may say what S. Paul said of the Lords supper This if worthily taken is life and saluation if vnworthily is damation if Scripture be vnderstood in the true sence intended by the Holy Ghost it leads to true Religion if vnderstood in the wrong sence it leads to perdition as S. Peter sayes 2. cpist 3.16 speaking of the Epistles of S. Paul the vnlearned and vnstable depraue them as the rest of the Scripture to their perdition by misunderstanding them Grant this volum to be the word of God the words of it may be and are interpreted in diuerse and quite opposit sences as that command of Christ he that vvill not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud shall not haue lyfe in him it is interpreted in three opposit sences by Lutherans Catholiks and Protestants and it is euident that Christ intended only one of the three sences wee are bound vnder pain of damnation to eat his flesh and drink his blood in that sence which he intended and no other will suffice the Scripture alone does not assure vs which of those three sences is that which Christ intended for wee haue all the Scripture wee read it wee study wee pray and wee cannot agree in the sence of those words either therefore there must be somwhat else beseids Scripture for to assure vs of the true sence of it or God has left vs with an obligation of belieuing and not afforded vs the sufficient means for to ascertain vs what he will haue vs to belieue To say that God giues an inward light and testimony of the spirit to the humble and well disposed harts which assures them the sence which they hold of the Scripture is the true sence is a groundless fancy exploded euen by the modern Protestants wheras those illuminated persons cannot be assured if that inward light be an illumination from God or an illusion of Satan often transfigured into an Angel of light our Controuersists haue fully refuted this foolish fancy I only add that if the means appointed by God to assure us of the true sence of Scripture be that inward light and testimony of the priuat spirit God has afforded no means for to keepe vs in vnity of Faith for there are as many different lights and testimonies of the spirit as there be men almost and so his house will not be a house of peace but of confusion and if that be the true sence of Scripture which the inward light and testimony of each mans spirit does suggest those lights and inward testimonies of the spirit being quite contradictorily opposit one to the other it follows that the H. G. intended quite opposit sences in each text of Scripture Nor could any man reasonably pretend to persuade an other to be of his religion for since he has no assurance of the truth of his Religion but what he has by that inward light and spirit how can he in reason go about to persuade me that his light and spirit is true rather than that which I haue my self so each man must be content to haue his Religion to himself and seeke no other to be of it S. Iohn 1. Epist 4.11 bids vs not to belieue euery spirit but to try it and in that very ch directs vs to a touch stone wherat to try our spirits He that knovveth God heareth vs he that is not of God heareth vs not in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth and the spirit of Error If your spirit heares and obeyes the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of Truth in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth in hearing vs not in reading vs. If your spirit will not heare the Church but prefer it self before the spirit of the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of error The means therefore to distinguish spirits to know the truth and the true sence of Scripture is not Scripture it self nor your inward light but the Church which is the approuer or reprouer of spirits The Modern Protestants haue found out an other way for to defend the sufficiency of Scripture for to vnderstand by it alone the true sence of it for say they though some text or texts of Scripture be obscure yet comparing them with other texts they are expounded and the true sence found by the scripture alone comparing one text with an other especially in what concerns the fundamental points of Religion necessary for saluation which are easily found and cleerly set down in Scripture Mr Sall pag. 105. of his discourse seems to be of this opinion saying that all necessary knovvlegde for Faith in God to serue and prayse him is fully contained in vvhat is cleer of Scripture There is nothing more cleer than that the Holy Scriptures are most obscure euen in points necessary for saluation the obscurity consisting in the hight of the Misteries it contains in the difficulty of its phrases in the seemingly contradictions it contains that the most learned men that euer were in the Church found it a task too great for their vnderstandings to expound it learned Protestants themselues do confess it and our Controuersists haue so euidenced it that it were a superfluous labor to proue it that only text of saint Peter 2. epist 3. ch which I quoted but now sufficiently proues it and that no text nor texts of scripture compared doth declare sufficiently euen the fundamental points of our Religion two instances do cleerly euidence First Gods Vnity in Nature and Trinity in Persons in all Christians acknowledgment is a fundamental article of Religion wee belieue he is One not in Person but in Nature wee belieue he is Three not in Nature but in Persons And what text or texts compared one with an other can you bring to shew this Mistery Let the dispute be betwixt a Protestant an Arrian and a Pagan suppose the Pagan confesses and agrees with both that the scripture is the word of God but will not admit that either the Protestant or Arrian is infallible in the interpretation of it how will the Protestant proue against the Pagan that God is One in Nature and Three in Persons He will alleadge out of saint Iohn 1. ep 5. the Father the son and the spirit and these Three are One the word One signifies Vnity in Nature and the word Three Trinity in Persons But sayes the Pagan that is against all reason and the principles of Philosophy that Three distinct Persons should haue but One Nature and though I do belieue the word of God to be infallibly true euen in what surpasses my reason yet I will not belieue against my reason but what the word of God does assuredly say and that text which you alleadge does only say they are One but does not express if that Vnity be in Nature or in Person nor doeth the text express that the Trinity is in Persons and not in Nature nay the Arrian who is a Christian as well as you saieth
that text signifies no such Vnity of Nature and Trinity of Persons and in your own confession Christ is One suppositum or Hypostasis his Vnity is not in Nature for he has Tvvo Natures one Human and the other Diuine but in Person why may not wee also say that the father son and spirit are One and that their vnity is not in Nature but in Person whither will the Protestant go now to proue against the Pagan this great and fundamental article He will quote out of saint Iohn an other text for to expound the former My father and I are one Io. 10.20 where it is expressed that the Father and son who are tvvo different Persons are but One in Nature But replieth the Pagan neither does that text say more but that they are One and does not express either that they are tvvo distinct Persons or one Nature And sayes the Pagan bring you as many texts as you please you will neuer bring any which expresly declares the Vnity to be in Nature and Trinity in Persons and I must not renounce reason so far as to belieue a Mistery which no human reason can vnsterstand particularly when you require of me to belieue only what the word of God expressy declares and the word of God which you alleadge does not expresly declare that Mistery nor doeth the word of God oblige me to belieue your interpretation of those texts I heare the Arrians and Sabellians who are Christians as well as you and they with their Abettors who are not fewer in number nor inferiour in learning to you say those texts which you alleadge do not at all import any Vnity in Nature or Trinity in Persons for the Sabellians say the word One in those texts signifies Vnity in Person as well as in Nature and the word Three signifies not Three distinct Persons but one and the same Person called by three different names for three seueral Offices which he does exercise Father because he is the Author of all things Son because he was born to redeem vs and Holy Ghost because he sanctifies vs euen as say they these three seueral names Immense Omnipotent and Eternal signify One and the same God who includes the perfections signified by those names Arrius and his partizans vnderstand those texts in a far different sence from you Protestant the word Three saies Arrius signifies three different Natures which Arrius proues with a text far more pertinent in appearence than that which you Protestants alleadge to proue the Vnity of Nature S. Io. 14.28 My father is greater than I which text deliuered without any restriction saies Arrius proues the son to be of a different and inferior Nature to the Father The word One saies he does not signify the Vnity of Three Persons in Nature but their Vnity by perfect conformity of VVill and Charity which exposition he proues by S. Io. 17.11 where Christ praying for his Elect asketh his Father they may be one as vvee are One but certainly the Elect cannot be One in Nature nor did he ask any such Vnity for them but that they should be One by perfect Charity and conformity of vvill therefore the Father and the Son are not otherwise One Thus the Pagan to the Protestants and adds I belieue the Scripture to be the word of God because he has reuealed it vnto me I am resolued to be a Christian but I know not which party to embrace the Protestant or the Arrian you will haue me belieue Gods Vnity in Nature and Trinity in Persons and though that Mistery surpasses human reason I am content to submit vnto it if I did find it expresly in Scripture but those texts either singlely or all together do not expresly declare it as I iudge and as the Arrians and Sabellians who are Christians as well as you iudge and on the other side you do not require of me to belieue but what is expresly contained in Scripture what shall I do in this case You say it is expresly contained in those texts but am I bound to belieue it is contained in them because you think it is the Scripture does not tell me that I am bound to belieue what you think rather than what the Arrians think is contained in it if I syde with the Arrians you say I am damned if I syde with you the Arrians say I am damned and why to syde with one rather than the other I know not for you are of equal authority as to me both learned pious wise people and well versed in Scripture You tell me the Arrians are condemned by General Councils Arrians and Sabellians also tell me you are condemned by seueral Councils in the points you hold in opposition to the Catholicks you say the Councils and Ancient Fathers who condemned you did err and were mistaken in the sence of Scripture the Arrians and Sabellians also say the Councils which condemned them did err you say the Mistery of the Trinity is vnanimously belieued by Protestants and Roman Catholiks but I ask what credit hath the Roman and Protestant Church haue you the credit of infallible Oracles by which God speakes or haue you only the credit of wise learned pious men if the first that indeed is somewhat and ends all Controuersy if only the second the Arrians Sabellians Heathen and Pagan Philosophers are as numerous as you as learned wise and as to moral honesty as good as you and they all deny that Mystery Can any man of reason say this Pagan in this occasion is obliged to side with the Protestants rather than with the Arrians they both haue Scripture they are all Christians they reade and study it they are both fallible in the interpretation of it and that either of both is effectually mistaken in this case its manifest and which of them it is this Man has no imaginable means to be assured of Now if God has appointed a liuing infallible Iudge to interpret and deliuer the true sence of Scripture this Pagan could not but be obliged to acquiesce to his interpretation whence it s is manifest that Scripture alone is not sufficient for to ascertain vs of the true sence of Scripture euen in fundamental points An other instance to proue this truth there is a point of Faith which we are obliged to belieue vnder pain of damnation which is not expressed in any text or texts compared of Scripture alone whitout an infallible interpreter I do not meane the Necessity of Infants Baptism nor the Validity of Heretiks Baptism belieued by both Churches and for which saies S. Augustin l. 1. cont cresc c. 32. there can be no example brought out holy of Scripture I proue it thus Wee Catholiks and you Protestants dispute if Purgatory be a fundamental point of Religion or not If it be it s a damnable error to say it is not both for that errors against fundamental points are damnable as you confess and for that to deny for fundamental that which is a
do consequently both those Religions of Iudaism and Christianity must not be true Religions If it be he that commanded wee should worship him by belieuing the real Presence of Christ his Body in the Eucharist certainly it s not he that commanded wee should worship him by denying the real presence for that would be to contradict himself therefore of all those Religions which clash one with an other only one must be the true Religion This is further proued No Religion wherin God is duely worshipped and a man may be saued can iustly be called an accursed heretical and damnable Religion this Position is euident consequently it appears how vniustly Protestants call the Catholik Religion Idolatrous and superistitious it being by their own acknowledgment as wee will proue against Mr Sall a religion wherin wee may be saued and consequently wherin God is duely worshipped But S. Paul in express tearms does anathematise accurse and condemn all and each Religion euen those that are Christian Religions besids that one which he and his fellow Apostles did teach if vvee Gal. 1.9 or an Angel from Heauen should Euangelize vnto you othervvyse than as vvee haue don let him be accursed pursuant to which doctrin Hymenaeus Philetus and others declining som what the doctrin of the Apostles in the Article of the Resurrection of the Body not absolutly denying it but saying it was already past 1. Tim. 1.20 and 2. Tim. 2.18 they still remayned within the verge of Christianity but because by their error in that Article only they were of a different Religion from that of S. Paul he delivers them to Satan calls them creeping Cankers and subuertors of the Faith which would haue been a manifest iniustice in him if they stiil remayned in a true Religion where God was duely worshipped it follows therfore that no other euen Christian Religion is a true Religion but that one which S. Paul professed and from which they departed And if any Christian Religion with a good Moral lyfe were sufficient for saluation the Prelats and Pastors of the Church in all ages are to be laught at for their continual care of keeping their flock in vnity of Faith and doctrin wheras any Religion was sufficient with a good Moral lyfe the General Councils were most rash and impious in condemming Arrius Nestorius and other heretiks wheras they still remained Christians and the lyues of many of them were most iust and vpright as S. Augustin testifies of the Pelagians Let the Libertins then of our age be vndeceiued who to secure their interest and ambition are ready to embrace any Religion that is the most preualent in the state for all though Christians Religions but that one which S. Paul professed all but that whose vnity the Prelats and Concils did endeauor to preserue are accursed heretical and impious Now since of all Religions that only is the true which God has revealed vnto vs and that no other worship will please him doubtless he has afforded vs the needfull and sufficient means to know what Religion it is and to distinguish it from other pretended Religions which he has not reuealed Without Faith and Religion it is impossible to be saued God therfore who desires our saluation and commands vs vnder pain of damnation to haue true Faith must haue prouided vs of the means necessary to attain to true Faith Let vs examin what Faith is It 's an Assent giuen to an object for the testimony of him that proposes it it is therefore grounded on the Authority of the Proponent and can haue no more assurance of the Truth than the testimony on which it is grounded as for example Human Faith wherwith I belieue what a Man of credit and knowen honesty tells me can haue no more certainty than the credit and honesty of that Man has and wheras Men let them be few or many in Number vsing only natural means may deceiue or be deceiued either in the testimony they giue or in the grounds of their Assertion be it the euidence of their senses which are subiect to fallacy or the euidence of their Natural reason for som times reasons that seeme to vs euident are but sophistries it is manifest that human Faith which relyes only on the testimony of men is fallible for though it may happen that de facto it is true and that there may be moral certainty of its being true yet absolutly it might be otherwyse and so the Faith grounded vpon it is still fallible But diuine Faith That Assent which Gods requires of vs to reuealed Truths must be an infallible Faith which not only is true but cannot be otherwise than true it must be a firm Assent in the highest degree of certainty excluding all doubts and feare of being mistaken and wheras Faith has no other assurance of the Truth than the Authority of the Proponent it follows that diuine Faith must rely vpon a most infallible vndoubted Authority which can not deceiue or be deceiued Hence it follows that no euidence of senses for our sensations are deceitfull can be a sufficient ground for diuine Faith nor no natural reason for if it be probable or only morally euident it may be false or falsified if absolutly euident it can be no ground of Faith because Faith being an argument of things not appearing as S. Paul saies it surpasses natural reason and because that if it be euident it forces the vnderstanding to an Assent and so leaues no place for the merit of Faith which consists in belieuing what the vnderstanding may deny because of the difficultie it finds in assenting to an obscure obiect which the vvill assisted with the pious inclination ouercomes and thereby merits No Histories nor doctrin of Fathers no testimony or authority of any fallible Church or congregation is sufficient because diuine Faith being infallibly certain must be grounded vpon an infallible Authority Lastly it follows that only the infallible written word of God or the authority of an infallible Church must be it which proposes vnto vs the reuealed Truths and on which wee must bottom our Faith Let vs heare what Mr Sall saies as to this particular he was once of opinion that Scripture alone was not the means appointed by God for proposing vnto vs the reuealed Truths their sence not being obuious euen to learned men and consequently not the means suitable to vulgar capacityes who being as well as the learned obliged to belieue the means for attaining to the knowledge of Religion must be suitable to their capacity as well as to that of the learned and Scripture through the difficulty of it surpasses both therefore it became the Goodness and Wisdom of God to appoint a visible Iudge assisted with his infallible spirit that in case of doubt should determin our controuersies and declare vnto vs what we ought to belieue But saies he pag. 27. the Archbishop of Cashell obiecting that vve ought to be very vvary in censuring the VVisdom of God if
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
haue disputed with the Deuil as Luther did in points of Religion for the Deuil is not so kind but to the grand Heresiarcks thus far he imitats Luther that in the beginning of his Apostacy his chief drift was a separation from the Catholick Church vpon any account whateuer I say vvhateuer for it is euident that the first Reformers had not fixed on any one settled Religion in oposition to the Catholick wheras they were strugling and disputing for many years in seueral meetings had to that purpose to determin what ought to be belieued by all and what articles of Popery ought to be denyed and which not which doth euidence that their first drift was to separat from the Catholick and their second endeauour was to find out some other Religion wee haue the proof of this in the Chronocles of England for their separation from the Church of Rome began by the Schisme of Henry the Eight which was quite different from the Religion his successor and Son Edwrad the 6. endeauoured to establish and this quite an other from that which Queen Elizabeth introduced for she would haue an Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and other points denyed by the former that which the Queen established was fashioned to an other shape by King Iames and his successors Nay to this day the Sectaries who style them selues Reformed Religion do not agree what Tenets must be held in oposition to the Catholicks but are sufficiently Reformed by denying what the Catholick belieues Thus doth Mr Sall proceed for what he has proposed to himself was a separation howeuer it should be from the Church of Rome but you will find in his discourse that he is not yet throughly resolued what Religion to chuse and what to belieue not only because that he has resolued to be of the Church of England which is an indiuiduum vagum ready to change with all gouernments but that in his Declaration he professes to belieue the 39. Articles of the Church of England and pag. 39. he sayes that the summe of his Faith is the written word of God and the plain vndubitable consequences out of it and it is manifest that the 39. Articles are not plain vndubitable consequences out of Gods written word for a plain vndubitable consequence is that which the Premisses being granted is iudged by all wise learned vnderstanding men to follow out of the Premisses and cannot be denyed be any wyse vnderstanding man That in the Roman Catholick Church there are wyse learned men it were a madness to deny it but a far greater madness to say that the Fathers and Doctors of all ages before those 39. Articles were coyned were not wyse and learned men that studied and vnderstood the Bible and to all these the 39. Articles seems contrary to the word of God so far they were from iudging them plain and vndeniable consequences out of it And the Lutherans Presbyterians Anabaptists and Huguenots of France do not allow the 39. Articles of the Church of England and consequently do not iudge them to be plain vndeniable consequences out of Scripture So that you must say that either all are a company of knaues that speake against their consciences or that those 39. Articles are not plain and vndeniable consequences out of Scripture consequently Mr Salls some tymes belieues only Scripture and its plain consequences sometyms more But what proues that he is not yet throughly a Protestant and so wee know not what he is but a Not Catholick is his blasphemous Position that there is not saluation in the Roman Catholick Religion for it is the constant doctrin of the Church of England that the Catholick Religion is a sauing Religion first because this has been euer yet their complaint against vs that wee are vncharitable in denying saluation in their Church and they extol their own charity for granting that in the profession of Popery prouided he has no other sin a man may be saued Secondly because they confess there was a true Church extant the age that Luther began the Reformation and all the precedent ages for its an Article of our Creed the constant Existence of Gods Church I belieue the Catholick Church and that there was no other Church then extant but the Roman Catholick Church they also confess it and must grant it for the essence of the true Church consisting as they say in the due administration of the Sacraments and preaching of the word of God and no other Church being extant in Luthers age and the precedent that administred Sacraments or preached the Ghospell but the Roman Church doubtless it must haue been the true Church for in what Kingdom Prouince Citty Village Church or Chappell in the world was these things or any of them don by Protestants its therefore the constant doctrin of Protestants that Roman Catholick Church was then the true Church and is now a true Church for its the same now that then it was Now that a man may be saued in the true Church of God prouided his lyfe be good it were a blasphemy to deny it consequently its a blasphemy to say that in the Roman Church a man may not be saued and it were to say that all our Ancestors for so many ages all the Fathers Doctors and saints confessed by the Protestants shem selues to be saints were all damned Neither can Mr Sall excuse his Blasphemy and cure the wound with that plaister of Ignorance which he applyes saying that Papists pag. 116. may be excused by ignorance and this smale comfort he will not grant but to the simple sort and not at all to the learned men So that none of our Ancestors were saued for the space of so many hundred years no saints that are confessed by both Parties to be such if they were not fooles and ignorant people of the simple sort wherby all the wyse and learned Fathers and Doctors of the precedent ages and of this age are absolutly damned Nay and Thomas Aquinas which he him self styles a saint and none of the simple sort but a learned Doctor who confessedly was a Papist is also damn'd It s impossible that his Auditors if they were of the Church of England could heare him with patience to cast all their Ancestors to hell a Blasphemy so opposit to the Doctrin of their Church wherein doth the Charity of the Protestant Church consist and they do vaunt that they exceed the Catholicks is it in saying that by ignorance a Papist maybe saued in his Religion prouided his lyfe be good this is no excess of Charity for wee grant also as wee will declare in the ensueing Chap. that Protestants and not only they but Heathens and Iews may be saued in their Religion if they be ignorant and liue well wee are but little beholding to the Protestant charity if they grant no greater capacity of saluation in the Roman Catholick Religion then in Paganism and Iudaism No Sr since you are resolued to be a Protestant let me teach
the blind see the lame vvalk though they see they are called blind because they were blind and are restored to their sight And S. Io. 2.9 sayes vvhen the Ruler of the feast had tasted the vvater that vvas made vvine The liquor that the Ruler of the feast tasted was true wine yet the text calls it vvater because from water it was conuerted into wine So the bread which by the words of the consecration is conuerted into Christ his Body retains the name of bread because it was once bread because it has still the appearance of bread and because wee should vnderstand that true bread and wyne and nothing but bread and wyne is requisit for the due administration of that Sacrament as for the Baptism true natural water is necessary And that you may not be startled at S. Pauls calling it so often bread obserue you the rule I haue giuen and you will easily perceiue that the word bread so often vsed after the consecration signifyes not true and real bread but beares only a mystical or figuratiue signification for you will find that the Predicats that are said of that bread after its consecration cannot in any wyse be verified of true substantial bread and consequently that the word bread after the consecration cannot signify real but figuratiue bread for example Christ sayes of that bread that S. Paul speakes of the bread that I shall giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld what was giuen for the lyfe of the world was not true bread but true flesh consequently when that flesh is called bread the word bread must not signify real bread Christ sayes of that bread this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you This Predicat vvhich is giuen for you cannot be verified of bread in its true and proper signification consequently the word bread after the consecration signifyes but figuratiue bread the appearance of bread But sayes Mr Sall wee all agree in calling the Eucharist a Sacrament a Sacrament is but a sign of a sacred thing why should not wee agree also in calling the Sacrament of Christ his body the sign of Christ his Body and heere he brings a rapsody of texts of S. Augustin S. Denis and others to proue that it is but a type a Symbol a figure and remembrance of Christ his Body which labor he might haue well spared for wee do freely grant that the Eurachist is a sign type remembrance and Symbol of Christ his body offered for vs on the Cross the Eucharist is a commemoration and representation of that bloody sacrifice but it is also Christ his true Body the vnbloody oblation of his Body in the Eucharist is a figure and representation of the bloody oblation of the same body on the Cross as a King that would act a Part in a tragedy of his own victoryes he would be the thing represented and the representation He alleadges the words of some Fathers of the Church that expresly say the Symbols in the Sacrament are not changed in their Nature but do abyde in their proper substance figure and form nay more distinctly they say that the Nature and substance of bread and vvyne remaine after the consecration thus speaks Saint Chrysost if you belieue Mr Sall in an epistle he writ ad Caesarium but if you belieue Bellarmin S. Chrysost neuer writ any such epistle also Gelasius a Pope sayes Mr Sall though Bellarmin sayes he was no Pope but som Monk and Theodoret dial 2. c. 24. And is it not a pretty thing that the Protestants would perswade vs that these Fathers and others did belieue only a figuratiue Presence and yet from the very first begining of their pretended Reformation they constantly auerr that all the Fathers fell into the errours of Purgatory real Presence Adoration of Saints c. whoeuer will read those Fathers will find the real Presence most cleerly asserted in seueral places of their works especially in S. Chrysost and for one or two obscure passages or expressions that our Aduersaryes meet with they must be for a figuratiue Presence Bellarmin and our Catholick Authors giue a Catholick sence to those words the Protestants giue an other the Fathers do not liue to speake for themselues and declare what sense they intended is it not necessary therefore that wee should haue an infallible liuing iudge who may deliuer vnto vs what wee must belieue in this Mystery This aduertisment I must giue my Reader that the Fathers in all ages of the Church some spoke nothing at all of the Mysteryes now controuerted and belieued by vs others spoke of them but briefly and obscurely others wrote in some places of their works plainly and distinctly but in other places in expressions subiect to misconstruction The reason was that the Fathers of each age professedly writ or altogether or for the most part of their works of those points of doctrin which were opposed by the Hereticks of those tymes and those they deliuered in their proper Notions expresly and carefully shunning any dubious words but of other Mysteryes and Articles of Faith that were vnanimously belieued no contradiction of Hereticks requiring an exact discussion of them either they omitted to speake of them or writing of them they were not so carefull in speaking with cleer expressions because they had no occasion of fearing a misconstruction of their words particularly when in other places of their works they had deliuered themselues in plain terms Hence it is that wee must not be startled if wee do not find any mention of Indulgences Purgatory or real Presence in some Fathers or if wee meet some words in some Fathers which may be wrested against our Tenets as in this of the real Presence which vntill about the yeare 800. had not any opposition among Christians then it was apposed by Iohn Scotus not the Franciscan fryer and by the Arch Bishop of Sens in France but this storm was soon and easily calm'd about the yeare 1100. Berengarius raysed much dust against this Mystery and drew many Abettors to his faction then the Catholick writters did declare the Mystery and defend it and Berengarius was condemned by fiue Councils successiuly assembled against him and his Partizans the Fathers who writ since that tyme speake so manifestly in fauor of the real Presence that you will hardly find any expression in their works wherat your vnderstanding may stumble It s most false what Mr Sall imputes to Scotus Ocham and other more modern Catholicks that the doctrin of Transubstantiation it not contained in the Canon nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council they expresly teach especialy Scotus in 4. dist 11. q 3. that the doctrin was belieued before the Council continually in the Church but more explicitly declared by the Council who for that end introduced the word Transubstantiation which expresses better the doctrin belieued as the Council of Nice introduced the word Consubstantial to signify the equality of the son with the Father
which is that God prohibited Images to be adored as Gods or as the representations of false Gods which are properly I dols and then enters thequestion which of both interpretations his or ours is the true one which none can decide but an infallible liuing Iudge to which wee both must be bound to submit That God did no prohibit the making of Images or the lykness of things Diuine and Human as the letter of the text sounds our aduersaries must confess for he commanded the Ark of the Testament should be made Ex. 25. the Brasen Serpent to be set vp Num. 21. which Christ sayes Io. 3. was a representation of himself That he did not prohibit all manner of worship and adoration of Images representations and lykness of things which are in heauen aboue and earth it s also manifest for he commanded the Brasen Serpent to be set vp that the people looking on it should be healed and though Mr Sall would perswade vs that no adoration was to be giuen to it yet certainly none can deny but That looking on it was with an inward reuerence and veneration as on an instrument of Gods merices to them and Adoration or vvorship consists properly in the inward affection of the mind Besides the Ark of the Testament which Caluin himself super Psal 105. confesses to be an image of God Arca erat imago Dei was still religiously worshipped by the Iews none permitted to touch it but consecrated persons carried often in Procession by Dauid Reg. 4.3 Reg. 8. and Iosue 6. adored by Iosue and the Israelits prostrated on the ground be fore it Iosue 7.6 But what the Protestants will neuer answer that the Lords supper is a representation of Christ his passion a figure of his Body and is religiously worshipped by them if they do what S. Paul requires 1. Corin. 11.28 by this wee see that the text must not be vnderstood literally prohiting all worship but prohibiting to be worshipped as Gods the world being then plunged in Idolatry some adoring the very statues and Images as Gods others adoring the statues and images as the pictures of seueral things which they belieued to be Gods as Iupiter Venus c. Azor sayes he instit Mor. to 1. l. 9. c. 6. declares it to be the constant iudgment of Diuins that the Image is to be honored vvith the same vvorship vvhervvith that is vvorshipped vvherof it is an Image Azor has no such words and you add falsly that it is our constant Tenet Our Doctrin is declared by the 7. Gen. Council which is Nicen 2. and after by Trent and others that Council decrees Images must be adored and does not determin how that adoration must be called but only excludes the Adoration of Latria which is that which wee giue to God The Diuins after this Council dispute what adoration is it that must be exhibited to them some say only a Relatiue others an Absolut Adoration some saye an Adoration of Latria improperly and for Gods sake to whome only a proper Latria is due and these that speake of this improper Latria are checkt by others because though by scholastical subtilities they may be vnderstood in a Catholick sense yet that expression sounds harsh to pious eares and generally all Diuins do censure any that should out of the school propose those subtilities to vulgar eares But what they all agree in and wee belieue that they must not be adored with that Adoration wherwhith God is adored and wee all say with Epiph. who was present at that Nicen Council Act. 6. non indignas habemus imagines honore veneratione ac salutatione debitamque adorationem illis dare debemus siue igitur obserue these words placebit adorationem siue salutationem appellare idem erit modo sciamus excludi Latriam haec enim est alia a simplici adoratione vvee iudge Images vvorthy of honor and adoration and vvee ought to exhibit it to them call that adoration as you please so it be not Latria it s all alyke vvhat you call it for Latria is different from an ordinary and simple adoration Let some particular Diuins therefore discourse as they please it s not our obligation to excuse them wee belieue with the Church an Adoration but no Latria Petauius sayes he agreat Antiquary declares that for the four first Centuries there vvas little or no vse of Images in the Oratoryes of Christians I cannot imagin to what purpose does Mr Sall bring these quotations of Petauius Azor Iacobus de Graffys if it be not to let his Auditorie or Reader know that he is versed in Authors This proues that the Primitiue Church did vse Images though not so much as now they do and Petauius giues in that very place Dogm Theol. to 5. l. 15. cap. 13. the reason why they were not more frequently vsed because the world conuerted from Paganism that belieued in stocks and stones and some of them that their Gods were Bodyes and not pure Spirits to shun the occasion of a relaps into these errours and to withdraw the people from any apprehensions of Corporality in God Images were but little vsed nay in some places where the danger was greater they were absolutly prohibited and Sanderus l. 2. de cultu imaginum c. 4. sayes this was the reason why the Council of Elibert prohibited the vse of Images S. Gregory whose words you cite would haue the people kept from an Idolatrous worship of Images and pretended no more Not only Nichephorus Calixtus but many this day of the Catholick Church do hold it absurd to paint Images of the Father son and Holy Ghost as they are in their proper substance and Nature nor does the Catholicks vse it as you falsly criminat them but they paint the Father in the form of an Ancient Man as he appeared to the Prophet Daniel the son in human shape and the Holy Ghost in the figure of a Doue as he appeared in the Riuer Iordan Vasquez speaks not a word of Images in the place cited by you 3. p. disp 94. but 3. p. Disp 103.5.4 he sayes Images also as well as Idols are prohibited in the first Commandment and what then Vasquez was mistaken as well as you but you far more for he sayes in that place it was not because the adoration of Images was in it self naught as you say for you say its Idolatry but because it was obnoxious in those tymes to the danger of falling into Idolatry and therefore prohibited but this danger ceasing as in the Law of Grace Images may and ought to be adored and not prohibited by that commandment if he speaks consequently or no it s not my business to examine it You say God commanded the Brasen serpent to be broken because the people worshiped it 2. Reg. 13.4 but the text will inform you well if you set preiudice asyde that they began to adore it for God as they did the molten Calf and therefore it was prohibited You say our people
prayse God for the rest of the Faithfull departed nor for the mutual comfort of the liuing in the death of our friend nor for our spiritual instruction reflecting on our own mortality at the sight of death but as this text expresly sayes for the sins of the dead that the dead may be deliuered from their sins That subtility of the Catholick Doctors alleadged by Mr Sall that God foreseeing the prayers that will be made may as a good Paymaster pay before hand is very good but is not to the purpose for allow those prayers made for the slain might haue had that effect in this passage but still returns the conclusion pretended by Bellarmin that the passage proues it was the belief and practice of the People of God and praysed by Scripture to pray for the expiation of the sins of the dead Moreouer it might and does lykely happen that some dye for whom no prayers are or will be made after death which our foreknowing God cannot reward before hand because they are not in Being nor will not if those men dye in venial sin or without hauing don sufficient pennance there must be a Purgatory for them consequently that subtility proues not the non Existence of a Purgatory Again sayes he that passage though true proues not Purgatory because those Men dyed in mortal sin wheras they were found to haue vnder their coats things consecrated to the Idols As the text relates nor is it true sayes he what Bellarmin sayes that their sin was only venial because it deserued Gods vengeance and their death as if a venial sin did not de serue that punishment Neither does Bellarmin say absolutly it was but a venial sin but that perhaps it was no more because it was committed through ignorance or though it might be mortal yet at the hour of death especially dying for so pious and glorious a cause they might haue obtained of God an act af contrition And wheras Iudas Machabaeus did not know certainly that they were guilty of Motal sin he might haue prayed for them He alleadges other considerations why prayers might be made for the dead though there were no Purgatory first for to prayse God for the rest giuen to the departed secondly for our mutual comfort in the death of our friend thirdly for our instruction to mind vs of our mortality and sayes that when in Ancient Authors wee meet prayers to be made for the dead wee must vnderstand they were made for these ends and not for the drawing of souls out of Purgatory wee confess that those considerations are very good and that they were practised by the Ancient Church as those words of the Commentaryes vpon Iob futhered on Origen relat and are still practised but wee deny that these are the onely considerations for praying for the dead but also for the remission of their sins as the former text doth euidence for their ease and deliuery from the payns they suffer after death and in the Ancient Fathers wee meet contrary to what Mr Sall auers prayers for the dead to be made for this end nothing more frequent two examples only I will produce S. Denis Disciple of S. Paul Apostle I. de Ecc. Hierar c. 7. p. 3. the venerable Bishop approaching prayes for the dead and that prayer beseecheth the Diuine Clemency that he may forgiue to the dead all the sins that through human fraylty he committed and that he may place him in the light and region of the liuing Isidorus l. 1. de off Diu c. 18. if the Catholick Church did not belieue that sins are forgiuen to the Faithfull departed it vvould neither make alms nor offer sacrifice to God for their souls This is the vnanimous Doctrin of all antiquity to all which Mr Sall will answer with Caluin Gchinus and Peter Martyr that the Ancient Fathers erred and this is all the answer wee can expect He values nothing the text out of Tobias 4. alleadged by Bellarmin yet it proues cleerly what Bellarmin pretended that it was the practice of the People of God to offer alms for the dead The words fyre and vvater sayes he in the ps 66.12 vvee passed through fyre and vvater but thou broughtest vs out into a vvealthy place signify tribulations and crosses of this lyfe and so that text proues nothing of Purgatory Bellarmin aknowledges it might be thus interpreted and in other senses but sayes Bellarmin Origen Hom. 25. in Num. and S. Ambrose ser 3. in Psal vnderstand by vvater Baptism and by fyre Purgatory And you Mr Sall should haue told vs what you thought of Origen and S. Ambrose his interpretation You will say what your Predecessors of the Reformation haue said that they erred Bellarmin brings the words of Christ Mat. 12. that a sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be pardoned in this vvorld nor in the vvorld to come And sayes that S Augustin S. Greg. Beda and S. Bernard draw from this text a consequence that some sins are pardonable in the other world nay that this was the only text wherwith S Bernard did proue Purgatory Mâ— Sall sayes that consequence does not follow because sayeth he he taketh this reason from Peter Martyr a positiue does not follow out of a negatiue as from saying the Duke of venice is not Earl of Dublin it follows not therefore some other is Earl of Dublin See you Reader which interpretation you lyke best if you will choose to stick to Mr Sall and Peter Martyr or to S. Augustin S. Greg. Bede and S. Bernard His example is friuolous For it were a ridiculous proposition to say the Duke of Venice is not Earl of Dublin if there were not a Dublin extant wherof some one may be Earl so it were ridiculous to say this sin shall not be forgiuen in the other vvorld itself if there were not an other world where sins may be forgiuen therefore wee say that either wee must acknowledge sins to be pardonable in the other world or Christ his words to be sence less as it were a sence less assertion to say pride shall not be punished in this vvorld nor in Heauen When all the world is perswaded before hand that Heauen is no place of punishment for pride or any other vice So wee also grant that were wee to consider the letter only of the text out of the words of the Euangelist Mart. 1.25 wee ought to conclude that Ioseph knew Marie after her Chilbirth but the Scripture interpreted by the Church expounds vnto vs by seueral other texts the sence of that text not to be as the letter founds and Mary to haue remayned a Virgen continually and so you bring that text to no purpose Now Mr Sall I will proue that not only acording to the rule of Prudence but also acording to the rules of Faith and Logick the consequence of Purgatory is manifestly euinc'd out of that text Thus sayes the text He that vvill speake a vvord against the son of Man it shall be