect to our Prelats was layd on the flock of all succeeding ages as well as on that of the Apostles dayes it follows therefore that the Pastors of our age are as much obliged to teach vs as the Apostles were to preach to them of their age and that wee are as much obliged to obey and belieue the Church in our age as the flock was in the Apostles tyme to belieue and obey them who can doubt them but that as the Authority iurisdiction and obligation of teaching descended to succeeding ages the infallibility also giuen to the Apostles for to acquit that obligation did descend it being giuen by God for the loue and gouernment of the flock that they should not be mis lead And heere enters the argument that I proposed in the former Chapter Whoeuer does as Christ bids him do and belieues as Christ bids him belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour but Christ bids vs do and belieue as the Church in succeeding ages bids vs do and belieue therefore wee cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour consequently they cannot mislead vs. But saies our Aduersary the Paraclet was to remayn with the Church vntill all truth was taught necessary for saluation but it cannot be doubted but that the Paraclet taught the Apostles all truth and they deliuered those Truths in their written word Therefore after that word was deliuered to vs the Paraclet was to remayne no longer This obiection well vnderstood will giue light to our doctrin and manifestly confirm its truth Christ saies Io. 15.15 that he taught his Apostles all whateuer he had heard from his Father it 's manifest therefore he taught them all truths necessary for saluation this was before his Passion and yet after his Resurrection S. Luke c. 24. tells vs that ie his iourny to Emaus with the two Disciples he interpreted the passages of Scripture to them which signifyes that through inaduertency or forgetfullness wee may come to doubt euen of what truths were already taught nay he saies Io. 16.12 that he had as yet things to deeclare to them and that the Holy spirit when he came would teach them all truth Behold how Christ hauing sayd he taught all things yet he sayes that he had many things to open to them which they could not then learne vntill the Paraclet came This might seeme a contradiction but is none for when he sayd that he taught them all he had heard from his Father that is to be vnderstood that he taught and deliuered to them the General Principles and Truths of Faith wherin all truths of Religion were contained and what he had yet to say to them were the consequences and particular Truths of Faith contained in those general Principles which the Paraclet would disclose to them it s therfore that the Holy Ghost is called by the Fathers Basil 5. cont Eunom and Mar. vict 3. contra Arium the Interpreter and Voyce of the Son because the interpreter sayes nothing of his own but deliuers in expresser terms what the Author has already sayd and the text cleerly sayes the Paraclet taught nothing of the new but what he had heard Non enim loquetur à semetipso sed quaecunque audierit loquetur because he did but expound in particular what Christ had taught in general Principles and opened to the Apostles the consequences that were contained in them Now its manifest out of the text that the Paraclet when he descended did not of a sudain open to the Apostles all the Truths and consequences included in those General Principles deliuered by Christ or if he did that he did not so cleerly as that they should haue vnderstood all for after that descent wee read Act. â—0 that Peter doubted if the Ghospell ougth to be preached to the Gentiles and he was instructed by a heauenly vision it ought also Act. 15. it was doubted if besids Baptism the Faith full were to be circumcided But wee do freely grant that the Apostles had at length a full and perfect knowledge of all truths of our Faith and all the consequences included in those general Principles deliuered to them by Christ consequently there is no Truth of Faith which now is belieued by us or shall be belieued by future Ages but the Apostles did distinctly and particularly know for as Tertul. sayes l. de praeser c. 22. quis integrae mentis credcre potest aliquid eos ignorasse quos Magistros Dominus dedit vvhat man of a sound vvit can belieue that they vvere ignorant of any thing vvhom the Lord gaue vs for Masters wee confess also that the Apostles did teach and deliuer all those truths to their disciples either by their written word or by word of Mouth to be handed to Posterity by Tradition whence S. Paul 2. Thes 2. commands hold the Traditions vvhich ye haue learned vvheter by Epistles or by vvord of Mouth some of these truths in succeding ages either through forgetfullness or through inaduertency of their Disciples and their successors who minded chiefly those Articles that were opposed by
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