The vnerring and vnerrable church, or, An answer to a sermon preached by Mr. Andrew Sall formerly a Iesuit, and now a minister of the Protestant church / written by I.S. and dedicated to His Excellency the Most Honourable Arthur Earl of Essex ...

THE VNERRING AND VNERRABLE CHVRCH OR An answer to a Sermon preached by Mr Andrew Sall , formerly a Iesuit , and now a Minister of the Protestant Church .

Written by I. S. and DEDICATED TO HIS EXCELLENCY The most honorable Arthur Earl of Essex Lord Lieutenant of Ireland .

Anno 1675.

TO HIS EXCELLENCY , THE MOST HONORABLE ARTHVR EARL OF ESSEX , VISCOVNT MALDEN , Baron Capel of Hadham , Lord Lieutenant General , and General Gouernor of his Maiesties Kingdom of Ireland , Lord Lieutenant of the County of Hertford , and one of the Lords of his Maiesties most honorable Priuy Council . MY LORD ;

I present vnto your Exllency a vindication of both Churchs , which a viper has endeauoured to byte , that the Catholick has bred in her bosom ; to follow the Truth ( if we belieue him ) he forsooke all that was Deare vnto him , he might haue vsed that phrase of S. Peter since that what he had to forsake , was but Netlyke ; but iustly may wee think he expected from Your Excellency , as S. Peter had from Christ , a return of a Seat ; not such as Peter obtained , but as the children of Zebedee did pretend . But your Excellency , whose Decrees are liuing Ecchos of the Royal sentiments , will adiudge him rather a Chalice to drink , than a Seat to exalt him ; a Chalice , I say , such as the Royal Piety of King Iames prescribed to those of his blasphemous opinion , in the meeting of his Clergy at Southampton : Wee detest in this point the cruelty of the Puritans , and iudge them worthy of fyre , who affirm , that in the Popish Religion a man may not be saued .

My Lord , all sober men of both Religions desire the execution of this sentence , against this impious assertion , pronounced in your Excellencies hearing , and giuen vnto you in print ( to profane both your eares , and eyes with a repeated blasphemy ) by a late Reuolted from our Church , and that , not only for a reuenge of the iniury don to your Excellency in particular , in adiudging your Noble Ancestors ( who allmost all dyed in that Profession ) vnto Hell ; nor for condemning his own to the like misery , ( if , for being of the simple sort , he will not plead for their saluation ) but for the iniury don to Christian Piety , to which that Position is contrary in the iudgment of all learned Protestants .

But what makes this execrable Position vnpardonable in our Aduersary , is that his own words accuse him to speake against his conscience : pag. 116. he saies , Their Tenets are inconsistent with saluation , though ignorance may haply excuse many of the simple sort , but not such as know , or with due care and enquiry , may know their error . By this he exclues all Wyse men of our Profession from saluation , and affords it only to the simple sort , or those who haue an inuincible ignorance . That heerin he speakes against his conscience , its most apparent ; for in his discourse he often styles Thomas Aquinas a Saint ; the first Reformers , and Passionat Sectaries degraded the Saints of their Canonization , but Mr Sall , as yet , retains the respect due to their glorious memory . Whateuer he might say of others , he knows well that S. Thomas Aquinas was of the Roman Religion , a fryer of S. Dominicks Orders ; None of the simple sort , or that could be inuincibly ignorant , being well vers'd in Scripture and an Eminent Master in most sciences ; He belieued , professed , and taught our Tenets of Real Presence , Purgatory , &c. He was then in Mr Salls iudgment a Saint reigning in Heauen , and at the same tyme is condemned by him to hell , because he belieued and professed Tenets inconsistents with saluation : is not this to speake against his conscience ?

He had wit , My Lord , to vnderstand , he could not iustify his separation from our Church , if in our Church there was not somwhat , inconsistent with saluation : for to separat from the true Church , vnder pretence of her being guilty of som errors , and of reforming her , by purging her from those errors , if the errors be not quite damnable , and inconsistent with saluation , is so far from being lawfull , that such Reformers cannot be excused from Schism : All things should be endured ( saies S. Denis of Alexan. apud Euseb. Hist. Eecl . l. 6. c. 25. ) rather , than to consent to the diuision of the Church of God ; and saies Iren. l. 4. cont. Heret . c. 62. No so important Reformation can be made , as the Euil of Schism is pernicious , for if those Errors be consistent with saluation , then they are no necessary cause obliging to a separation ; the separation from the true Church is Schismatical and damnable , when there is no need , or necessary cause for separating ; consequently , to separat from the true Church for Errors which are consistent with saluation is a most damnable Schism . Mr Sall felt , perhaps , the force of this consideration , and to iustify his separation from the Church vttered that horrid blasphemy of errors in her inconsistent with saluation .

May it please , Your Excellency to consider what an iniury he does to your cause in seeking to iustify it by an assertion so contrary to your Church , and so odious to your Excellencies Piety , That there is no saluation in the Catholik Church , That her errors are inconsistent with saluation . It 's far from your Excellencies Piety to belieue that S. Thomas Aquinas , admired by the Word for his learning and sanctity , was condemn'd to Hell , and yet he belieued and taught the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament : it 's therefore no error inconsistent with saluation . Your Excellencie will not belieue that S. Augustin is in Hell , who professed and taught the Tenet of Purgatorie , as appears in his Ench. c. 119. lib. 9. Conf. c. 13. and lib. de Haeres . c. 53. where he condemns Aetius as an Heretick , for denying sacrifice should be offered for the dead . Purgatory therefore is no Error inconsistent with saluation : Your Excellencie will not patiently heare any man to say that S. Hierom is eternally damn'd , and yet he thaught the veneration and vse of the sign of the Cross Epist. ad Dem. and the veneration of Relicks of Saints lib. cont. Vigil . S. Chrysostom praied and exhorted to pray to Saints Hom. 43. in Gen. Hom. 5. & 8. in Mat. and must wee say that Chrysostom is damn'd to Hell ? These are the Errors , which Mr Sall affirms to be inconsistent with Saluation ; These are the Tenets , in whose Profession he sayes , no Wyse and Learned Man can be saued , impiously condemning to Hell the forementioned , Saints which the Christian World reueres for the Pillars of the Chnrch , and not only them but all Wyse men Seculars and Ecclesiastick of all precedent ages to Luther , if inuincible ignorance did not excuse them , which they could not pretend , nor can wee imagin they could haue , being the most learned Doctors of Gods Church .

If this Treatise did contain nothing else but a check of this rash and impious assertion , it would not be vngratefull to your Excellencie ; but had I left any thing vnexamined of what he treats in his discourse , he would interpret my silence his own Victory , and flattering himself with a fond perswasion of the euidence of his arguments , would think vnanswerable , whateuer were not answered . And though he touches but lightly the Controuersy of the Necessity of an infallible liuing iudge of Controuersies ; yet for the respect I own to Your Excellencie I endeauour to fathom this question : I say for the respect I ow to your Excellency , for wanting nothing to an accomplisht happiness vnder your Excy's Gouernment , but Vnity of subiects in Faith and Communion , the greatest obligation I can cast on them , and testimony of my Duty I can exhibit vnto your Excellency , is to shew , by what means wee may attain to that Vnity ; which is no other , than a liuing infailible Iudge , from whom wee are to receiue the true fence of Scripture . I wish my endeauors may be as successfull , as my inclinations are reall to shew my self in all occasions ,

MY LORD , Your Excellencies most Humble , and faithfull seruant , I. S.

THE PREFACE .

IF Mens wills were inclined to embrace the Truth , as their vnderstandings are instructed to perceiue it , wee might spare our labor in writing , and cut short the number of Controuersy Books that the world is glutted with . It 's inclination is wanting to the will ; not instruction to the vnderstanding . Nature prouided , the vnderstanding should direct the will : That This should neither loue nor hate ; but as That , should represent the obiect worthy of hatred or loue : but the malice of Man has preposterously inuerted this order : now it s not the practice , that the will loue , what the vnderstanding knows to be good , but the will , byass'd by Interest , or other wordly considerations , doth incline , and in a manner force the vnderstanding by the violence of our Passions , to adiudge for Good ( let it be what it will ) watheuer suits best with her depraued inclinations . Hence there are as many Religions in the State , as there are Interest 's ; that byass the Subiects ; wee should therefore lay our pens asyde ; and by a constant address of our prayers to God , begg his Grace for to reform the will , which with the cloud of her desordered Passions darkens our Reason ; and lessen our Transgressions , which stupify our minds : for certainly , it 's not light , that is wanting in so learned an age ; but sinsabound which indispose our eyes to see it .

But whylst our Aduersaries decry our Religion , with such a stream of Pamphers , as floweth dayly from the Press ; shall wee by our silence starue our Cause , and make it suspected of weakness , in giuing some ground by our muteness , to think it cannot be defended ? or shall wee spare a little Ink to defend , what wee are obliged to assert with our blood ? This hath moued me to write this Treatise ; and that as some receiue better nourishment from grosser meats , than from delicat fare ; it may happen , that some one may meet with these lynes , and receiue more spiritual nourishment from them , though rudely worded , and in a plain style , than from the learned Treatises eloquently penned by others . Being a Debtor ( with S. Paul ) to the wyse and vnwise , I endeauor to satisfy , Them , with the strength of my Reasons ; and These by stooping to vulgar expressions , and sometymes to Periods which might be well omitted , if only Men of quick Apprehensions were to reade what I write , to open my fence to those of common vnderstanding .

What chiefly hath moued me to publish these lynes , was the dismal fall , of Mr Andrew Sall ; a Iesuit , and a Professor of Diuinity and Controuersies , as he tells vs , all which qualifications , if true , makes his Reuolt from the Church more criminal . He desires he may be answered seriously and soberly setting a syde all bitterness , calumnies and railleries , all which he shall easily obtain of me , far from insulting ouer any Christian for his weakness ; but rather drawing from it a caution for my own safety . I am not of the seuere opinion of those seruants , who would pluck out presently the Tares , which budded in the field of Corn Mat. 13. but aduised by the Master of the field to forbeare with patience ; zizania dimitti iussit , ( sayes S. Chrysoft . hom 30. in 9 Mat. vt poenitentiaelocus daretur . He commanded the Tares should not be touched , that there might be tyme for repentance : Because , as . S. Augus. saies serm. 46. etiam ipsa zizania saepe in triticum mutantur . Perhaps that which now is Tare , may by the kindness of the soyle , and celestial influence become wheate ; which Experience hath often shewen to be a holsom aduice ; wheras many that haue fallen , haue by Gods Mercy recouered , and by repentance been raysed to a higher degree of Sanctity , than the Innocent attained vnto , who neuer did fall . And if it be true ( what he sayes ) that some haue aspersed him with base calumnies , and laid ambush for his lyfe ; I am so far from approuing that practice that I think it an effect of insolency and pride , which blinds them not to consider their own fraylty , and what they may be : wee ought rather to pitty his misfortune , and prayse God , that has not suffered vs to split on the same Rock : and since wee do not know , but that by Gods mercy , he may be reclaimed , why should wee vpbraid him Pharisee-lyke , whom , for ought wee know , God has designed to make by a generous conuersion and acknowledgment of his errour , superior to vs in his Glory ?

This iust moderation shall guide my pen ; neither can Mr Sall iustly complain that I exceed it , in letting the world know that he spreads too much his Talents and imployments in empty Titles , nay and fictitious ones . Professor of Moral Theology in the Royal Colledge of Salamanca ; no more than in withe Hall at London . Professor of Controuersies in the Irish Colledge of Salamanca , and his Auditory composed of Spaniards french and Irish. No controuerfies taught in that Colledge , nor has not been these forty years : and how vnlikly it is to be true , what he sayes , may appeare , in that he sayes his Auditory was composed of Spaniards , a People that cannot endure any dispute of the Principles of Religion , altogether strangers to matters of Controuersy : and of frenchmen ; and it is as hard to find a french Studiant in the vniuersity of Salamanca , or any other of Spain , as a Swallow in winter , especially that when Mr Sall was in Salamanca , the war betwixt France and Spain was very hot , and lykly they must haue got a Safe-conduct to go to be Mr Salls Schollers . Professor of Diuinity in Pamplona Tudela and Palencia in Spain . In the Colledges of Tudela and Palencia there is not nor was there at any tyme Diuinity taught : in Pamplona , indeed he was Professor of Diuinity , for one or two years ; and had they been as content of him , as he was of himself , he would haue continued many more . Rector of the Irish Colledge he was ; an imployment that requires no more than a mediocrity of discretion to gouern half a dozen Lads peaceably ; and I know not was it a greater credit for him to haue been in that imployement , than to haue been cast out of it before the yeares end , when others continued it for three years at least , and commonly for 6. or eight years . As for other things that might be said , I will take no notice of them .

And euen from this moderat reprehension of his vanity , I would haue willingly abstained , did he not oblige me to it . For I appeale to the Protestant Reader , whether it be not fit , that when he pretends by fictitious Titles to gain credit to his cause , and to his arguments with the vulgar People , I should open their eyes , to see that he is not , what he sayes he is The Priests and Leuits , sent by the Iews to the great Baptist , to know what he was 10.1 . made him two very different questions , What are you ; What do yo say of yourself ; Knowing that often tyms , there is a vast difference betwixt what a man really is , and what hè sayes he is . And this neuer appeared more apparently , than in the great difference that is , betwixt what Mr Sall is , and what he sayes he is . And it is very important for the truth of the cause which I defend , that the Reader take notice of this difference : for wyse men , dot not so much consider the quality of the person that speakes , as what he speakes ; and value not an argument , for his sake who proposes it , but for its own merit : But Men of vulgar capacity , who do not vnderstand the strength or weakness of an argument ; value it not for what it is in itself ; but for the learning and credit of the Person , that proposes it whence it is , that men of common vnderstanding , who know not the weakness of Mr Salls arguments , will , not withstanding , belieue them to be very pregnant , because they are of a man of that vogue and credit , which he most vniustly vsurpes , of a great Diuine , a Venerable Rector , and Professor of Diuinity : so that the most dangerous weapon wherewith he attacks vs , is his credit and Authority , which belongs not to him . If he were content to fight vs with his arguments ; wee would be content with a bare answer , for vpon the learned men they would neuer make any impression ; nor vpon the vnlearned , who to value an argument , only looks on the Proponent : but when he comes to fight vs , in the shape of a very learned Diuine , and a great Master in Sciences ; wee must vnmask his ignorance and vanity , least his arguments , which in themselues haue no force , assisted with that vsurped credit and authority , may work on the Spirits of ignorant People .

Perhaps this Treatise may seeme larger , than might be thought necessary for an answer to Mr Salls discourse : I confess it is ; and were I to consider only what his discourse deserues , it required no answer ; for it contains nothing but what has been said twenty tymes and answered so many more : though , this being the first Essay of this great Diuine in fauor of Protestancy , its strang if he were so learned as he would haue vs belieue him to be , but that it should be an exquisit peece : yet I haue thought fit to answer it , and do intend not only an answer to him , which could haue been don in fewer lynes , but an exact discussion of the Points he toucheth , and particularly of that prime and great Controuersy of which depends the resolution of all others , The infallibility of a liuing Iudge of Controuersies , which is the Church . Therefore , for a full satisfaction of those that desire to know and embrace truth I diuide this Treatise into two Parts ; in the first I will proue the Necessity of a liuing infallible Iudge of Controuersies , and proue it to be the Roman Catholik Church . In the second I will examin those pretended Errors , which he fastens on our Church ; and will endeauor to leaue nothing vnanswered that he obiects against vs , though I may prepone or postpone his arguments as the Methode of my discourse requires . If my labor Proue to your spiritual aduantage , I am sufficiently rewarded ; if not , I shall not want a reward from him that erowns good desires ▪ fare well .

Your friend in Christ Iesus I. S.

THE FIRST PART PROVING the necessity of an infallible liuing Iudge .

I. CHAPTER . BVT ONLY ONE TRVE RELIGION . The need full Means afforded by God to come to the know legde of it .

THAT God is to be adored , it 's the voice of Nature , pronounced by all Nations : Reason proues it ; for were you yourself the chiefest in Power , the highest in Dignity , the Richest and most adorned in virtues , in the Common wealth ; you would expect an Homage , and it could not be denied vnto you by your Inferiors . Confess then , that a far greater is due from you to God ; whose Power is supereminent ; his Wisdom transcendent ; his Goodness vnlimited , his Perfections innumerable . But it is not arbitrary to Man , to adore God with what manner of Worship his fancy suggests vnto him ; or his priuat spirit inclins him vnto . God , as he requires a Worship at our hands , so he has himself reuealed , what manner of Worship he requires . Perdiscamus ( sayes S. Chrysost. hom. 51. in Mat. ) Christum ex sua voluntate honorare ; nam qui honoratur , eo maxime honore laetatur , quem ipse vult , non quem nos optamus . What sacrifices , Rites , and Ceremonies , God would be adored with in the old law , he declared it to his People by Moyses Leuit. from the first , to the 7. chap. and declared that he would not be otherwise worshipped Leuit. 10. In the law of Grace , his son Incarnated , abolished that Ceremonial law ; and reuealed to Mankind a new manner of diuine worship , a new Sacrifice , Sacraments , Rites and Ceremonies ; by which he will be worshipped , and by no other : in so much that by S. Paul Gal. 1.9 . he commands , that if an Angel from heauen should recommend vnto vs an other manner of diuine worship , wee should not heed him .

This worship of God , reuealed by him to Man , is true Religion ; worship him euer so much , if you do not adore him , as he has reuealed he would be worshipped , you haue not true Religion . That there is a true Religion extant , it 's doubtless , both for that wee pretend each of vs , his own Religion to be the true one ; and that God has laid a command vpon vs , and wee are obliged to worship him in spirit and Truth ( this is Religion ) which command and obligation supposes the Existence of a Religion . That among all those Religions , wherwith the world abounds , there is but one true Religion , ( whateuer , and whereuer it be ) it s also manifest ; for true Religion is that manner of diuine worship , which God has reuealed ; but God has not reuealed those seueral manners of diuine worship , which do oppose and contradict one another : if it be he that reuealed wee should worship him by denying the Messias , as the Iewdoes ; certainly it must not be he that reuealed wee must worship him by belieuing in the Messias as the Christians do : consequently both those Religions of Iudaism and Christianity must not be true Religions . If it be he that commanded , wee should worship him by belieuing the real Presence of Christ his Body in the Eucharist ; certainly it s not he that commanded , wee should worship him by denying the real presence , for that would be to contradict himself : therefore of all those Religions , which clash one with an other , only one must be the true Religion .

This is further proued : No Religion , wherin God is duely worshipped , and a man may be saued ; can iustly be called , an accursed , heretical , and damnable Religion ; this Position is euident : ( consequently it appears how vniustly Protestants call the Catholik Religion , Idolatrous and superistitious ; it being by their own acknowledgment as wee will proue against Mr Sall , a religion wherin wee may be saued and consequently wherin God is duely worshipped ) But S. Paul in express tearms , does anathematise , accurse and condemn all and each Religion , ( euen those that are Christian Religions ) besids that one which he and his fellow Apostles did teach ; if wee ( Gal. 1.9 . ) or an Angel from Heauen , should Euangelize vnto you , otherwyse than as wee 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 will 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 we ought to be very wary in censuring the Wisdom of God , if this or that was not don in the gouernment of the world , which seemeth to vs good to be don ; the Modesty of the Proponent added such weight to this aduertisment that it touched me to the quick , and reflecting on this point in my solitudes , I saw saies he , wee might as well say that it belongeth to the goodness of God , not to permit that his holy lawes should be transgressed by vile creatures ; nor that the Pastors of souls , especially the Pope , should scandalize their flock and as wee do not iudge it a failure in his goodness to permit sins ; so wee ought not wauer in our opinion of his goodness and Wisdom , if he has not appointed a visible Iudge for our direction , hauing giuen us the holy Scriptures , which a bound with all light and heauenly doctrin , to such as are not willfully 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 will 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 . Wee 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 world , wee need not be sollicitous of Religion ; but if Prouidence rules all , it cannot be doubted but that God has appointed an authority , by which , as by a certain assured way wee may be lead to God . Wee 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 .

Wee ought not , say you , to wauer in our opinion of Gods goodness for not appointing a Liuing infallible Iudge , wheras he has afforded us the Scriptures which abound with all heauenly light to them , that are not willfully obstinat : and this you proue 2. Tim. 3.16 . Holy Scriptures are able to make us wyse vnto saluation , that the man of God may be perfect , throughly furnished unto all good works . 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 willfully 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 willfully 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 wyse 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 . wee account a man to be iustified by Faith , without the works of the law : and foisted in the word Faith alone . 2. S. Paul in that text speaks only of the Scripture wherin Timothie was versed , and which he had perused from his Youth , which was only the Old Testament : so that if the text proues the sufficiency of the Scripture for our instruction , it proues the sufficiency of the Old Testament only . 3. S. Paul in that vers ch. v. 14. sayes to Timothie , thou continue in those things thou hast learned , and are committed to thee knowing from whom thou hast learned them . Whence its apparent that he remitted Timothie for instruction , to the Scripture and also to the doctrin deliuered to him by a liuing Oracle , which was the Apostle himself . Lastly the whole Canon of Scripture was not compleated when S. Paul writ that text , nor in many years after ; and you can not pretend that euer wee had the sufficient means for our instruction in any part , but in the whole and entyre Canon ; therefore you cannot pretend that that text doth proue the sufficiency of Scripture .

II. CHAPT. SCRIPTVRE ALONE , NOT THE Means for to instruct vs in Faith .

IF Scripture alone , were the means appointed by God for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to belieue ; is it not strange , that Christ should not himself haue left vs a Written word to walk by , when he laid vpon vs the obligation of embracing true Religion ; or that he should not , at least , haue laid a Command vpon his Apostles of deliuering vs a written word ? reade the whole Canon , and you shall find no such command : but he left Apostles and Pastors , and a command vpon them , to teach and preach vnto vs ; and vpon vs of belieuing and obeying them ; which argues that the means which he designed for our instruction in Religion , was not a written word , but a liuing Church . Necessity is laid upon me , yea wo is vnto me if I preach not the Ghospel . 1. Cor. 9.16 . He feared no wo for not writing , but for not preaching the Ghospel ; because he would depriue the flock of the means which God appointed for their instruction . And the Channel by which Faith is conueyed vnto vs being our Eares , fides ex auditu , and not our Eyes , it seems apparent , that the means which he appointed is a liuing Oracle who speaks , and not a volum which wee reade .

But let vs suppose that the Apostles did by special command of Christ write the Ghospel : this is manifest , that since the very beginning of the Church , Christians did doubt , which was the true Scripture written by the Apostles and which not : there is not one part of all Scripture but was questioned and denied by some Christians to be Canonical : Cerdon the Valentinians , and Manichaeans denyed the Old Testament to be Scripture . Epiph. Haer. 41. The Ebionits reiected the four great Prophets , the Books of Salamon and Psalms of Dauid . Epiph. Haer. 30. Marcionits reiected all the Ghospels except that of S. Luke . idem Haer. 4.2 . and Irer . l. 1. c. 6. the Ebionits did own only that of S. Mathew . They also reiected the Epistles of S. Paul Epiph. Haer. 30. And the Disciples of Cerdon would not belieue the Acts of the Apostles Tert. de Praescrip. c. 51. The Lutherans this day blot out of the Canon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews , as also that of Iude , the second of S. Peter and second and Third of S. Iohn , all which the Caluinists belieue . The Church of England will not admit the Books of Machabees , Esther Iudith and others , which the Chatolik Church admits : nor did the Ancient Fathers of the Church proue against the Marcionists and other Hereticks those Books to be Scripture by the Scripture itself , but by the Church as S. Augustin l. cont. Episc. Man . c. 5. Euangelio non crederem , nisi me Ecclesiae commoueret Authoritas : I would not belieue the Ghospel to be the Ghospel , if the authoriiy of the Church did not moue me to it .

Now I argue thus : you say true Religion is knowen by Scripture alone ; that 's to say , wee haue no assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth but by Scripture alone . Therfore wee can haue no more assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth , than wee haue of the Scriptur's ( which contains that Truth ) being true Scripture : if therefore you be not innfallibly ascertained that this is true Scripture , you cannot be infallibly ascertained that the Truths which it contains are reuealed Truths : But Scripture alone giues no assurance that it is true Scripture ; that it is not corrupted either by the malice or ignorance of the translators , or inaduertency of the Printer ; for there is not a text in all Scripture that mentions it : therfore the Scripture alone cannot ascertain vs of the Truth of Religion . And it cannot be imagined but that , since the true sence of Scripture is doubtfull , God has prouided vs of some means to know which is the true sence ; so also since that wee are obliged to belieue with diuine Faith , that this Booke is Scripture ; it cannot be doubted I say , but that God has afforded some means for to ascertain vs which is true Scripture , and to confound those that deny the Scripture to be Scripture . But Scripture itself alone can neuer assure vs of its being Scripture .

For to say that Scripture doth manifest itself to be Gods word by certain Criteria , or signs found in Scripture itself , as a diuine beam of light , a Maiesty of style , an energy of words , wherby it does manifest it self to the humble and well intentioned harts to be Gods word ; these are but fond imaginations : for all the Ancient Fathers of the first 402. years of the Church , doubtless were as humble , and as well intentioned as wee , and all that tyme the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews , Iude and S. Peeters second Epistle , and second and Third of S. Iohn were not belieued , as an article of Faith to be Scripture ; nay were absolutly denyed to be such , by Tert. Cypr. Lactan. and others ; and yet they had the same Majesty of style , and energy of words , as now they haue : and whateuer you may iudge of vs Catholiks , Luther , you will say , was humble and well intentioned , and could see no such Criteria or signs in those Epistles , which Caluin belieues to be Canonical , and 't is but a fond imagination to conceit any such lustre or Majesty in those Books , which you belieue , more than in the Books of Tobias , Esther and others which you deny . Consider , I pray , if a Pagan desirous of his saluation , were placed in a vast Library , could he distinguish the Scripture from other Books , and know it to be the word of God , only by reading it : and if you did euer reade , of any Kingdom couerted to Christianity by reading the Bible only , without Apostolical men to expound the Christian Doctrin , and by that you may gness , which were the means appointed by God for our instruction , if Scripture alone , or a liuing Church .

And allowed wee be assured this Book and an other is the word of God : of the Scripture wee 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 will 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 knoweth God heareth vs ; he that is not of God heareth vs not : in this wee know 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 wee know 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 knowlegde for Faith in God , to serue and prayse him , is fully contained in what 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 Two 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 two 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 two 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 Will 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 wee 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 will 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 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 Scrip●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 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 saies , for to keep vs in Vnity of Faith , to instruct vs , that wee may be no more Children wauering to and fro and carried away with euery wind 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 which wee 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 wo be to me if I preach not . 1. Cor. 9.16 . Attend to yourselues and to the whole flock , wherin 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 work of the Ministery ; that wee may meet in the vnity of Faith , that wee be no more children wauering to and fro , and carried away with euery wind of Doctrin . Whence two consequences follow ; the first that if you be tossed in your mind , and doubtfull what to belieue ; if two 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 , who sit on the chayr of Moyses , will 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 who 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 word , do not acompagny him , that he may be confounded . These cleer and manifest texts proue the obligation of the flock to belieue , and obey the Doctrin , and commands , which the Church by her Pastors and Doctors layeth vpon them . Whence it appears that the Church is the Oracle , and Mistress , which Christ has appointed on earth for to instruct and gouern vs .

This discourse that the Church is constituted of two parts , the one whose obligation is to teach and gouern , the otherwhose obligation is to learn , belieue and obey , is cleerly shewen in the 1. Cor. 3. where the Apostle compares the Pastors and Prelats to Husband men , who soweth the seed , and to Masterbuilders that make a house ; and compares the flock to a field that receiues the seed and improuments , and to an edifice . But , saies he , He that planteh , and he that watereth are one , and euery man shall receiue his own reward according his own works ; wee are labourers together with God , ye are Gods Husbandry , ye are Gods building . All is but one body , one common wealth but with this distinction , that some in this Body and commonweath , are labourers , some whose charge it is to plant , and sow the seed , which are the Apostles , and their successors : others are the Husbandry , the field which is watered , and receiues the seed , whichs the flock .

Out of these Premisses I discourse thus : as it is impossible that God , laying an obligation vpon vs of belieuing reuealed Truths , should not haue afforded vs the necessary means to know what Truths he has reuealed ; so it is a madness in me to expect to come to that knowledge by any other way or means , than by that which God has appointed for our conduct ▪ it 's an vnquestionable truth , that God might haue established an other manner of Prouidence for the saluation of man whitout Scripture Sacraments or Church ; but if God has decreed in this his present gouernment , not to saue Man but vpon certain conditions , will you be so peremptory as to expect by special priuiledge , as a person particularly fauored , to walk a path by yourself , and be exempted from those conditions which are generally required fromall ? God might do so , there is no doubt of it ; but it 's a madness in you to expect it .

You are to enquire what worship God requires from Man ; what truths he has reuealed ; which is the true sence of Scripture : I do not doubt , but God might , if he were pleased , vse other means for your instruction , without Church , Scripture , Pastors or Doctors , snatching you to the Third Heauen as hedid S. Paul 2. Cor. 11.4 . or by sending an Angel to resolue your doubts ; or by inward illustrations and diuine lights : but since that in this his present Prouidence he has established a Church , furnished as wee mentioned with Doctors , Pastors , Apostles , and Euangelists ; and layd an obligation vpon her to teach you , and vpon you to belieue and obey her ; will you as a person particularly priuiledg'd , expect to haue the knowledge of what you ought to belieue , and to yet the true sence of Scripture by any other means ; than by and from that Oracle , which God has appointed for the instruction of all ? I pitty some deluded souls who ery out , God knows if I did know the true Religion , and the true sence of Scripture , I would embrace it . But , friend , do you expect a reuelation from Heauen , or an inward light for to ascertain you ? God has afforded means for to instruct vs and commands vs all ( he excepts none ) to heare and oby her , which is the Church : make vse of the means which he has appointed , and you will be instructed : think not that your ignorance will excuse your incredulity of what you ought to belieue ; when God has giuen you means wherby to be instructed , and you will not make vse of those means ; and if you say you do not know , which Church is that , which God has appointed for your instruction ; both by what I haue already discoursed , and what shall be said in the ensuing chapters , it will manifestly appeare , that it is the Roman Catholik Church .

But , say you , I search the Scripture , as Christ commanded , 10.5.39 . and what I meet not there , I do not belieue ; because I am persuaded it 's it that God has left vnto vs for to instruct vs ; and that it contains expresly and cleerly , what wee are bound to belieue . But wee haue proued in the two former chapters , that Scripture does not contain all articles which wee are bound to belieue ; and that euen the fundamental points of Religion , are not sufficiently proued by Scripture alone without an infaillible interpreter : for there is not any text hardly of Scripture but may be interpreted in different sences , and Scripture alone does not ascertain vs , which is the true sence : And if an Heretick did aryse , and say , that it is not lawfull to keepe sunday for a Holy day , but saturday ; because God commanded this should be kept , and the Apostles could not alter it against the express command of God , Ex. 20. if he should say , that it is lawfull for vs to keepe but one Holy day and no more in the weeke , and that wee are obliged to work the other six dayes according that text , six dayes thou shalt work , but the seaueth is the Sabaoth of they Lord , Ex. 20. can his errour be eleerly proued by Scripture alone ? if he should say , that it is not conformable to the instruction of Christ , to giue the Communion to Women , because wee do not read that Christ should haue giuen it to any ; by what Scripture will you conuince him of an error ? If he should say , that you cannot in conscience defend your right against one who commences a suit in law against you , or that is an vniust vsurper of your goods ; he will giue you plain Scripture for it : To him that will contest with you in Law , and take your Coat from you , giue him also your Cloak : Mat. 5.40 . and by what text will you conuince him , that he misvnderstands that text ? if he should say with the Luciferians , that a Priest who would apostatise from his Religion , ought not to be receiued again to the Communion of the Church , though he did repent , grounded vpon the words of Christ , Mat. 5. if the salt ( that 's to say the Doctors and Pastors of the Church ) hath lost its Sauour , wher with shall it be salted ? it is therfore good for nothing but to be cast out , and trod vnder foot of men . This is a damnable error , the doore is still open Mr ▪ Sall , if you will but knock with repentance : yet no text of Scripture doth cleerly conuince that errour ; finally there was neuer yet any Heresy , no neuer will be , but will hit vpon some text of Scripture to proue its error : and if it be lawfull for euery man to interpret he Scripture in the sence that seems best to him , they will neuer be conuinced by Scripture alone .

Hence it follows , that since the texts of Scripture admit different sences ; either of two things must happen ; or that God has left it arbitrary to Mankind , to belieue that sence , which each one bonafide thinks in his own iudgment to be the best ; and has not obliged him to submit his iudgment to the sence giuen by any other ; and if so , Arriants , Protestants , Catholiks and all are of a good Religion ; for each of vs belieues that sence of Scripture which wee think the truest , which is all that God requires . Or if God has obliged vs all , to belieue one sence of Scripture , though that sence may not seem the best to this , or that particular man ; and will haue vs submit our iudgments and belieue that sence , which he obliges vs all to belieue ; if so , then God must haue appointed some suprem Autority to declare vnto vs , what sence is that , which he will haue vs all belieue ; to which all dissenting Parties must assent , and submit their iudgment : for it were vnbecoming the goodness of God to oblige man vnder pain of damnation to belieue one sence , and no other of all the different sences the letter of Scripture admits ; and not to afford som assured means and publick Authority ( for no priuat authority will suffice ) to propose vnto vs , what sence it that . Nor will it be possible to keep vs in Vnity of Faith , without this suprem Authority , for it s not possible to haue Vnity of Faith , if wee do not all hold one and the same senee of Scripture : nor it is possible that wee all hold the same sence , if there be not a publick Authority for to propose vnto vs what sence is it , that wee must hold , to whose iudgment wee must be all bound to acquiesce ; for if it be lawfull for euery man to reiect that Authority , and hold that sence of Scripture which he iudges the best ; it will be lawfull for euery man to liue in a different Religion from that of others , and so there will neuer be any Vnity of Faith and Religion .

Now that the suprem Authority appointed by Christ for to decide our Controuersies , and deliuer vnto vs the true sence of Scripture , is the Church establisht by Christ , it s proued by the texts of Scripture alleadged in the beginning of this Chap. its proued also by the practise of all ages ; for when in the Apostles dayes there arose a controuersy about the Circumcision of the Gentils som affirmed they ought , not only be baptised , but also circumcised ; others denyed the Necessity , of Circumcision ; both Parties alleadged Scripture , but neither was appayed : and how was the controuersy decided and the true sence of Scripture alleadged by both , proposed ; by the Church conuened in a Council at Ierusalem . Act. 15. the one Party was condemned for Hereticks if they did not submit ▪ and acquiesce to the Doctrin proposed by the Church . About the yeare 324. arose a dispute betwit Arrius , ( that was a member of the Catholick Church , and others also Catholicks , concerning the Diuinity of Christ ; each of the disputants alleadged seueral texts of Scripture , and pretended his own , to be the true sence : who decided this Controuersy ? was it the Scripture alone without a publick authority to propose the sence of it ? No , but the Church , gathered in the Nicen Council , to whose decisions all Christians were bound to acquiesce , and condemned as Hereticks that would not . About the yeare 378. arose a dispute between Macedonius and other Catholicks concerning the Diuity of the H. G. which he denied ; both Parties cited many texts of Scripture , but the dispute was not ended vntill the Church , gathered in a Council at Constantinople , examined that question and texts produced by both Contestants , and concluded against Macedonius : after which Decision it was not lawfull to doubt of the Diuinity of the H. G. To be brief look into all ages that euer any question arose concerning Religion , the final decision was alluayes deuolued to the Church , who deliuered the true sence of Scripture quoted by the Disputants , and esteemed an Heretick that did not submit . This shews that the world did euer yet belieue , the suprem authority of deciding controuersies , and deliuering the true sense of Scripture was still in the Church .

But the wery Protestants themiselues , who decry the Church , and will haue no other Iugde of Controuersies but Scripture , do confess that betwixt two Parties prouing their differents Assertions of Religion out of Scripture , the Church hath the suprem authority of deciding , and deliuering the true sence of Scripture , to which both Parties are obliged in conscience to acquiesce : read Doctor Porter in his Treatise of Char. Mist . pag. 195. and Chilling-worth in his Book of the Protestant Religion a safe way of saluation , pag. 206. and B. Lawd cited by Doctor Porter they teach , that the Decrees of General Council bind all Persons , oblige in conscience , til euideuce of Scripture or a demonstration maks their error appeare , that they are not to be controlled by priuat spirits , nor cannot de renuersed but by an equal authority of an other General Council But because Protestants easily contradict one an other ; and others will say these are but opinions of priuat Doctors , and not the Doctrin of the Protestant Church : I will proue that what euer their Doctrin be , their practice proues that they belieue the supreme authority of deciding Controuersies betwitxt two Parties disputing out of Scripture , to be only in the Church : the proof .

Arminius a Minister of Amsterdam and Professor of Diuinity at Leyden , broached new Doctrin , touching points of Predestination , Grace and Liberty ; quite contrary to the Doctrin of Caluin , receiued in the Churchs of Holland . By his wit and credit , he got many Proselyts , that in a short tyme , his Doctrin made great progress throughout all the States . Gomarus , nothing inferior to him in wit and reputation ; an ancient Professor of Diuinity at Groeningue opposed this nouelty , and with all the ancient Ministers stood for the Doctrin of Caluin . Printed Pamphlets were publisht ; Texts of Scripture quoted , but neither did yield to the other ; each drew Abettors to their opinions , and the Prouinces were deuided into two factions of Armenians , and Gomarists . The Churchs of Hollands petitioned to the States General for a National Synod to determin the Controuersy , but Armenius strengthned with the protection of Barneuelt A duocat General of the States , obtained that in lieu of a Synod , the matter should be discussed in a conference of Diuins : the States deputed som persons of quality for to heare the Disptutans ; Arminius presented himself with four Diuines , and Gomarus with as many : Arminius his fiue articles were scan'd ; texts of Scripture searched for , and carefully examined , reasons proposed by both Parties with all ardor ; nothing omitted that wit or industruy could giue , and after a tedious and eager dispute , the question remained vndecided ; the Parties receded , each proclaming the victory .

Armenius dyed soon after , but his schollers took vp the cudgle , and gain'd so much ground vpon the Gomarists , that all the three Prouinces of Holland , Vtrecht , and Ouerissel embraced their fiue Articles ; and pretended a petition to the States General for a toleration in the profession of that Doctrin , which they offered to defend with the pure word of God : adding , it did not appertain to a National Synod but to the Diuins of each particular Prouince to take cognisance of the affairs of Religion in that Prouince , and therefore they protested against any National Synod . The Gomarists on the other syde cryed out for a Synod : the controuersy did not only trouble the peace of the Prouinces , but made a great Ecco in the neigh bouring Reformed Churchs . The King of England by his Embassador , Sr Dudley Carleton , represented to the States that the only means for to allay those disputes was a National Synod , to whom it belonged to iudge which of the Doctrins controuerted was the most conformable to the word of God , and if both could be toletated in the Church ; and therefore demanded a Synod . Zeland and the other Prouinces demanded the same ; as also the Protestant Princes of Germany ; the Commonwealth of Geneua , and generally all the Reformed Churchs . All this passage is faithfully extracted , ex Act. Synodi Dordrectani , Typis Isaaci Ioannis Canicy printed at Dordtecht an ▪ Dom. 1620.

Heervpon the States General issued their circular letters to all the Prouinces requiring , that each should send six of their best Diuines to Dordrecht , were the Synod was open'd the 13. December an 1618. The King of England , the Electors of Palatin , Branderbourg , and Lansgraue of Hesse , the Valons , the Cantons of Surich , Berne , Basle , and Schaffouse , the Commonwealths of Geneua , Breme , and Embidem sent their Diuins of most credit and learning to this Synod , so that wee may call it more than a National Synod , and a Representatiue of all the Reformed Churchs . And though the Ministers of France were not permitted to go thither , they sent their iudgment of the question debated , in writing . The Arminians protested against the Synod , as being a Partie concerned ; and consequently not a competent Iudge , being composed of Persons confessedly of the doctrin of the Gomarists . ( was it not thus that the Reformers protested against the Council of Trent . ) The deputies of te extern Churches deliuered in writing their opinions of this protestation : Those of England ; that it was against the practice of the primitiue Church ; of the Councils of Nice , Constantinople , Chalcedo , and Ephese , whose members were confessedly of the Catholick Church , opposed by Arius , Nestorius , Macedonius , and Eutyches ; that not withstanding they were competent iudges , against whom no protestation was admitted , but all Parties were obliged to submit . The Diuins of Palatin ; that to determin a controuersy in Religion , the Parties must not go to the Turks or Pagans , or to indifferent Persons , that profess no Religion ; but must be said by the Pastors and Prelats of that Church , wherof they are members , and wherin the question is debated . The Diuins of Geneua , that both Parties were by the sentence of Christ bound to submit to the Synod , or to be esteemed Heathens and Publicans . All the rest of the Diuins concluded the same ; whervpon the Synod condemned that protestation , and declared , it self to be the lawfull and soueraign Iudge in that cause ; Vel abycere debent omnem protestationem aduersus Synodum , & subjicere sua dogmata illius judicio , vel certe si manent in protestatione immoti , eo ipso se declarant vnioni Ecclesiarum reformatarum renunciare : Or they must set by all Protestations against the Synod , and submit their doctrin to its iudgment , or if they persist in their protestation , therby they declare themselues to renounce the communion of reformed Churches . Is not this to declare them Schismaticks that will not submit to the Church ? The Armeniens were then summoned to waue the Protestation and giue in writing their fiue articles , which they did ; they were examined by the Synod , and condemned as erroneous and contrary to the word of God ; and all those that would sustain them incapacitated for to beare any charge , or exercise any Ecclesiasticall function , Sess. 138.

The Armeniens did not submit to this iudgment alleadging the Synod ( as all others ) was fallible , and did err in this point , and therefore could not be obliged in conscience to submit ; and perhaps some Protestants will syde with them , saying that a Councill can not oblige mens consciences , and that their Decrees can reach no further , than to what concerns the Politick gouernment of the flock : but this Synod , which indeed was more than a National one , of the Reformed Churchs , and assisted by the deputyes of the Church of England , declares an obligation in conscience of acquiescing to its decisions , not only by the words now alleaged , but by the Sess. 42. Si conscientiae suae ( quam debent ) oationem habent , ad obtemperandum supremarum Potestatum mandatis , hujusque Synodi ordini & iudicio acquiescendum tenentur . If they haue any regard for their Conscience , ( behold their Decrees reach to the Consciences ) they are bound to obey the commands of the heigher Powers , and acquiesce to the iudgment of this Synod . And immediatly after this Synod , when the Arminiens insisted in their reason for not submitting , because the Synod was fallible , the States consulted their National Synod then assembled at Delpht , what ought to be don , This answered , that notwithstanding the Synod was fallible , they were obliged in conscience to belieue the sence of Scripture proposed by it : and giues for reason ; that wheras many pious and learned Doctors from all Churchs did meet together in the feare of the Lord , to declare by the word of God , what ought to be belieued , omnino credendum est , it must be vndoubtedly belieued , that Christ according his promiss , was present to that meeting , and gouern'd it , by the Holy Ghost Iudic. Syn. Desph . Sess. 26. Syn. Dord . And if the Decrees of Councils reach not to oblige Consciences , then Arrius must not be iudged an Heretick though condemned by the Council of Nice , nor can Mr Sall belieue S. Athanasius his Creed with the heauenly gift of Faith wherwhith he belieues the Scripture , as he acknowledges , pag. 18.

Now whateuer any particular Doctor or Doctors of the Church of England say ; what Pagan , would enquire into the Mysteries of Christian Religion with a desire of being instructed , would reade this Synod of Dordrecht , and Delpht , and also the Councils of Nice and all other General Councils of the Catholick Church , and would not vnderstanding , that it is the Doctrin and practice of both Church the Reformed and Catholick , that the Councils haue the suprem Authority of deciding Controuersies , and deliuering the true sence of Scripture ; that none can protest against the authority of Councils legally assembled ; and that both Parties contesting about any point of Religion , is to be said by the Church , wherof they are Members , and whoeuer will not submit renounces the vnion of the Church , and becoms schismatick .

Hence it follows Mr Sall , that wheras there was no Christian Church visible , when your first Reformers opposed the Catholick Tenets , but the Roman Catholick Church ; They were obliged to be iudged by her , andsubmit their doctrin to her iudgment , they being Members of that Church ; that in declining her Authority in the Council of Trent , and protesting against her , as being a Partie , and fallible ; they became Schismaticks . And if the Reformation in its of spring was schismatical , doubtless in their continuation it must be so , for tyme giues no prescription to an errour , nor haue you more right to continue in that separation from vs , than your first Reformers had to begin it . And as the Arrians are still Hereticks , though separated from vs these 1300 years , and still obliged to teturn , so are you .

Now let vs heare Mr Sall what means did he vse to vnderstand 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 co●●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 willfully , 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 went to the Church of England , whose Eminent Persons by word and writting 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 word of God contained in Canonical Scripture , and the plain vndubitable consequences out of it . But Mr Sall , you might haue belyed them all by your own experience , who read Scriptuse , assisted with your eminent with ( forsooth ) and knowleg in sciences , assisted by the Fathers Historyes and Councils , and yet , as you tell vs , all made you doubt ( pag. 18. ) but could not assure you of the truth or vntruth of our errours : consequently somthing else is requisit for to know assuredly what is Truth , and what not : But Mr Sall , before that the Cchurch of England , by her Eminent Persons , did tell you the Scripture alone and its vndubitable consequences is the intyre summe of Faith , did you know that to be be true ? did you vnderstand it to be true by the Scripture when you frequently read it , and by Councils and Fathers ? if you did ▪ to what purpose do you speake vnto vs of the Church of England ? what need had you to go to her ? You ought to haue sought and found the resolution of your doubts in the Scripture alone and its vndubitable consequences : if you did not , then you belieue the Scripture and its indubitable consequences to be the summe of our Faith vpon the testimony of the Church of England and her Eminent Persons , which being fallible as you and she confess all your Faith is built on a fallible bottom .

Moreouer Mr Sall , the Church of England informed , that the Scripture alone , and its indubitable consequences are the whole summe of diuine Faith : but did the Church of England tell you , who is he , that must draw those indubitable consequences ? Must those consequences be drawen by a publick Authority establisht by Christ , or is it sufficient that the consequences seem vndubitable to you or me , or any priuat person ? If the second , then all sectaries in the world haue a true rule of Faith , which is their own reason that dictats what they belieue , to be an vndenyable consequence of Scripture ; and none can blame them for they regulat their Faith by the rule that Christ has appointed , if the first , then the Church of England , should haue informed you , what suprem Authority is that , which must draw those consequences , and aproue or reproue those which to priuat persons seem to be vndeniably deduced out of Scripture : But this which your instructors omitted , has been shewen vnto you in this Chapter , not only by Scripture and reason , but by the practise of your Reformed Churchs represented in the Synod of Dordrecht ; that when two Contestants draw contradictory consequences out of Scripture , each one pretending his own to be vndubitably deduc'd out of the Text , the Church wherof the Parties are Members , has the suprem Authority to resolue which is the true consequence ; that the Parties are bound in conscience to submit to her iudgment ; and to be held for Schismatiks if they do not : and wheras your first Reformers drew consequences which seemed to them to follow vndubitably from Scripture , and their Aduersaryes iudged the contrary to be vndubitable true ; your Reformers were bound to submit to the Catholik Church wherof theyr were Members , and learne of her which were the true consequences , and were Schismatick for not doing so ; and as their errour descended to you and your liuing Brethren ; the obligation also of being instructed by the Catholik Church , and acquiescing to her iudgment descends vnto you . And thus Mr Sall you miserably mistooke the means which Christ appointed for to instruct vs in Religion .

V. CHAPTER . THE CHVRCH ESTABLISHED FOR our instruction , is infallible .

THough I reserue a chapter a part for Mr Salls arguments against this Tenet , yet I must heere toucth two of them , which shew that he is either ignorant , or malicious in mistaking our doctrin , by the answer to which I will declare , what wee belieue in this particular . He impugns our doctrin from the pag. 29. to 35. and from the pag. 39. to 44. pag. 39. he argues that Infallibility is an Attribut proper to Gods essence , which can no more be communicated to any Creature , than the Deyty itself ; it s a Blasphemy , saies he , to attribute to any creature , that which is proper to God alone ; consequenty the Church of Rome is guilty of Blasphemy in teaching the Pope or Council is infallible . I cannot belieue but that you are sufficienty sensible of the weakness of this argument , which from the very beginning of your pretended Reformation is so common , that any Collier will answer it ; especially that it , and all the arguments you bring in your whole discourse are exactly set down in Bellarmin , ( whence you haue borrowed them ) and most euidently answered ; and if you had any ingenuity you ought not to trouble your Auditory with such third bare tryfles , but tell them also , what wee answer ; and retort it if you could . Can you that pretends to the credit of a Professor of Diuinity , ignore , that a man , who is by his own Nature Mortal , might by Gods Protection , ( who promises him , he shall neuer dye ) be immortal ? and why will you deny but that Man , who by Nature is subiect to errour , may by Gods special protection , ( promising him that he shall neuer err ) be kept from falling into any errour or mistake ? This is what wee belieue , that the Church , which is by Nature ( as being a congregation of Men ) fallible , may be mistaken , and though ignorance or malice teach an vntruth , but that God has promised to assist her continually with his spirit , for to leade her into all Truth ; and neuer to permit her to teach or belieue any errour : by virtue of wich promiss ( iudge you if such a promiss be impossible ) wee say the Church cannot err in her doctrin , which is to be infallible .

Dare you deny , but that the Prophets , the Apostles , and Euangelists were infallible , in what they taught and writ ? dare you deny but that the Church of God is infallible in fundamental points of Religion ? and are you therefore guilty of Blasphemy , or do you intrench on Gods prerogatiues , or giue his Attributs to creatures ? God is infallible by Nature ; by his own proper perfection , this is his Attribut ; and this cannot be giuen to any creature : to be infallible by the protection of an other , who defends him from falling into any errour , is not Attribut of God , it were a Blasphemy to say that he is infallible in that manner ; but the Prophets , Apostles , Euangelists , and the Church are thus infallible , by Gods special protection and the conduct of his spirit .

An other argument against our Tenet . pag. 30. is the disagreement of our Authors , in placing this infallibity : some will haue it to be in the Pope alone ; others in him and a Council of Cardinals ; others in the Pope and General Council alone . This dissention is to Mr Sall a concluding argument that there is no such thing as Church infallibity : and thus he furnishes the Deists with a concluding argument , that there is no such thing as true Religion in the world ; for , will the Deists say with him ; the Authors that pretend to true Religion , do not agree where it is ; some say its in the Iewish Church ; others that it is in the Protestants , others in the Catholik Church ; others in other Congregations ; and will conclude in Mr Salls Dialect ; that there is no such thing as true Religion extant , because the Pretenders to it , do not agree where to find it . But the poore Man , ignorantly or maliciously mistakes our doctrin : all Catholiks do agree in the infallibility of the Pope and General Council ioyntly , this is the infallibility wee belieue as an article of Faith .

It s true , that the Catholik Authors do dispute if the Pope alone is infallible ; some say he is , and will haue it to be an article of Faith that he is ; others say that he is not , but with a Council of Cardinals and Diuines ; others say , that neither this is an article of Faith ; some say that a General Council legally assembled is infallible in their Decrees , though not confirmed by the Pope ; others say not , if they be not confirmed by him . But all these are but school questions ; the Church heares them , and permits them to dispute : and whateuer Bellarmin or any other saies , wee are not obliged to belieue it to be an article of faith whylst it is opposed by other Catholick Doctors and the Church does not determin the Controuersy : but what you are to obserue is ; that those Doctors who defend the infalliblity of the Pope alone ; and those that deny it ; those that affirm the infallibility of the Council alone , and those that contradict it , they agree vnanimously in the infallibity of the Pope and Council together ; because that with out any controuersy the Pope and Council ioyintly , represents the vniuersal Church ; and the vniuersal Church is infallible : this is the article of Faith wee belieue . And if you tell vs , a Pope , or a General Council has err'd ; you will tell vs nothing to the purpose , if you do not shew that a Pope and Council together has err'd : for that 's the Church , hauing by the answer of these two arguments , declared what infallibility the Church clayms , and where wee belieue this infallibility to be , let vs now proue our Tenet .

First , it s a comfort to an vnacquainted Traueller to be guided by one whom he firmly belieues to be acquainted with the way : though really your guide were not acquainted with the way , if you certainly belieue he is , and that he cannot stray ; though you do not know the way yourself , you will follow him with satisfaction , and without feare of being byass'd : but if you do not know the way , and you belieue your guide is not so well acquainted , but that he may stray ; you will still trauell with feare of being byass'd . This is the different condition of a Catholik and a Protestant : the Catholick trauelling in the way to saluation , ( which is Religion ) is guided by a Church , which he , without the least doubt , belieues cannot be mistaken ; whether she can or not , since he is absolutly perswaded she cannot , he trauells with satisfaction and without feare : the Protestant in this way , is guided by a Church , which he belieues , is not so well assured of the way , but that she may err ; ought he not therefore to walk disatisfyed , and with continual feare of being mislead ?

You answer that the Protestant is not lead by the Church , but by the Scripture ; which is an infallible guide . It s very sure , the Scripture is infallible , vnderstood in the true sence , but you can haue no assurance that you haue the true sence of Scripture ; consequently you can haue no assurance , that you haue an infallible guide ; this proposition is certain : The Scripture ill interpreted , does mislead : this proposition is also certain , you , and your Church may err , in the interpretation of Scripture comparing one text with an other . Since therefore your guide in the road of Faith , is the Scripture interpreted by you , and your Church , comparing on text with an other . You are guided by a guide , that may err and mislead you ; and as you haue no well grounded assurance , that you and your Church do not err in the interpretation of Scripture , cōparing one text with an other ; you can haue no assurance but that you are mislead . But the Catholik belieuing his Church to be infallible in the interpretation of Scripture , does rest his mind in the full assurance of the truth he professeth .

And ought not you to embrace that doctrin , which giues you that satisfaction , and rest of mind ; rather than the Protestant doctrin of fallibility , which leaues you doubtfull , if what you belieue be true or not ? Particularly when in belieuing it , you hazard nothing : not your saluation ; for all learned Protestants ( which wee will proue against Mr Sall ) do grant saluation in the express beliefe of articles of Popery ; you reply , it s no solid comfort , that the Catholik amuses himself with , in belieuing his Church that guides him to be infallible , if really she be not so : for if it proues in effect to be otherwise , he will come short of his imaginary comfort , and will find that he and his Church is mistaken . I answer , if wee consider the testimonies of Scripture , the strength of reason , the consent of ages , the multitude of Vniuersityes Fathers and Doctors that defend this doctrin of infallibility ; it is as lykely to be true as your doctrin of fallibility ; it s as lykely that you are mistaken in belieuing fallibility , as I am in belieuing infallibility : you run therefore as great a hazard of being mistaken as I do : on the other syde , you cannot haue that satisfaction without feare of being mislead ; that rest of mind , in the assurance of the truth ( for you may err ) by belieuing fallibility , as I haue by belieuing infallibility : my condition then is still better than yours , and my doctrin to be prefered before yours .

Your Church , as you confess may err in points of Religion , whence it manifestly follows that it is not the true sence of Scripture , that leads you in the road to Religion ; for the true sence of Scripture is absolutly infallible : I ask you therefore , on what do you ground your Faith ? You tell me , that vpon the Scripture as interpreted by your Church , and comparing one text with an other ; but it may happen that your Church may err in the interpretation ; that you confess , for you say the true Church may err , now I argue thus : whoeuer may err , relying vpon a Principle ; can neuer be sure that he does not err , whylst he relyes only on that Principle : this proposition is vndeniable ; for if he can err relying on that Principle ; it s because the Principle is fallible , and if the Principle be fallible , it alone without the help of some other , can neuer giue any assurance that you do not err : for example you belieue the King is in London because an honest Man tells you so ; that is a fallible ground , which you rely on , and you may err by relying on that ground , and as long as you rely only on that mans testimony , and haue no other ; you will neuer be assured of the Kings being at London . You belieue the Church fallibility : and on what ground do you rely ? on Scripture as interpreted by the Church : you may err relying on this Principle as you confess ; therefore as long as you rely on this Principle only , and haue no other , you can neuer be assured that you do not err : the Church of England has no other , nor will admit no other Principle to ground their Faith vpon , but the Scripture interpreted by her , and comparing one text with an other therefore she can neuer be assured of the doctrin she belieues ; consequently cannot be assured of the fallibility of the true Church .

What will you say in this case : there is a Man accused of Murther before your tribunal , he does not only deny the fact , but many circumstances fauours his innocency , and the very Person that accuses him saies , he is not sure , he is the Murtherer : surely you would not condemn this Man to death ; it being against all the maxims of iustice to punish a man that is not conuicted criminal . This is the very matter in hand : the true Church is accused of fallibility and falshood in her doctrin ; the circumstances of hauing florished for so many ages , in the credit of an infallible Oracle , fauors her innocency , and her Accuser , which is the Church of England , does confess that she may err in her accusation , and consequently must confess , as wee proued , that she cannot be sure , she does not err ; for she grounds her accusation on the Scripture interpreted by her , in which she may err ; and whylst she has no other Principle but that , she can neuer be certain she does not err : will not you then acquit the Church , of whose crime her accuser is not sure , as you would that Man accused of Murther ?

Add this discourse to the former : it is a Principle in all well gouerned Commonwealhs , that a preacable Possessor is not to be disturbd from his possession , vntill that by vnquestionable proofs he be conuicted an vniust vsurper or detainer ; no coniectures , nor probable reasons will put him out of possession : he will still with a safe conscience maintain it ; and the law will continue him in it , vntill that by euident proofs he be conuicted . The true Church was in all ages in peacable possession of this prerogatiue of infallibility , neuer denyed to her , but by some few condemned Heretiks : what euident vnquestionable proofs can you bring to conuince her an vniust vsurper or detainer of it ? Reason affords you none , for to say that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God , is impertinent ; wheras she clayms no other infallibility , but such as you grant to the Prophets , Apostles and Euangelists : but , say you , in a General Council , which is a multitude of Men , where a point of Religion is to be resolued by the maior part of Votes : and where passion , and interest somtymes may sway , it may happen , that an errour may haue more Abettors , and truth be out voted : This is to say that God has no Prouidence ouer his Church : since he has promised the conduct of his infallible spirit to her , for to lead her into all truth , and keep her vnspotted from all errours ; let each particular of that multitude be euer so corrupt in himself : God , who can as easily gouern the harts of many , as of one ; will not permit them to determin an errour , nor truth to be out voted . Was not the Council of the Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem a multitude ? Were not the first four General Concils multitudes , which the Protestants confess to haue been infallible , and guided by Gods spirit , which was as necessary to the Councils of succeeding ages , the emergent Controuersyes being no fewer in number , nor less in weight .

Neither does Scripture afford you any : match , if you can these texts : I am with you all the dayes , untill the consummation of the world Math. 28.20 . and if the Church did teach an vntruth , would Christ be with her then ? He will give you an other Paraclet the Spirit of Truth , that will abyde with you for euer ; who will leade you into all truth . Io. 14.16 . when the Paraclet will come , whom I will send from my Father , the Spirit of truth , he will giue testimony of me , and you will giue testimony : Io. 15.26 . the Paraclet and the Chruch , are ioynt Witnesses of the truth .

Nor does experience fauor you : all that you can shew is that some Pope did err , or that some Council did err ; but that s not to the purpose , if you do not shew ( which you will neuer do ) thal a Pope and Council together has erred . wheras therefore neither scripture , Reason , nor experience doth afford you any vnquestionable evident proofs , that the Chruch is an vnuist vsurper or detainer of that prerogatiue of infaillibility , which she has en ioyed in all ages , why will you pretend to disturb her peacable possession ?

Let vs heare what the scripture suyes : Lu. 10.16 . He that heareth you , heareth me : Christ spoke to his Apostles and Disciples on whom he layd the charge of teaching and preaching , and who were the Church representatiue : whateuer therefore wee heare from the Chruch representatiue , wee heare it from Christ ; whateuer the Church speaks , Christ speaks , otherwyse wee should not heare Christ speak , when wee heare the Church speake : the Church therefore , is the Mouth by which Christ speaks : and as we cannot heare an vntruth from him , as he cannot speak any , so she cannot speake , nor be heard to speake an vntruth : this is de clared by S. Paul 1. Thes. 2.13 . when you receiued from vs the word of the hearing of God , you receiued it , not as the word of Man , but as indeed it is , the word 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 . when the Paraclet wi●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 world .

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 knoweth God heareth vs , he that knoweth not God , heareth vs not . In this we know 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 ) with 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 world , 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 , was a conditional promise as appears by Christ his word Io. 14.16 . if you loue me , keep my commandmens , and I will ask my father , and he will giue you an other Paraclet , that he may abyde with you for euer ; euen the Spirit of Truth , whom the world cannot receiue . The Paraclet is promised on condition they Keepe the commandments ; and by the later words , whom the world cannot receiue ; the Paraclet is flatly denied to all those , the Scripture styles by the name of world ; 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 will ask my Father , and he will 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 with you all dayes , euen to the consummation of the world . Mat. 16. the Gates of hell shall not preuayle agaiust her . Io. 16 13. when 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 wil not heare the Church , let him be to you as a Heathen and Publican . We proue it out of S. Iohn 14.18 . He will giue you an other Paraclet , the spirit of truth , that will a byde with 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 with you all dayes to the consummation of the world giuing vs to vnderstand , 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 . when the Paraclet will come , whom I will send from my Father the spirit of Truth , who proceedeth from the Father , he will giue testimony of me , and you will 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 word is not the word of Man , but indeed of God , and consequently infallible . 1. Thes. 2. bu● 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 , whateuer 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. ●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 : what man of a sound wit , can belieue , that they were ignorant of any thing whom 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 which ye haue learned , ▪ wheter by Epistles , or by word 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 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 word of Mouth , or in writing ; what Doctrin they deliuered verbally , or by word of Mouth , is doubted of by Posterity ; if This , or That be of Apostolicall Tradition ; alsoe the written word 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 written word , to inform and ascertain vs what Doctrin the Apostles did teach : so wee pretend that , though the Apostles haue taught verbally and by their written word all Truths of Religion , yet since that wee see T is douted what the Apostles did teach verbally , and which is their written 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 written word of the Apostles , and the true sence of that written word ; 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 writ ; wheras S. Paul commands vs to hold fast the Traditions receiued from them , whether by written 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 word was indeed the word 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 will 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 ; now in this I haue knowen , thou art a man of God , and the word of our Lord in they mouth is true . Christ being asked if he was the Messias , proued himself to be such , by the Miracles he wrought , Mat. 11.3 . The blind see , the lame walk , 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 know that the son of Man hath power 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 were not with him . ) and that no man can deny or doubt her doctrin to be from God : wherefore Christ ( Mat. 11.21 . pronounced Wo 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 Waldenses , 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 know that these things , ( meaning those Tenets opposed by the foresaid Hereticks ) are true , and those false , which the Heretiks endeuour , to perswade you that whosoeuer 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 without any such restriction , that his meaning was , that whosoeuer 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 that great persecutor of Images , vnderstanding that Damascen was very actiue in defending their worship , and that he had writ learnedly in the defence of that Tenet ; conterfeited a letter , as written by Damascen vnto him , inuiting him to surprise the Citty of Damasco , wherof he was Gouernor ; this letter Leo Isaurus sent vnto Hisiam , Caliph , or King of the Saracens , whose subiect Damscen was ; prouing thence the Treachery of Damascen , and his own sincerity and honesty in detesting so execrable an action of a subiect against so deseruing a Prince : Hisiam astonis●ht that Damascen should be capable of so base an action , consulted his Councellers , concluded him guilty , and condemn'd him to the forfeiture of his Means and Imployments , and that his right hand should be cut of , and nayld to a gibet in the Market place ; which being executed , the saint retyred to his house , humbly beg'd of ▪ Hisiam that his hand might be restored to him ; this was granted ; and the saint betaking himself to his Oratory , prostrated before the Picture of our B. Lady , earnestly prayed het , that that hand , which by the malice of Leo Isaurus he had lost for defending the honor of her and the saints Images might be restored to him ; which . He promised he would continually imploy in defending that Doctrin against the Heresy of the I conoclasts : he fell asleep ; and the Mother of God appearing to him , said ; Theypetition is granted , and they hand restored ; but remember to imploy it , according to they promise , in writing against the impiety of those who iniure vs by their vn worthy demeanor towards our Images : awaked out of his sleep he found his hand as perfectly vnited to his arm , as euer it hath been . This Miracle was diuulged ; Damascen call'd by Hisiam ; and after so supernatural a testimony of his Innocency , restored to his former dignities and Means ; all which he renounced ; gaue his Means to the Poore , and became a Priest , and a great Opposer of the Iconoclasts . There is hardly any age of the Church but affords vs the lyke Miracles wrought by the Roman Catholicks in confirmation of our Doctrin : it were tedions to rehearse more , especially when these now related are sufficient for the present subiect .

That these things happen'd ( whither they were true Miracles or no , wee do not dispute now ) but that such things as wee haue related , did really happen , no sober man can deny it ; for certainly he would be held for an obstinat fool that would say , there was no such man as Caesar or Cicero in the world ; that he neuer fought with Pompey ; for which wee haue no other warrant , but the testimony of Heathen Authors ( for no Christian did euer see them ) and none but a mad man will deny but S. Agustin , S. Bernard , Iohn-Hierosolimitanus and other saints and learned D. Doctors that writ the forementioned passages , and others of the same kind in seueral other ages , are as much deseruing of credit , as the Heathens : and if you did meet in S. August . S. Bern. and other saints , that the figuratiue presence was belieued in their ages , and such as belieued Purgatory , were punisht , doutless you would belieue them , and cry victory against vs ; it can not then be , but preiudice that will hinder you from belieuing those passages did happen , wheras they do in their writtings testify they happen'd in their own presence ▪ what caracter would he deserue , who would say , there was no such man as william the Conqueror in England ; no such thing , as wars betwixt france an England in Ancient tyms ; no such things a spanish fleet defeated by the English , in Queen Elizabeths tyme and Philip the second of Spain . would not you iudge such à man to be mad : for all this wee haue no other warrant but Histories ; and the Authors were not , more honest , learned , wyse and holy than S. Augustin , Bern : and other saints who relate Miracles wrought in all-ages-can he then deserue a better caracter , than of a mad man or fool that will deny them ? moreouer either S. Augustin , S. Bern , and the other saints that relate those Miracles , did belieue the Tenets of Inuocation of saints , adoration of Images , and real Presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament , or not ? if they did , then you confess that the saints now raigning in heauen , and confessed by you to be saints , and none of the simple sort , but learned wyse men , did belieue and were saued in the belief of our Tenets : if they did not belieue them ; what end or aduantage could they haue in feigning those Miracles : wee must therefore confess , those things did happen , in their own presence as they say . Lastly the Protestant Doctors do not deny but such things did happen ; but they say they were no true Miracles : the Centurists , and Osiander in Epit. cent. 9.10.11 . pag. 213. the Miracles which superstitious Monks relate , are either feigned Miracles , or wrought by Satans enchantments to establish wicked worship of Images , Inuocation of saints &c. not that I think S. Bernard was a Magician ( saies Osiander Cent. 12. pag. 310. ) but that I think it probable , Satan wrought the Miracles , wherby the saint himself , and others were deceiued .

Supposed then , that such things did really happen , wee will proue they were , and wee are bonnd to belieue they were true Miracles : for this you cannot deny , but that S. August . S. Bern : Iohn Hierosol . and God fred . who were wyse learned , Holy D. Doctors did know what a Miracle was , as well as you : those saints , and the saints of other ages were ey wittness of what pass'd ▪ they examined narrowly the passages , and their circumstances ; thy iudged them to be true Miracles ; must not wee belieue them to haue been such , rather than your iugdment , who did not see the passages , nor was not born many hundred years after ? and what is to be obserued , that when Damascens hand was restored , and S. Bernard cured the sick by the laoues he blessed ; is it possible , if these had not been notorious miracles , but enchantments , that som Iconoclast , and som Henrician or waldenses , against whose Doctrin they were wrought , should not haue examined and discouered the cheat ? S. Bernard had many Enemyes infrance , all the Henricians , and Apostolici , waldenses ; Damascen had the Emperor Leo for Enemy and all the Iconoclasts , and not only them but in the wery Citty of Damasco , all the Ambitious Courtiers ; who enuyed his greatness , and pressed Hisiam to cut of his hand : and can it be imagined that none of all these should haue writ or published if that passage was a cheat and no knowen miracle ? or by what means did the Centurists , Osiander , and Protestants in our age , come to discouer they were all but enchantments , which the enemyes of those Saints , that then liued , could not discouer ? Once that Luther in Germany thought to cheat the world , and make men believe he could cast out Deuils , the cheat was discouered and many writers of that tyme did relate it . Once that Caluin in Geneua thought to delude the world , and shew that he could rayse the dead , he bryb'd a man to feign himself dead , that he might be thought to rayse him to lyfe ; but the man was found dead in good earnest , and the fourberie published by many writers . And those Miracles related by Saints and Ecclesiastical Histories , had they been Sorceries and enchantments , is it possible that the Hereticks , against whose Doctrin they were wrought , or som one then liuing should not haue discouered it ?

This you cannot deny , but that Herod , and many Iews , who neuer did see our Sauiour work any Miracles , nor hear him preach , were bound to belieue , and obstinat for not belieuing our Sauiors Miracles and Doctrin ; only vpon this account , that they were credibly informed by those who were ey witness of his Miracles and doctrin ; notwithstanding that the Scrib● and Pharisees said , they were wrought by the Deuil : wheras therefore S. Augustin , S. Bernard , and the Saints of other ages , are as credible Witnesses as those Iews were that related the Miracles of Christs , and could iudge and know what a miracle was , as well as those Iews , do inform you that those true miracles were wrought in those ages in confirmation of our Catholik Tenets , and that , in their presence ; you are bound to belieue they were true miracles , and obstinat in not belieuing them . To say , as the Centurists and Osiander , that these miraculous works were Sorceries and enchantments , is a most desperat assertion ; first it is to make the Saints and Fathers of antiquity ( who relates them as wrought in their owne presence , examined by them , and iudged to be true miracles ) meer fools , that were deceiued , and knew not to distinguish betwixt a true miracle , and a Sorcery : Secondly what rule or way hath Osiander and the Centurists got , to know those passages to be enchantments and not true miracles , which S. Augustin , S. Bernard and other Saints had not ? Thirdly , Christ appayed the hungar of a multitude with few loaues which he blessed ; S. Bernard cured the diseases of a multitude by the loaues , which he blest : let vs abstract from the Authors of these two actions ; let the actions be considered by a learned Pagan Philosopher , who belieues not in Christ ; will not he iudge them both to be equally miraculous , or both to be but enchantments ? I conclude what all wyse learned holy men , ( and especially euen the aduersaries also of the Author ) do iudge , after an exact examin of all circumstances , to be a true miracle ; it is willfull obstinacy to deny it be such : but the fore named Saints , and they of all other ages ( as will appeare if you read the Ecclesiastical Histories ) haue iudged miracles to be truly wrought in each age , som haue been eywitnesses of miracles , other haue examined and enquired what they were , and their circumstances , and iudged them to be such : S. Iohn Damascen , and S. Bernards enemyes against whom they preached and writ , did not deny them to be such . Therefore wee cannot without obstinacy deny them .

Now , that wee are obliged to belieue the doctrin in whose confirmation they wee wrought , it s proued by what is said ; and that if wee be not obliged to belieue Catholecisme , its most apparent , wee are not obliged to belieue Christianity ; for by the self same arguments by which you proue , against a Pagan , the Christian Religion to be true , wee also proue , the Catholick to be true : consequently either the Catholick must be true or the Christian is not : by what were the Iews and Gentiles perswaded , that Christianity was reuealed by God ? because it was preached by Holy men , of great sanctity of lyfe , of great austerity , of no attache to the world or wordly things , of admirable virtue , and who confirmed their doctrin with supernatural signs and Miracles : but S. Bernard who preached the Inuocation of Saints , Transubstantiation , and veneration of Relicks , against the Henricians , was a great Saint ; witness Whitaker de Eccl. pag. 369. I do realy belieue S. Bernard was a true Saint . Osiander , Cent. 12. Saint Bernard Abot of Clareual was a very pious man . Gomarus in speculo Eccl. pag. 23. One pious man your Church had in many years Bernard a Saint . Pasquils return into Engl. pag. 8. he was one of the lamps of Gods Church . S. Augustin was confessedly a great saint , S. Iohn Damascen that writ seueral learned Treatises against the Iconoclasts for the worship of Images , S. Malachias , S. Thomas Aquinas and S. Francis Xauerius , who conuerted so many Kingdoms in the Indies to the Catholick Religion , at that very tyme , that Luther reuolted from the Church ; all these , and many more great Saints preached the Catholick Religion and confirmed it with many Miracles , as wee haue related and the Histories do manifest : therefore wee haue as strong motiues to persuade the truth of Catholick Religion , as you haue to proue the truth of Christian Religion ; both therefore must be belieued , or neither .

Can any man iudge it consistent with the goodness of God , to permit Transubstantiation and the worship of Saints and Images , if they were false doctrin , to be proposed to men , by great and Holy Saints , and confirmed by so many miracles ; when by the very self same means and motiues of credibility , he proposes to vs Christianity ; wherby men must find themselues equally obliged to belieue both or neither ? nor will it be an euasion , to say that the Miracles wrought in fauor of Christianity were true miracles , and those which were wrought for Popery , were but enchantments and sorceries ; for abstracting from Faith , which obliges vs to belieue that the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were true miracles , our senses and Natural reason cannot but iudge the restitution of Damascens hand , the healing of the sick by the loaues blest by S. Bernard to be as true miracles , as any that was wrought by the Apostles ; and therefore they were iudged by all wyse men of those ages to be such : and abstracting from Faith as I said , what reason can be alleadged for to say , the one were true miracles , and the others not ?

I conclude with this discourse : as Children are obliged in conscience to honor , their Parents , ( its Gods commandment ) so you are obliged in conscience to belieue that Doctrin to be true , which is confirmed by true Miracles : for as wee formerly discoursed , its impossible that God should confirm false Doctrin with true Miracles , that being repugnant to his infinit veracity , to confirm a lye with the seal , and marks of his Commission to teach it : but for your obligation of honoring this particular Man and woman , who are your Parents ; it s not requisit you haue euidence , and infallible assurance , that they are your Parents ; its sufficient for your obligation , that you are morally certain , they are yours ; and this moral assurance which you haue , is grounded only vppon the testimony of honest people that informs you of it : the lyke you haue , that true Miracles haue been wrought in many ages in confirmation of those Tenets of ours , which you call erroneous ; the testimony of great saints , as honest men as those , who tell you that these are your Parents ; therefore you are obliged to belieue that doctrin is true , in whose confirmation those Miracles were wrought .

You reply ; this makes our Faith of that doctrin but fallible Faith ; for if I haue no more assurance of the truth of those Tenets , than I haue of the Miracles that were wrought in confirmation of them ; of the truth of those Miracles , I only haue a moral assurance grounded vpon the testimony and iudgment of those saints which relate them ; all which is but fallible ; for it might happen they were deceiued ; consequently all the certainty I haue of the truth of the Tenets , is but a moral and fallible certainty ; and so our Faith is not infallibly true . I answer , the motiue of my Faith , and ground wher vpon it is bottom'd , is only the voyce of God pronounced by the Church , which deliuers that doctrin of God ; which Motiue and ground is infallibily true . But because this Motiue is obscure , and does not appeare euidently and certainly to the vnderstanding that it does exist , the vnderstanding cannot assent vnto it , vntill it be made more knowen , and the way to make is more knowen , is not to make it euident that it exists ; for the Motiue of Faith must be obscure , and it is against the essence and nature of Faith , to be euident , or the Motiue of it to be euidently proposed to the vnderstanding , as Mr Anderton does most solidly and learnedly demonstrat in his Treatise of a soueraign remedy against Atheism and Heresy : The way therefore of making it more knowen , is to make it euidently credible , and lykely in the iudgment of any rational man , that such a voyce of God speaking by the Church , is extant : and this is don by the Miracles and supernatural signs , which the Church works in confirmation of her Doctrin ; which are vndeniable inducements to any man of reason to iudge it most credible and lykely , that it is God who speaks by that Church : and our vnderstanding being thus confirmed by this iudgment of credibility then follows our obligation of belieuing the Doctrin ; the credibility of the existence of Gods voyce by the Church , and our obligation of belieuing being thus proposed by our vnderstanding ; The vnderstanding is still able to deny an assent to Gods voyce speaking , because nothing can force the vnderstanding to an essent , but the euidence of the obiect ; and it s not euident to the vnderstanding , that God speakes , but euidently credible : therefore ; the will must enter , which assisted with the preuious iudgment of the credibility of the doctrin , and a pious inclination from God , for to resolue , commands the vnderstanding to assent to Gods voyce speaking , in which command of the will determining the vndersting to Assent , the Merit of Faith doth consist . So that the whole and only Motiue of our assent of Faith , is Gods voyce speaking by the Church : the Miracles and other supernatural signs , are not the Motiues of our Faith , but of our Iudgement of credibility , and of our obligation of belieuing a Doctrin so credibly proposed : which Iudgment of credibility and obligation of belieuing , need not to be absolutly and Metaphisically euident , but morally euident in the highest degree of Moral euidence , as it is in this case , that true Miracles haue been wrought in many , or most ages by the Catholick Church in confirmation of her Tenets . Reade the Resolution of Faith in the 2. part of thise Treatise .

Your obligation of belieuing the Miracles of the Church being thus proued , your obligation of belieuing her infallible in all points of Doctrin , is most apparent : for God , whose veracity is infinit , cannot speake the least vntruth , nor deliuer it as his Doctrin , nor giue his commission to teach it ; nor confirm it with the markes and scale of his Commission , for that would be to owne it te be his Doctrin reuealed by him ; wheras therefore he has confirmed the Doctrin of the Catholick Church with so many Miracles , its impossible it should contain the least vntruth .

And when you would be so obstinat , as to doubt of all other Miracles , you cannot be so blind , as to doubt of the conuersion of all Nations that euer were conuerted to Christianity , by the Catolick Church ; what Nation was there euer yet conuerted to Christianity by the Protestant Church ? or in what History do you read that euer you sent Preachers to conuert Pagans ? it was S. Austin , a Massing Priest sent by Pope Gregory the Great , that conuerted England to Christianity ; if you belieue the Chronicles of England : it was S. Xauerius a Iesuit , ( to whom Sectaries haue no relation , if you will not make him Father of the Quakers ) that conuerted the Indies ; it was S. Patrick sent by Pope Celestin , that conuerted Ireland ; they were Priest and fryars and Monks that propagated the Ghospell , in whom Protestants haue no Interest , but what their reuolt from the Church has giuen them in their Lands and estates ▪ what Miracles , what conuersion of Nations to Christianity , what succession of Pastors , since Christ his tyme , what General Councils that condemned Heresyes , can the Protestant Church shew ? And is it possible , that God should haue giuen those glorious Marks of a true Church , to the Catholick Church , if it were not the true Church ; and giue no visible Mark at all of a true Church to the Protestant , if it were the true one ? both Churchs pretends to be the true , and sereual other Congregations pretends to the same : has God giuen no visible marks wherby to distinguish his true Church from fals ones ? otherwyse , why should wee be obliged to belieue This , to be the true Church , rather than That other ? and can it be imagined , that he should haue giuen Miracles and supernatural signs to the Catholick Church , if it were the false one , and giue none to any other , if any other were the true Church .

Lastly I proue that the Roman Catolick Church , is infallibly true in her Doctrin Purgatory , real Presence , and any Doctrin though smale and inferiour you call it . The Catholick Church as you confess , is infallible in fundamental points of Religion , you say , ( if you be a Protestant ) that the Roman Church is still a true Church because it has not erred in the fundation or essential points of Faith . But if it did in any point whateuer , though smale you iudge it , it would etr in fundamental articles of Religion : therefore it has not , nor cannot err in any whateuer : I proue the Minor . It s a fundamental article of Faith , that God is infinitly true , that he cannot tell an vntruth : but if the Doctrin of Purgatory were untrue , the Catholick Church would teach that God deliuers an vntruth ; for the Church teacheth , that Purgatory is a Doctrin teuealed by God ; if therefore Purgatory be an vntruth , she teachs that God deliuered an vntruth ; and consequently she errs in a fundamental article of Faith .

Now its tyme wee examin that impious Position of our new Minister , Mr Sall he follows much the tract of Luther his Grand Reformer , not in that he should 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 whateuer , 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 them 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 you their Doctrin ; it s thus : they say wee are guilty of errours , that their Tenets of figuratiue Presence , No Purgatory &c. are vndeniable plain consequences out of Scripture , and therefore wee err in denying them : and that wee do err blamably and willfully , because they are plain vndubitable consequences out of Scripture ; ( as you say also Mr Sall ( and wheras wee haue the scripture , and belieue it to be the word of God , and haue wits to vnderstand , and sufficient instruction , wee cannot but be willfully ignorant , which ignorance is not sufficient to excuse vs from blame for not belieuing : but they say , that our denying of them articles , though wee be obstinat in our denyal , will not damn vs , ( if wee haue no other sin ) because they are not fundamental Articles of Faith ; our errours do not shock the essential parts of religion , though it were better and more safe to belieue them , yet their belief is not absolutly requisit for saluation . This is the Doctrin of the Church of England ; they grant vs saluation , not for any ignorance , but because wee hold the substance and all essential points of Faith .

It s therefore that Bramhal , Bishop of Armagh , called the Articles wherin the Protestant dissent from the Catholick Church , Pious opinions , and concluded that both Churchs had true Faith , it s therefore that Doctor Stillingfleet compares both Churchs , the Catholick to a Leaky ship , wherin a man may be saued , but with great danger and difficulty ; and the Protestant to a sound ship , wherin one may be saued without hazard . It s therfore that King I ames in the meeting of the Protestant Clergy at Southampton pronounced this sentence ; wee detest in this point the cruelty of the Puritans , and iudge them deseruing of fire , who affirm that in the Popish religion a man may not be saued : reade the Doctors of your Church ; Luther c. 6. and c. 4. in Gen. Osiander in epitom : p. 2. pag. 1073. Melancthon in Conf. Aug. art. 21. printed at Geneua , an : 1554. zuinglius in epis . dedicat : of his Confession of Faith to francis the first , king of france . Doctor field l. 3. de Eccl. c. 9. Bunnie in tract . de pacif : sect. 18. whitaker q. 5. c. 3. Hooker l. de Pol. Eccl. but it were tedious to name all ; not any of the Church of England , nor of the Lutherans but confess that the Catholick Church , is a sauing Church because it has not erred in any fundamental points ; that wee are of one and the same Faith , as to the substance .

It s true the Rigid Puritans , and the Hugonots of france do say , that the Catholick Church did err in fundamental points of Faith necessary for saluation ; and that therefore there is no saluation in her Comnunion : and the Hugonots are of this sentiment , but since about the yeare 1634. for before , they constantly belieued with the Church of England , that the Catholick Faith was a sauing Faith ; witness the answer of the Hugonot Diuins to Henry the fourth of france , who asking if a man could be saued in the Roman Religion , they answered yea ; wher vpon he prudently choosed that Religion , which in the iudgment of all Parties was a sauing Religion Spondanus ad an 1593. But Mr Sall does not Profess to be a Puritan , nor Hugonot ; and how come he to vtter such an impious expression ?

But I will proue against him and his Associats Puritans , and Hugonots , that there is saluation in our Religion , euen in their own Principles : for either the true Church can err in fundamental points , destructiue of saluation , or not ; if not , then the Roman Church , which in the confession of you all , was the true Church , before , and in Luthers age , did not err in any point of doctrin repugnant to saluation ; if it can , then your Church , though it should be , as you pretend , the true Church can err also in fundamental points : and you consequently , cannot know if you be in the way of saluation . Secondly you confess that the Lutherans and Protestants are in a true way of saluation ; but if the errours of the Catholik Church were fundamental and damnable ; They could not be in a sure way of saluation ; for it is as damnable an errour , to say that a man may be saued in the profession of damnable errours ; as to profess them : for example its as damnable an errour to say , that a man may be saued denying Iesus-Christ , as it is to deny him ; vae qui dicitis bonum malum ; if the Catholicks therefore be in a damnable state for professing those , which you call errours ; the Protestants and Lutherans ; who vnanimously say , they can be saued in the actual profession of those errours , must be in a damnable state . You must then either absolue both , or condemn both : besids , the Lutherans hold some Points with the Catholicks , which you condemn as damnable errors in our Religion , for example , the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist ; yet you belieue the Lutherans may be saued in their Religion ; therefore you must grant saluation to the Catholicks .

And now let vs draw Mr Sall by the skirt , and mind him of what he sayes pag. 24. The Arch. B. of Cashel his instructor , discoursed with him , and his modesty ( pag. 28 ▪ ) added great weight to his reasons ; Poore soul ; how simply you were fooled out of your Religion , as appears by this passage : His Lordship acknow-ledged the Catholick Church was a part of the true Church : ( but not the whole ) and Mr Sall fancyed to perceiue such an admirable charity and real desire of vnion among Christians , in this noble acknow-ledgment of his Grace , in granting vs that Honorable Title , that he presently yielded all respect and submission to his reasons . Open your eyes , Poore Man , you are charm'd by your instructors modesty , and cheated of your Religion by fayre words . Honorable title ? wherin doth the Honor of that Title of Catholick consist , if it does not signify a Profession leading to saluation ? is it because that wee belieue many articles of Christianity , though wee deny some ? then the Title of Arrian and Pelagians is Honorable ; which Professions belieued diuers Tenets of Christianity . Is it because that by ignorance wee may be excused and be saued ? but you say , that only the simple sort can haue that ignorance ; and besids , Iews and Pagans may be saued in their respectiue Professions , if they can claym ignorance . Thus that Honorable title , which sounded so plea sant to your ears is but an empty voyce .

His Instructor granted the Church of Rome to be a part of the Catholick Church , but not the whole ; and Mr Sall did see such a vein of Charity and zeale to run through these words that he was rauish'd : was euer , Poore soule so deluded . why did not you ask , what his Lordp meant by Roman Church , if he meant the Dioces of Rome ; that indeed is a part of the Catholick Church , but that is not the Church wee speake of ; that wee say , is infallible ; and wherof wee are Members , ( for wee are no Members of that Church ) wherin wee say , man must be saued if in any : but if his Lordp did speake to the purpose , and to what wee belieue ; by the Roman Catholick Church , as I declared 5. ch. and in the entrance to this chap. wee vnderstand all Christians throughout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Church of Rome ; which is the chiefe and Mother Church : if he sayes , This is but a part of the Church of God ; where is the other part ? I say where was it when Luther began his pretended Reformation ? for then there was no visible Congregation of Christians ( at least No Protestants nor any thing lyke them ) that did administer Sacraments and preach the word of God , but was vnited in Faith and Communion with the Roman Church ; only such as were then held by Luther , and now by vs schismatick as you are : which then , was the other part of Christ's true Church ? but this is not all ; how could he say , and you belieue , that the Roman Church , ( take it either for the Dioces of Rome , or as wee vnderstand it , ) is a part of the Catholick Church , if it be guilty of damnable errors ? can that be the true Church , or any part of it , that professes damnable errors against Faith ? S. Athanasius his Creed sayes , no : for it : requires to haue an entyre and inuiolable Faith : and you that is a Professor of Diuinity , will say , that a particular Person who holds damnable errors against the doctrin of the Church and obstinatly adheres to them , is an heretick , and no member of hers : consequently you must say , ( and your Instructor deluded you in saying the contrary ) that the Roman Church can be not part of the true Church , if in her there was no saluationthrough damnable errors in doctrin .

You see Mr Sall that against the doctrin of the Church of England , against your own and your Instructors concessions , you haue engaged in that blasphemous assertion of not saluation in the Catholick Church , to vse your own expression , pag. 75. to spight the Catholick you ran beyond all measure , euen of your own principles ; as to spight the Iew , and seem a good Christian , one would eat more Pork , than his stomak can beare . And to get the credit of a sound and zealous Protestant among your new Brethren , you haue exceeded them in decrying the Church .

But the Reader will vnderstand by what I haue discoursed in this Chapter , that the Catholick Church is the true Church ; that she cannot err in any point whateuer of Religion , and consequently , that saluation is to be sought in her .

VIII . CHAPT. THAT THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH is not the Church of Christ , nor any part of it : That they cannot without blasphemy alleadge Scripture for their Tenets : That they haue not one , and the same Faith with Catholicks : that out of the Catholick Church there is no saluation . How far can ignorance excuse Protestants .

IT is the constant doctrin of the Protestant Church ( for I call not the Puritans and Hugonots of France , Protestants , whose error in this point I haue she wen in the former chap. ) that the Catholick Church has not erred in fundamental points of Religion ; because the true Church , ( such as the Catholick was before Luther confessedly , and now is , in their acknowledgment ) cannot err in essential and fundamental articles , consequently they discourse , that the Protestant and Catholick Church , differ only in points not fundamental , and inferior truths , which , say they , are pernicious errors , but break not Vnity of Faith , nor destroyes not saluation . That the true Church can err , and is fallible in points not fundamental and inferior truths . This is faithfully the doctrin of the Protestant Church , as you will find in the Authors I quoted in the former Chapt. in Stilling fleet in his book miscalled a Rational Account and in seueral others cited in the Protestant Apology , tr. 1. c. 6. and tract. 2. c. 2.

Now wee must consider , what is the Protestant Church properly ; it belieues many Articles ( and as they say all fundamental Articles ) that the Catholick belieues : so far they are not Properly Protestants , but their proper Notion is to be taken from those Tenets , wherin they differ : so that Protestancy properly , and as it is condistinct from Catholecism , or Popery , as you say ; is the doctrin wherin the Protestant Church differs from the Catholick . Now I proue that the Protestant Church , as it is properly the Protestant Church , condistinct from the Catholick , is not the Church of Christ ; because it does not teach the doctrin of Christ ; and no Church can be called of Christ further that it teacheth his doctrin ; and doubteless if wee did ask the Protestants and first Reformers , why they did separate from the Catholick Church , they would say . To belieue and practise the Doctrin of Christ , which the Catholick denyed . But I will proue that their doctrin , for which they separated from vs , and wherin they differ from vs , is not the Doctrin of Christ .

The argument is in Ferio , thus : No fallible doctrin is the doctrin of Christ . For who would be so blasphemous , as to say , that what Christ has taught is fallible Doctrin : But Protestancy ( that 's to say all the Doctrin wherin Protestants differr from Catholicks and for which they separated from vs ) is altogether fallible Doctrin ; therefore Protestancy , as it is properly the Doctrin of the Protestant Church , is not the Doctrin of Christ : That Protestancy , or the Doctrin wherin wee differ , is all fallible Doctrin , its manifest ; for Protestancy , or Doctrin wherin wee differ , is altogether of points not fundamental ; wee all agree in the fundamental Articles , as they vnanimously confess ; wee only differ in inferiour Truths , wherin the Catholick Church has erred . But the doctrin of points not fundamental and inferior truths is fallible Doctrin ; for it s their constant Doctrin also , that the true Church , be it the Catholick or Protestant , can err and is fallible in articles not fundamental , and inferiour truths : therefore all your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin ; therefore it s not the doctrin of Christ . I confess ingenuously , I think this argument cannot be solidly answered .

For is it not certain , that you differ from vs , as you say , only in not fundamental articles ? is it not also your doctrin , that the true Church is fallible in articles not fundamental ; how can it then be denyed , but ; that you differ from vs only in fallible doctrin ; the doctrin wherin you differ from vs is Protestancy , and nothing els is properly Protestācy , but that for which you departed from vs : therfore your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin , and consequently not the doctrin of Christ .

Hence I infer that you cannot without Blasphemy looke for your doctrin in Scripture ; no text or word of God can be alleadged for Protestancy ; nor any other warrant but your meer fancy : for your protestancy is but a parcell of fallible doctrin , and no fallible doctrin can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture , which contains nothing but Gods infallible word . Obserue how vainly the Protestants do boast their Religion , and difference 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 will 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 whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus who 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 which sayes they are reuealed Truths , since the same Church declares that Purgatory also is a reuealed Truth , I am as much obliged to belieue it , as the Trinity and Incarnation , though the Mysteries in them selues , be of an infinit inequality .

By this it s proued that without the entyre belief of all and euery Article belieued by the Church of Rome , you haue not one and the same Faith with her ; if you haue not her Faith , you haue not the true sauing Faith ; for hers is such , and there is , but One : if you haue not a true sauing Faith , you cannot be saued : therefore out of the Church of Rome there is no saluation . Blame me not for this Assertion ; blame S. Paul who saies there is no saluation without Faith , and saies there is but one Faith , which wee haue proued , and you confess to be our Faith : blame S. Augustin epist. 152. Whoeuer is , or shall be separated from the Catholick Church , although he thinks himself to liue most laudibly , for this one wickedness , that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ , shall haue no lyfe , but the wrath of God remayns on him ; blame the Fathers of all ages , who vnanimously agree in this ; that out of the true Church there is no saluation . By what I haue discoursed in the first chap. it is euident there is but one Church : by what I haue discoursed in the progress of this Treatise and especially in these two last chap. I proued that this one true Church is the Roman Catholick Church . It s consequent therefore that out of her Faith and communion is no saluation .

Neither can wee be iustly accused of want of charity for holding this Tenet : by your acknowledgment ( I mean the Protestants and Lutherans ) the Catholick Religion is a sauing Religion : but no Religion is a sauing Religion , that is not charitable , witness S. Paul 1. Cor. 13.2 . If I should haue Faith , so as to moue mountains , and haue no Charity , I am nothing . Therefore you cannot say , but our Faith is a charitable Faith .

Answer me to this argument ; God has commanded vnder the dreadfull punishment of being blotted out of the book of lyfe , to add nothing to , or diminish any thing from his word : Reuel 22.19 . and Deut. 4.2 . Either wee Catholicks do add to the substance and essentials of the Faith of Christ , by belieuing real Presence , and Purgatory to be fundamental points of Religion reuealed by God , or you Protestants do diminish from the substance and essence of his Faith by denying those points , and saying they are not substantial and essential points of Religion : either then , wee Catholicks must be blotted out of the Book of lyfe , because wee belieue too much , and impose vpon the flock a larger belief than Christ has ; or you Protestants must be blotted out of that book , because you take away some fundamental points which Christ has reuealed : it is therefore impossible that in both Religions a man be saued . Either wee are not a sauing Religion , because wee add fundamental points ; or you are not , because you take them away , But by your acknowledgment , and by what wee haue proued wee are in a sauing Religion ; therefore you must confess that you are not .

Now wee must examin if ignorance can excuse the Protestants , they pretend that they do not know they are in an error ; ad heer wee will answer to what Mr Sall auers , that all Catholick Doctors confess , that a Protestant baptized , belieuing the Common Principles of Christianity , not conuinced of error against Faith , but conceiuing he follows the truth ; is not an Heretick , but a member , of the Catholick Church ; and so liuing a good lyfe may be saued ; for which he cites our Catholick Diuins .

It is the constant Doctrin of our schools , that an inuincible ignorance of the Truth excuseth from the profession of it : and saying that it is the constant Doctrin , I need not cite Authors for it . An inuincible ignorance , is when you haue no means , nor cannot get , after a diligent enquiry , any means , for to ouercome it , and be informed of the Truth . The second position assented also vnto by our schools , that a vincible , supin , or gross ignorance doth not excuse you , from professing the Truth : and this kind of ignorance you are in , when you haue means afforded to you , for to instruct you , and through carelesness or some other motiue , you do not make vse of those means : or if you haue not those means at hand ; you may , if you enquire for them get them and be instructed ; and in so weighty a matter as Christian Faith wherof depends your saluation ; did you know that in Constantinople you could find them , you ought , setting all other considerations asyde , to go thither to seek them . Now wee all grant , that a Protestant who is inuincibly ignorant , that has no way , nor after due enquiry , can get no means to ouercom his ignorance , and be sufficiently informed of the truth of the Catholick Tenet ; such a man Baptized , belieuing the common Principles of Christianity ; and liuing a good lyfe will be saued : but this is smale comfort , for of the Iews and Pagans wee must say the lyke . Secondly a Protestant ( and there are I feare , many of this sort ) that would amuse himself with the perswasion of being in an inuincible ignorance , and that his Tenets will not condemn him , because , if in effect they should be false he is ignorant of that , and his ignorance , which he perswads himself to be inuincible , will excuse him , and will not be curious to enquire any more ; this man , I auerr is in state of damnation ; for its a damnable sin to expose himself to a manifest danger of professing a damnable error , but this man who perswades himself that he is inuincibly ignorant , and sooths himself with that perswasion , and so resteth content , exposeth himself manifestly to the danger of holding a damnable error : for what he has to secure him , is only an inuincible ignorance , and what if that ignorance be not truly inuincible ? what if he be not certain , that his ignorance is inuincible ? then it cannot excuse him : therefore wheras he does not certainly know that his ignorance is inuincible , he exposes himself to manifest danger of professing a damnable error .

But howeuer the Principle taken in itself is true ; that if a Protestant be inuincibly ignorant , it excuses him . And wheras no man can certainly know that the ignorance of a Protestant it not inuincible ; , ( only God can know that ) certainly it is rashness in any man to say ; this man that dyed in the Protestant Religion is damned . For inuincible ignorance is a matter of fact ; it depends , of , that the truth was not sufficiently proposed ; that the means apointed by God for our instruction were not had , or could not be had ; and how can you know certainly , that all Protestants haue the truth sufficiently proposed to them or that they haue , or can haue the sufficient means to be instructed in the truth ; nay or to doubt in the least of their own Profession : for example a yong Lad that neuer left his Fathers house ; neuer heard of Catholick Religion but all to desaduantage ; has no Catholick to confer , with , or if any , not such as can giue him satisfaction ; he is through sickness or other impediments vnable to go in search of Priests , or learned men ; he liues in his own Profession well : can you be sure that this Lads ignorance was not inuincible ? for my part , I iudge there are som though but few I feare , that haue an inuincible ignorance . I say but few , for the reason I will produce soon . But of learned men and men vers'd in the transactions of ages , wee may haue moral assurance , that their ignorance cannot be inuincible ; and of them we may say , that if God has not giuen them som inward light in the last gasp , and an act of contrition , ( which yet to vs is vn knowen ) but that they dyed in the belief of their Tenets they are damn'd .

The reason why I say , that but few Protestants can haue an inuincible ignorance of our Catholick Doctrin , is ; All men are perswaded that there is a true Church , and there is nothing more euident to any man of common sense , than that all those Congregations , and each of them which wee see among vs of Quakers , Presbyterians Anabaptists , Protestants , Catholiks , are not the true Church , this I say is apparent to any man of common sense ; because each of vs condemns not only the external gouernement , but the Tenets of the other ; and though all the rest ioyns to oppose the Catholick , yet take them seperatly , they are as apposit against one an other , as they are against vs . In this confusion there is a very easy way to find out which of all is the true Church ; for what is more easy for a man that reflects seriously vpon the concerns of Religion , ( which euery man is obliged in conscience to do ) than to learn by the Chronicles of England , and by the seueral Historyes that are written , when did these that wee call Reformations begin ; on what occasion , and where in the world was there any such thing as Protestant Church , Presbyterian Church &c. two hundred and four years agon . There is not a child in the Parish hardly , but knows that Luther and Caluin began the Reformation which now is called Protestant , Presbyterian &c. in opposition to Popery , which was , as they pretended full of errors ; then Mass was banished , Bishops , Monks and Priests were exiled , and their Lands forfeited , the Churches were taken from vs ; and the Reformation introduced . I know the Protestant will reply thath his Religion is Apostolical , that it was the very Religion which Christ established and the Apostles preached , but this consideration is too heigh for men of common vnderstanding , this point cannot be soon cleered ; therefore I will not now engage in it , because I pretend to shew to men of common vnderstanding an easy way to find out , if this or that be a true Church ▪ whether your Religion was in the Apostles tyme or no ; you cannot deny , but that which you call the Reformation , is but of less than two hundred years date . The ruins of the Churchs and Abbyes , the Church Lands , the Crosses placed in the heigh way , and seueral other marks yet extant of Popery do testify it was the Catholick Religion , that was the Religion of the Land , your Chronicles beare witness , it was it that florished for so many ages before , in it your Ancestors did liue and dye . This no man but knows .

This supposed ; there is no man of common sense ( if he reflects on the affairs of his saluation , which reflexion wee are all obliged to make ) but is obliged to doubt of this Reformation , or any branch of it be the true Religion ; you say men of common sense , and of good vnderstanding do not doubt of it , notwithstanding all what wee haue premissed ; but I say that they are obliged in conscience to doubt of it , if they do not its through a supin and gross negligence of their saluation , which is culpable and damnable . I say they are bound in conscience to doubt of it : first because common sense , if not byass'd by som preiudice , does dictat to any man , that nouelties and innouations in matters of Religion are to be suspected , and this pretended Reformation is such , that was vn knowen to the world the day that Luther began it , and to all the precedent ages ; for neuer was there any such thing as Protestancy spoken of . Secondly because common sense dictats to a man that an ancient Religion , which florished , and which , and noe other was established in all Christiandom ought not to be reuersed by a priuat Man as Luther was , without sheuving by Miracles and supernatural signs , that he was commissioned by God for so great a work ; and wheras Luther did shew no such ( no Protestant dare say that euer he did ) the truth of his Reformation ought to be doubted of . Thirdly that very Catholick Church which he opposed , was in former ages often opposed by others , and she still remayned victorious , and her opposers condemned for Hereticks , which to any rational man is a sufficient ground for to doubt , that Luther also might be such as the other opposers were .

And if you say that you ought not to doubt because your Ancestors haue sufficiently examined the causes of that Reformation , and found them to be iust ; and that you receiue the Faith you profess from them ; and that you rely on their word : I answer , for one Ancestor of yours who approued the Reformation ; a hundred of your Ancestors approued the old Catholick Religion , without any such Reformation . And were there no other cause for any man of common sense for to doubt of the truth of the Reformation , than that the very Reformers and their respectiue successors are deuided among themselues , some of them approuing in the Catholick Church for good Doctrin , what others condemn for an error ; this very dissention ought to make the Reformation suspected . For Caluin and his Disciple , which are the Church of England ( in so much ) condemns the Real Presence of Christ his Body in the Euchartst ; Luther and his Disciples do firmly belieue the Real Presence ; Luther condemns the Catholick Church for belieuing S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews , and some other parts of Scripture , to be Canonical : Caluin , with the Church of England says the Catholicks do well , and they also belieue them to be Canonical . Seueral other examples wee could bring of Doctrins that some of the Reformers condemn for errors in the Catholick Church , and other Reformers say they are no such : ought not this to make vs doubt of the truth of this Reformation .

Now that it is apparent , that any man man of common sense who reflects on Religion ought to doubt of this Reformation ; the way to satisfy his doubt is very easy . For if he finds that the Catholick Church does in this age , and in Luthers , and each of the precedent ages work Miracles in confirmation of her Doctrin ; and that the Reformation , nor any branch of it , has none ; can any reasonable man desire a more pregnant proof of the truth of the Catholick Church , and falshood of the Reformation ? reade the Historyes , and Fathers of all ages , you shall find the Miracles wrought by her , as I related in the former Chapter ; you say you find them related , but you do not belieue them : this I call , and cannot be called otherwyse than obstinacy ; to deny what the whole Torrent of Antiquity affirms , as it would be obstinacy to deny there was a Iulius Caesar in the world , for which wee haue but the testimony of Historyes written by Pagans , for no Christian did see him . You say the Authors that relate those Miracles were Papists and therefore their testimony to be suspected . I answer the Authors who write those Miracles had no pike against Protestants , nor did not write out of any design against you , for you were not in the world , and therefore , you ought not to pretend any exception against them : and if but one or two did relate them , your reflexion could be pardonable ; but to say that all the Fathers and Historians of Antiquity , were knaues that spoke against their consciences ( many relating them to haue been wrought in their own presence ) or fools that did not vnderstand what miracles were , is an intolerable impudence .

Add to the Miracles wrought by this Church in all ages , the conuersion of Nations to Christianity , ( and none by the Reformation ) the succession of her Bishops without interruption for so many ages ; ( no such in the Reformation ) Her Eminent Saints , ( none in the Reformation ) her vnion in Doctrin of Faith ; ( none in the Reformation ) the voluntary pouerty of her Professors , exchanging plentifull estates for the powerty of a religious lyfe ( a practise recommended by Christ , and thought madness by the Reformation ) the multitude of Churchs built by her , and demolished by the Reformation . Does not all this proue our Church to be the true Church of Christ , that he has qualified with such glorious Marks . These makes our Church so glorious , and shyne lyke the Citty on the Mountain , lyke the candle in the candlestick , that it is hardly possible that any man can haue on inuincible ignorance of her being the true Church ; and Wo be to the man , that relying on the perswasion of the inuincibility of his ignorance ( which in effect is but obstinacy ) will liue out of her .

I conclude with that Paper , that Mr Sall speakes of , wherin he deliuered that a Protestant , belieuing the common Principles of Christianity , and lieuing acording the rules of his profession , being inuincibly ignorant might be saued ; for which doctrin he complains to haue been censured ; and cryes Victory , because that none of our Clergy did answer , though they did censure him . He misinforms his Readers ; it was not that doctrin which was censured , and if his Paper did contain no more than it ; it required no answer ; it was his indiscretion was censured : and I will be iudged by you , Reader , if he was not indiscreet in this point : for if a Preacher were sent to conuert Pagans to Christianity , would it be discretion in him to teach them , Srs the Christian Religion is the best , but you may be very well saued in that which you hold , if you be inuincibly ignorant . The doctrin is very true , but a man that goes to conuert them , to Christianity from a Religion that he knows is in itself false , ought not to encourage them to remayn in that Religion , with the hopes of being sauedin it : his obligation is to beat them out of their ignorance , and not to propose it vnto them , as a Medium of saluation : would not they answer him well ; if wee can be saued through our ignorance in the Religion wee haue ; why do you disturb vs with any other , and creat scruples in our minds ? This is Mr Salls case that was sent to Ireland to conuert Protestants who thought themselues perhaps to be inuincibly ignorant : iudge you was it discretion to propose vnto them their inuincible ignorance as an encouragement to remayn in their errors . It s not allwayes discretion to declare the truth itself ( when there is no obligation of declaring it , as in this there could be none : for the Nobility , which , he sayes , proposed him that question , were they Catholiks or Protestants ? if Catholicks its manifest , they needed not to be instructed in that truth ; it s no fundamental point of Religion . If Protestants , they were not obliged to know it , for the same reason ▪ and , that the answer was an encouragment to them to remayn as they were , and seek no instruction ; and wheras they made that question it seems they doubted if inuincible ignorance was sufficient ; and if that answer had not been giuen ; lykely the would secure their saluation by seeking instruction . This is the indiscretion , for which he was censured . Now wee will descend to the errors which he fixs on the Church of Rome .

THE SECOND PART , OF THE PRETENDED ERRORS of the Roman Church , alleadged by Mr Sall.

HAuing in the former part shewen the Necessity of an Infallible liuing Iudge ; and that to be the Roman Catholick Church ; there needed no other answer to any doubt in Religion , though intricat and vnanswerable it might seem to vs , but to say , the Church which is infallible and Gods Oracle teacheth it : therefore it must be true , though I do not vnderstand how . But because our Aduersary confides much in the strength of his arguments , wee will descend to examin each point in particular , which he impugns ; and it will appeare , that though wee had not the testimony of an infallible Church , to rely vpon ; but only Reason , and Scripture as interpreted by Ancient Fathers ; our cause is better grounded , than theirs , and if not better , at least as well : which if it appears ; then none , but will condemn them for forsaking an old Religion , and seeking to reuers it by a pretended Reformation , when they can shew no better grounds for their Nouelties , than wee haue for our Ancient doctrin .

POP'S INFALLIBILITY , AND THE Resolution of Faith expounded .

HE forsakes the Catholick Church for her errors , and which be they ? the first , is the Popes infallibility : if this be an error , it s not of the Church , for as I haue shewen ch. 5. it s no Arcicle of Faith that the Pope is infallible ; if he mislyked that doctrin , he might haue denied it , and remain a Catholick . I can not well perceiue what he thinks of the Church vniuersal ; whether he belieues her infallible or no ? for , pag. 34. he grants , that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3.15 . The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth . Must be vnderstood of the vniuersal Church ; but whether he grants , that thence she is proued infallible or no ; I cannot vnderstand : thence he inferrs ; that the Roman Church , that is to say the Dioces of Rome , is not infallible , nor the Pillar and ground of Truth : but alas he might haue spared himself that labor ; for wee do not belieue , that the Dioces of Rome is an infallible Church ; nor that the 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 m●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. 6● 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 wherin were vrim and Thummim ; wherby 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 without 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 Laws . 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 would 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 ; wheras 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 : which is to extoll the Decrees of Popes aboue them of Christ : as if the Laws of England , were not to be vnderstood , or practifed in Ireland , but accordging to the will and declaration of the King of France , certainly the King of France would be deemed of more Power 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 kind . Though Christ washed his Disciples feet before he gaue the Communion . Might not the Council say , Notwithstanding that Christ did wash the Receiuers feet , yet wee 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 were 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 , who 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 irksom to our natural inclinations ; miracles wrought by her in all ages , the constancy of her Martyrs , euen in the youngest age and weaker sex . Her vnity in doctrin , against the persecutions of so many Tyrants and Heresiarks that almost all ages opposed it ; these marks which are proper only to her ; and that no other congregation can claim , makes it euidently credible , that if God speaks to vs by the mouth of any , it must be by hers . The lyke , and no other , had the Primitiue Church , to iudge of the Apostles that God spoke by them : and such as in the Apostles tymes did not belieue them , hauing so great inducements to iudge them men of God , were condemned for obstinat people : and consequently who will not iudge the same of this Church , ought also to be held for obstinat , notwithstanding any pretence of ignorance they may alleadge .

Hauing these inducements to prepare our vnderstandings for Faith , it follows , that what euer this Church proposes vnto vs , to be a Truth reuealed by God ; wee are obliged to belieue her , and embrace her doctrin vpon her testimony ; wheras it appears by those inducements so credible , that God speaks by her as he did by the Apostles .

Now I resolue my Faith thus : you ask why I belieue the Trinity ? I answer , because God has reuealed it . You ask why I belieue , that God reuealed it ? I answer , because the Church , by which God speaks tell vs so . You ask , why I belieue , that God speakes by the Church ? ( heere is the difficulty : ) I must not answer , because the Scripture sayes it , for I belieue Scripture only vpon the testimony of the infallible Church , and to proue again the infallibility of this , by the Scripture , would be a circle : neither must I answer , that I belieue God to speake by the Church , because she works miracles , for if the miracles be absolutly euident , they can be no Motiue of Faith , which is of its own nature obscure : and if they be but morally euident miracles , they cannot be the Motiue , because the motiue of Faith must be infallible ; and because the Motiue of an Act of Faith must be Gods word , and miracles are not Gods word , but signs and Marks of his word . Wee must therefore answer to that question again , because the Church by which God speakes , saies , that God speakes by her , and I am obliged to belieue he speaks by her because he does credit her with so many miracles and supernatural Marks , which makes it euidently credible , that he does speake by her . Where you distinguish the Motiue of your Act of Faith , from the Motiue of your obligation of belieuing , and your iudgment of credibility : the Motiue , that you giue for your Act of Faith , is only the word or voyce of God by the Church : ( and nothing els but the word of God can be the Motiue of Faith . ) the Motiue you giue for your obligation of belieuing , and iudgment of credibility ; are the external inducements of miracles and supernatural signs . You reply : To belieue that God speaks by the Church , because the Church by which God speaks sayes so ; is to belieue that God speaks , because Gods speaks by the Church ; which is idem per idem : to belieue a thing for itself ; and an obscure thing , for a thing equally obscure ; which is vnreasonable ; wheras an obscure vnknowen thing cannot be belieued but for somthing that is more cleer and knowen . I answer , what is belieued , is that God speaks by the Church , which is obscure and vnknowen to our reason : The Motiue , why wee belieue it , is the voyce of God by the Church , euidently proposed to our vnderstanding by the external Motiues of credibility to be credibly his voyce ; so that the same thing which of itself , and considered without the external Motiues of credibility , is obscure and vnknowen ; acompanied with the motiues of credibility is more cleer and knowen and moues me to belieue : but so , that the Motiues of credibility are not the Motiue , nor any part of the Motiue why I belieue the testimony of the Church to be the voyce of God ; but are the Motiues why our vnderstanding euidently knows it to be very credible , and iudges it very iust and reasonable that wee should belieue it to be the voyce of God .

And that this is the way of Resoluing Diuine Faith , it s proued ; for wee haue the same Faith , that the Primitiue Church of Ierusalem , Antioch , and Damasco had : and consequently wee must haue the same Motiue of Faith . When the Apostles preached to them , they belieued the Trinity , not for Scripture ; for but little or nothing was then written of the new Testament ; but because God told them by the Apostles that it was a reuealed Truth . And if you did ask them , whey they belieued that God did speake by the Apostles ? they would answer , because the Apostles who were Gods Messengers told them so , and they could not but be obliged to belieue it because of their miracles and supernatural signs . Thus wee say of the Church .

Now the Church being belieued infallibly true ; wee belieue the Scripture to be the word of God vpon her testimony ; and the Scripture being belieued Gods word ; then wee draw out of the Scripture , new proofs and Motiues of belieuing the Church to be infallible ; because the Scripture , which is the word of God sayes it . But the chief and last Motiue whervpon our Faith must rest , is the word of God speaking to vs by the Church : the Church , I say by which God actually , in this present age speaks vnto vs : for wee do not belieue because God did speak in the 1.2 . and third age by the Church ; for that is Tradition , and Tradition ( nor Scripture ) is not the Motiue , but the Rule of our Faith ; the Rule by which the Church is guided to know which and what is the word of God : the Motiue of our Faith , is because God speaks now , by his Church , as he did in those first ages ; for which wee haue euident arguments of credibility as the first ages had .

Pop's supremacy .

What is belieued , as an Article of Faith by the Church , is the spiritual supremacy of the Pope : his supream Power either Direct or indirect in temporal affaires ouer Princes , is no Articles of Faith ; but a question disputed in the schools , and neither Partie , that denies or affirms is condemned of Heresy by the Church ; if Mr Sall mislyked the Doctrin he might haue disclaimed it , and remain a Catholick , as many other Catholicks do . He speaks of the sufferances of the Irish vpon the account of this Doctrin , a meer fiction , as wittily , as maliciously inuented to make the Pope odious to the People : That the Irish should haue suffered for that cause , is false , but it s very true that they suffered for not swearing the contrary Doctrin , That the Pope has no such Power ; which no man can sweare wheras he is not certain of it ; and wheras it is a question disputed in the schools if he has or not , that Power ; how can any man in conscience sweare either part to be 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 Power , 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 which 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 which 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 , how can this man giue vs his flesh to eate ; Christ called them Vnbelieuers : There be som of you , who do not belieue ; nay sayes , they are damnable vnbelieuers , v. 54 , He that will 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 Iews 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 Iews 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 wee did in the beginning of this discourse ; but he did correct their vnderstanding , by his subsequent words , v. 63. it is the spirit that quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing , the words that I speak are spirit and lyfe by which he draweth 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 to be called damnably vnbelieuers . They would not belieue that corporal eating of his real flesh , as you do not , for the difficulties which reason dictated against the lyke expressions ; such as you , and your fraternity , proposes against them ; and therefore wee say , that you are damnably vnbelieuers , as they were , and you , and they are checkt by those wordes of Christ , the flesh profiteth nothing , it s the spirit that quickneth , &c , which were not to check their vnderstanding for apprehending a corporal eating ; but to check their obstinacy , that for the difficulties , which natural reason did suggest against his expressions , they would not belieue , what he spoke , and they vnderstood him to haue spoken : the flesh profiteth nothing , that was to say to them and to you , that they must not iudge of this Mystery by the senses of the flesh , nor by natural reason which is adquired by the help of the fleshy senses , They cannot vnderstand how that can be : It s the spirit that quickneth , that s to say , it s the Diuine grace , that must enlighten your vnderstandings to know and belieue how this can be . Euen as when S. Peter confessed Chist to be the son of the liuing God , Christ added , it s not flesh and blood that reuealed that vnto thee , but my Father that is in heauen , Mat. 16 17. which was to say ; that it was not natural reason , nor any knowledge of the senses of flesh , or gotten by them ; but the grace of the heauenly Father that discouered that Mystery to him .

If you reade that passage in S. Io. 6. you will find , that Christ as wee haue euidently proued , proposed a corporal eating of his real flesh , but did not at all then ( which is to be obserued ) propose the manner , how he would giue his flesh to be eaten . The obligation of the Iews was to belieue that he would giue it ; and not to dispute , how that could be , or in what manner : but they began to think how it could be , quomodo potest , &c. and their natural reason , ( which only they consulted ) not vnderstanding that it could be otherwyse , than by cutting his flesh in morsels to be giuen to them , this appearing so absurd to human reason , they absolutly denyed , the possibility of the Mystery . If Christ when he proposed to them his flesh for food , had also proposed the manner that he intended of giuing it , perhaps they would haue belieued , but then he did not , but only the eating of his flesh . Their error was two fold ; the one , that they denyed the possibility of giuing his flesh to be eaten ; for which they were called vnbelieuers : the other was the cause , why they denyed it ; because the manner of eating it which their natural reason proposed vnto them , appeared absurd , and therefore not conceiuing how it could be they denyed it ; therefore Christ checkt this their vnderstanding , that the manner of giuing his flesh really to be eaten was in a spiritual way , aboue what their natural reason could apprehend , and sayd its the Spirit that quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing ; as wee haue expounded : but they , either because they did not vnderstand this expression , or that they obstinatly adheared to their first denyal , flincht from him .

I conclude with this reason : you will not deny but that God might , if he were pleased , haue conuerted the substance of that bread , which he took in his hands , into his real flesh and Body ; as by his omnipotent word he created all things of nothing ; as he conuerted the water into wyne ; and as the bread , which wee eat , is by the heat of our stomacks conuerted into our flesh and blood : suppose , I pray , that he intended at the last supper to make such a change ; or that now he descended from heauen to make it : what words could he vse , more significant , to let vs vnderstand that he gaue vs his real and true Body vnder the Accidents of bread , than those , take , eat , this is my Body which is giuen for you , this is truly my flesh : if in a serious discourse I promised you a horse ; would not you vnderstand that I intended to giue you a true horse ? would I perform my promomiss by giuing the figure of one ? since then that he might haue giuen vs , if he had been pleased , his true and real Body , and that he spoke , as if really he did intend it , ( for he could not speake otherwyse if he did ) wee must vnderstand that he did intend it , and gaue it . If he did intend it , when he spoke those words ; what could hinder him ? if he did not intend it ; was it sincerity and honesty to speake otherwyse , than as he intended ? no more than if you , hauing promised a horse , would giue only the picture of one .

Let vs heare Mr Salls arguments ; he begins , as the Iews , with difficulties that reason proposes against so great a Mystery ; that the Accidents of bread should be without any substance to rest on , that a Body would be at one tyme in many places ; that a well proportioned body should be confined to the smale compass of a wafer ; that the Accidents conuerted into vermin should produce a substance . I would tyre my Readers patience , if I did scan each triuial objection of these that has been a hundred tymes answered , and our answers neuer replyed vnto . You would haue shewen more wit , Mr Sall , and got more credit by replying to the answers , that our writers giue to these obiections and especially Bellarmin from whom you borrow them , than by repeating again a parcel of thrid bare tryfles , against so great a Mystery , in homage of which , wee must captiuat our sence and reason , as wee do to the Mystery of the Trinity , which surpasseth all created intellects , far more than this Mystery and yet not so cleerly expressed in Scripture , as this is . And if you must haue natural reason , for to belieue this Mystery , tell me , what reason haue you for to belieue that the Bread and wyne giueth lyfe and grace to the worthy eater ? what proportion can reason find betwixt bread , and Diuin grace ? what proportion betwixt the water of Baptism , and spiritual Regeneration ? none , if you do not appeale to the omnipotency of God : by he same wee answer you also , ( to shun tedious Tatalogyes ) that those difficulties you represent be impossible to Nature but they are possible to the omnipotent word of God .

But for the satisfaction of the Reader I will deliuer this argument in the terms of an ingenious man which once I discoursed with . This Mystery , said he , is repugnant to sense and reason ; consequently it is not to be imposed on man , if God will not haue him to renounce both . It s repugnant to sense , for what wee see , tast , and feel , is but bread : repugnant to reason ; for this ought prudently to conclude , that the substance of bread is there , vpon the testimony of the senses , which perceiue the Accidents that , by natural course , are inseparable from the substance of bread . I answer , Reason prudently ought to conclude the substance of bread is there , wheras the senses perceiue the Accidents , which are naturally inseparable from that substance , if there were not a higher Authority that affirms the substance is not there ; to whose testimony , Reason is bound to yield , against the euidence of the senses : as when the Angel appeared to Tobias to acompany him in his voyage ; Tobias , at his first appearance ch. 5. prudently iudged him to be a Man , wheras the senses did perceiue all the Accidents proper to human Nature ; and nothing affirmed him to be an Angel : there Reason prudently concluded vpon the testimony of the senses : but when in the 12. ch. the Angel discouered him self to be an Angel ; then Tobias his reason was reclaymed , and against the euidence of his senses , which did see nothing but Accidents of Human Nature ; belieued it a Spirit vpon the testimony of an Angel . The lyke passage wee read to haue happened to Abraham , Gen. 18. whence wee vnderstand , that God may separat the Accidents from the substance to which they are proper ; and also that when the testimony of our senses clashs with a higher Authority , Reason must yield to the higher Authority , against the euidence of our senses .

This is the present case : our senses say its bread what wee see after the consecration : the word of God sayes its his Body ; if the word of God did not oueraw the senses , reason ought prudently to conclude its bread ; but the word of God being of a more infallible authority than the senses , Reason must yield to the word of God , and say its Christs Body ; against the euidence of the senses that saye its bread .

But replyed he , God will not haue Reason go against the euidence of our senses , but yeld to them euen in matters of Faith ; for after his Resurrection he proued it to his Apostles by the euidence of their senses , saying Lu. 24.36 . feele and see for a Spirit hath no flesh nor boans as you see me to haue . I answer , they did not belieue his Resurrection only vpon the testimony of their senses , but also of his word and asseueration , that said he was reuiued . God will haue vs , as I said formerly , yield to the euidence of our senses , when there is no higher authority that thwarts their euidence , as heere there was none , but the higher autority did rather assert , what the senses did testifie , but in the Mystery of the Eucharist it is not so ; Gods word does contradict the senses , and therefore Reason must , yield to it against our sensations .

Pag. 21. Mr Sall argues , that no necessity vrges vs to belieue Christs real presence in the Sacrament ; neither for the effects that he promises by it : not for the verifying of his words , seeing our sauiour said in the same tenor , I am the true vine ; without any alteration in the vine , or his person : not for the effects of the Sacrament ; Christ being able to conferr , what spiritual graces he pleases , with the worthy receiuing of bread and wyne , without any substantial alteration in the Elements ; as in the water of Baptism he affordeth the soueraign grace of spiritual regeneration in the substance of water .

I answer , its necessary for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament : for let the words Body and flesh , vine , Rock &c. be equiuocal , as he will haue them to be ; indifferent to beare two sences figuratiue and real . This is euident , that when a word bearing an equiuocal signification , is put in a Proposition , it is determined to signify that , of which only , and of no other , the Predicat can be verifyed : as this word Man , may signify a true , or painted man : in this proposition Man is a rational liuing creature , it is determined to signify a true Man ; because the Predicat , rational liuing creature , can be verifyed only of him , and not of a painted man . So the word Body , that may signify a true , or figuratiue one ; in the institution of the Sacrament , This is my body which is giuen for you , it s determined to signify Christ his true body , because of it only , and not of a figure , it can be verifyed which is giuen for you . If you obserue this Principle , you will cleerly answer any text that may be alleadged against this Mystery . As to the instance of vine and such lyke mystical expressions spoken of Christ , put them in a proposition with the word Christ , and they will be determined to a figuratiue or mystical signification , because that Christ that dyed for vs cannot be said of a vine or Rock in their proper signification .

Now to the second part of his argument : that God might , had he been pleased , haue redeemed vs , with out any real Incarnation of the second Person , or real Passion of Christ vpon the Cross , it s out of controuersy ; for his infinit wysdom and Power , wanted not other means for to redeem vs : is it therefore wee must say , with the Heretick Marcion , that the text , And the word was made flesh , must be vnderstood figuratiuly , and deny any real Incarnation of Christ , or Passion , on the Cross , but only a figuratiue one ? by your argument wee might , because God might , had he been pleased , conuey vnto vs by a figuratiue body and Passion , all the effects and grace , that he conueyed vnto vs by a real Incarnation and Passion : the spiritual regeneration , conferred on vs in Baptism by water , he might haue conferred it on vs by wine or Rose water : is it therefore wee must say that true natural water is not necessary for Baptism ? but say you , the text does distinctly express water ; yea , and the text in the institution of the Eucharist does distinctly express Body : and as the text does not add , true , and real Body , so it does not add true and natural water ; by what rule , must water in the text sygnify natural water , and the word Body , must not sygnify a real body ?

Thus farr wee agree that Christ might , were he pleased , haue giuen vs the effects of the Sacrament by a figuratiue Presence only ; also that he might haue conferred them vpon vs by the real presence of his Body ( for there is no impossibility in that he should haue giuenvs his real Body vnder the Accidents of bread ) the question is , what is it that he has effectually don , and which of the two has he giuen , the figure of his Body , or his real Body ? I say that his real Body , for that is requisit for the verifying of his words in the institution of the Sacrament .

But why does S. Paul call it Bread so often ; euen after the consecration ? as 1. Cor. 11.13 . as often as you eat this bread , whoeuer shall eat this bread , he took bread in his hands he brake it and said this is my Body which is broken for you . These expressions denote , that it remayns still bread . No Mr Sall , it retains the name of bread , because it retains the appearance of bread , and because that when a thing is changed into an other , it still retains the name of what it was , as in the Scripture wee read , the blind see , the lame walk ; though they see , they are called blind , because they were blind , and are restored to their sight . And S. Io. 2.9 . sayes ; when the Ruler of the feast , had tasted the water , that was made wine . The liquor that the Ruler of the feast tasted was true wine ; yet the text calls it water , 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 world : 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 , which is giuen for you : This Predicat , which 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 wyne 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 : 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 new 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 which I wil giue is flesh for the lyfe of the world ; 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 world .

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 wafer , 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 assured : this is our case in the adoration of the Host . And hence wee cannot : but condemn your intollerable rashness in saying that , it s an intollerable boldness to auer , that there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host as there is for the adoration of Christs Diuinity ; for if you vnderstand our Doctrin , which is that there is as much reason for adoring an Host truly consecrated as there is for adoring the Diuinity of Christ ; it is most manifestly true , wheras Faith teacheth vs that the Host truly consecrated is God and man , Iesus Christ really present . If you do not vnderstand our doctrin its intollerablerashness in you to censure what you do not vnderstand .

Half Communion .

We will declare our Tenet by a comparison of the Communion , with the Sacrament of Baptism ; both are commanded by Christ : if one be not born again by water and the Spirit , he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heauen Io. c. 6. and in the same chap. if you do not eate the sllesh of the son of Man , and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you .

In the Sacrament of Baptism , you must distinguish the substance and essence of it , from the circumstances and manner of receiuing it . The substance and essence of it consists , in being regenerated by water ; for that is required by Christ expresly in the text ; the manner how this regeneration is made , is by one total immersion of the Body in water ; or by three distinct immersions ; or without any total immersion , but by sprinkling some principal part of the Body with water ▪ what concerns the essence of this Sacrament , to be by water , is indispensably requisit ; cannot be altered : what concerns the manner of receiuing it ; Christ left that arbitrary to the Church , and did not oblige either to one total immersion , nor to three , nor to sprinkling but to either of the three wayes . Hence it is , that though Christ did baptize the Apostles with a total immersion of their Bodyes ; as Ancient Authors do auerr , ( if by three or one immersion wee know not ) though this manner of Baptizing by a total immersion was practised by the first age ; and some ages of the Church ; and that wee do not reade that Baptism should haue been administred in those ages by a sprinkling of the Body with water ; yet the Church in succeeding ages , for iust reasons requiring it , has seueral tymes altered this manner ; some tyme they ordained that Baptism should be giuen with three total immersions ; in hatred of the Heresy of them that denyed three persons in God ; and to signify that there was in God , but vnity as well in Person as in Nature , would not baptize but with one immersion . Some tyme , the Church commanded Baptism to be giuen with one immersion , in opposition of Hereticks , that would not baptize but with three : to signify that the three Persons were of different Natures . Thus you will find that in the 50. Canon of the Apostles three immersions are commanded ; in the 4. Council of Toledo , but One : S. Gregory writing to S. Leander , sayes it may be administred either of both wayes : and lastly the Church in consideration that many Infants especially in the Northren Kingdoms through the Coldness of the Climat , dyed by the total immersion of their Bodyes , commanded the Sacrament should be administred with the sprinkling of some principal part of the Body with water ; and this manner is vsed , also by the Protestants ; who do not rebuke the Church for omitting the triple immersion practised by the Apostles .

Thus in the Eucharist wee must distinguish the essence of it , from the circumstances : That consists in eating and drinking the Body and blood , either vnder Accidents of bread alone , or wine alone , or bread and wine together ; this is indispensably requisit : to neither in particular did Christ oblige vs , but left it arbitrary to the Church to determin as tymes , and iust occasions required : and that Christ did not oblige vs to any of those different manners : in particular , but left it arbitrary to the Church ; first the text it self declares it , for when he gaue the Cup , he did not absolutly command the vse of it saying Do this in commemoration of me , but , Do this , as often as you shall drink , in commemoration of me ; which is not a command of Drinking , but when wee shall drink , to do it in commemoration of him . Secondly wee haue a positiue example of Christ himself , that once gaue the Communion in the accidents of bread alone , to his disciples in the way towards Emaus : wee haue no positiue example in Scripture that Christ should baptize som tymes by sprinkling the Body with water , sometymes by one total immersion , and yet wee confess , that Baptism may be administred any of these three wayes , as the Church shall ordain ; wee haue no positiue example that Christ should haue giuen the Eucharist , sometymes in Leuen , sometymes in Azim bread ; and yet the Church may giue it in either : and hauing a positiue example that he gaue the Sacrament once in bread and wyne , and once , at least , in bread alone , why cannot wee conclude that the Church may do so also . Christ gaue the Sacrament at night ; is it therefore it cannot be giuen in the morning ? Christ gaue it after the corporal repast ; is it therefore it cannot be receiued fasting ? Christ washed his Apostles feet when he gaue it , is it therefore needfull to wash the receiuers feet ?

That non obstante of the Council of Constance that so much surprises poore Mr Sall , as if the Council had been presumptious in prohibiting the vse of the Chalice , hauing confessed that Christ and the Apostles gaue it to the faithfull , argues nothing of presumption ; for as the Council knew that Christ and the Apostles gaue the Cup to the Layty , so it knew also that sometymes they gaue only the Bread , and therby did vnderstand that it was left in the power of the Church to giue the Sacrament in either of both kinds . Vpon this ground did the Council of Constance , and does the Church now prohibit the Chalice , iust reasons mouing them to it . First , that if the Cup should be giuen , that would hinder the frequent Communion , to which the Church doth exhort vs much ; for wherethe wine is scant and deere , and the Communicants thousands in number ; the expences would be great : secondly People would conceiue a horror against the Communion , if they were obliged to drink out of the same Cup with sickly Persons , perhaps with contagious diseases . Thirdly the Communion would be morally impossible to many , that can not endure the tast of wyne . Fourthly the danger of the effusion of some drops in a great multitude of Communicants , these and many other reasons haue moued the Church to command the vse of the bread alone .

Heere indeed comes very pertinently Mr Salls argument against the real Presence . The Communion vnder both kinds is not needfull ; neither for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament ; nor for the effects , which by it are conueyed vnto vs : not for the effects conueyed , wheras what Christ promised to the Receiuers of the bread and Cup , he promises to the Receiuers of the bread alone . He that eats this bread shall liue for euer , Io. 6.38 . which he repeats three tymes in that chap. is not this all that is promised to the Receiuers of the Bread and Cup ? not for the verifying of Christ his words , for that text Io. 6. ( which is the strongest that our aduersaryes can alleadge ) if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not haue lyfe in you . The particle and , which seems to require the taking of the Cup , as well as the bread , Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 25. and Suar. in 3. par. disp. 71. sect. 2. do manifestly proue that it must be vnderstood disiunctiuly , and signify or , and the sence of the text is , if you do eat the flesh of the son of Man or drink his blood , &c. And that in the Hebrew or Syriach language , ( wherin Christ did speake ) it signifyes so , and that the Apostle S. Iohn writing in Greek , retained the Hebrew Phrase , , Now that the particle and which vsually is Copulatiue , somtymes in Scripture signifyes disiunctiuly , they proue it by seueral examples of Scripture , as when S. Peter was asked an alms Act. 3. he answered , I haue no syluer and Gold , meaning that he had neither syluer nor Gold , otherwise the excuse was friuolous . Ex. 15. and 21. He that will kill his Father and Mother , let him dye , the sence is Father or Mother , Psal. 1. the impious shall not ryse in iudgment , and the sinners in the Council of the Iust . The sence is nor the sinners . So in that text if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man , and drink his blood , &c. The word and , must be taken in a disiunctiue sence , and signify , he that will not eat his flesh nor drink his blood ; which is declared by Christ his subsequent words , He that eats this bread , shall liue for euer ; signifying , that eating alone , and consequently , or drinking alone was sufficient .

But say you Christ Mat. 26. after giuing the bread , and commanding to Eat , gaue the Cup and said , drink ye all of this . If the Apostles only , were commanded to drink , they only were commanded to eat , and so as the Layty is excluded from drinking , they must be also excluded from eating : and if the command of eating did reach to the Layty , the command also of drinking did extend to them .

For to answer this Obiection , you must obserue the difference betwixt a sacrifice , and a Sacrament ; a sacrifice is a worship of God by the oblation of some visible thing which wee offer in homage of his greatness ; so that a sacrifice is directed to God , and consists in an Action exhibited to his honour A Sacrament is a sensible sign giuen to a Creature for some spiritual inuisible effect : so that the Nature of a Sacrament consists in the Reception of a visible sign by Gods Creatures ; and is directed to them for a spiritual effect ▪ The Eucharist is a Sacrifice , a Sacrament . It s a sacrifice of Christs body and blood vnder the Accidents of bread and wyne , offered to God in representation of Christs body sacrificed on the Cross ; and that the representation should be full and compleat , it was ordained in bread to signify his body broken for vs , and in the liquid species of wyne to represent his blood effused . This sacrifice is offered not only by the Priest , and for the Priests that consecrats but by and for the whole congregation ; but because each Person of the multitude is not the immediat Minister of the sacrifice , but all do offer it by the hands of consecrated Persons , on whom Christ layd the commend of sacrificing , Do this in commemoration of me , commanding them to do , as then he did ; it is not need full that each particular of the congregation should receiue , either the bread or the wyne consecrated , as it is a sacrifice ; but that the immediat Minister who offers it for all , should receiue both . Hence I confess that Christ in the institution of this Sacrifice in the last supper ▪ directed his commands of eating and drinking only to the Apostles and their successors ; which he then consecrated Ministers of the Sacrifice ; and that neither the word Drink nor eat in those texts extend to oblige the Layty .

But the Eucharist is also a Sacrament , for that very body and blood of Christ , which he ordained to be a sacrifice to God vnder the accidēts of bread and wyne , he ordained them to be giuen vnder the same Accidents to man for the spiritual nourishment of his soule . I say vnder the same Accidents , not that both kind of Accidents of bread and wyne are needfull for the perfect receiuing of a Sacrament but either ; for the Eucharist in the Accidents of bread alone , is a sensible sign containing the body and blood of Christ , which nourishes the soul and giues lyfe euerlasting , He that eats this bread shall liue for euer therefore its a perfect Sacrament : whence I conclude , that since it is giuen to Creatures as a Sacrament , and not as a Sacrifice , its sufficient they receiue vnder the sensible signs either of bread alone or wyne alone ; for in either its a perfect Sacrament ; and only in both a perfect Sacrifice . If you ask where then ( if not in the words of the last supper ) was there any obligation layd on vs to receiue the Eucharist Sacramentally ? I answer , Io. 6. if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man , &c.

Mr Sall concludes , that by Suarez his confession , 3. p. disp. 42. s . 1. the Accidents of bread and wyne are the constitutes of the Sacrament : consequently by taking away the Cup , wee depriue the Layty of the Sacrament . Suarez sayes , that the Accidents of bread and wyne , and either of bread or wyne , are constituts of the Sacrament , and throughout the whole disput. 71. largely proues in three sections that the whole essence of the Sacrament is contained in either kind .

Worshipp of Images .

Mr Sall sayes the worship of Images is expresly prohibited in the 20. Chap. Ex. which text also expresly prohibits the making of grauen Images , or the lyknefs of any thing that is in heauen aboue , and on the earth , or vnder the earth or in the waters , and then adds in a distinct verse thou shall not adore nor worship them . If Mr Sall will admit no interpretation of that text , but vnderstand it literally ; the Protestants are also transgressors , who make pictures of the King , Queen and seueral other things , and yet the text prohibits the making of the likness of any thing . If he will interpret the text to signify , no image must be made to be adored ; wee say the text does not only prohibit the adoring of them , but the making of them ; if notwithstanding he will still insist vpon his interpretation ; then he must giue vs also leaue to giue our interpretation , 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 worship 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 with the same worship wherwith that is worshipped , wherof 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 . wee iudge Images worthy of honor and adoration , and wee ought to exhibit it to them : call that adoration as you please , so it be not Latria , it s all alyke what 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 was 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 commits many disorders in adoring I mages ; y deny any such abuses that may reach to Idolatry : and that the Authority which God has giuen to gouern vs , and which wee are bond to obey , is to take cognisance of that , which when they do , and prohibit Images , wee will obey them ; in the mean tyme wee will giue you and your Church leaue to bark at the Moon .

But I must mind you of one mistake for to conclude this discourse , Clemens Alexandrinus , say you , Hom. 7. ( I pray where haue yow seen , or any other , Homilies of Clemens Alexandrinus ? but this is not the mistake that I am to aduertise you of ) and in his Paraenesis , speaking of Images in general declareth thus : wee haue no Images in the world , it is apparently forbidden to vs , to exercyse that deceitfull art for it is written &c. you are mistaken Mr Sall , and it cannot be but maliciously , if you haue read his Paraenesis , for he does not speake of Images in general , but of Idols , and such as were adored for Gods by the Gentiles , to whom he directed that Paraenesis disswading them from Idolatry , to the worship of one true God . This is a matter of fact , let the Reader peruse the Author himself , and he will find that you are mistaken .

Hence wee conclude that Images of Christ and his saints cannot be called Idols . For an Idol is a representation of a God that is not , or a Deyty that has no being ; Images of Christ and the saints are representations of things that haue a real Being : and to say that Christ his image is an Idol , is to say , that Christ , who is the Prototype has no real Being . wee conclude that the making of Images was neuer prohibited ; for God made man to his own Image , commanded many Images to be made ; the Ark of the Testament , the Brasen serpent , and seueral others mentioned in Scripture : and the Protestants them selues make many Images of Kings , Queens , and saints . wee conclude , that all worship to Images is not prohibited for wee worship the King particularly , because he represents Gods Power and greatness ; nor all religious worship of Images is prohibited , for wee giue a Religious worship to the Holy name of Iesus , to the Bible beyond all other Books , because it is the word of God , and the Protestants to the Sacrament , which they say is but a figure of Christs body : Reason proues wee ought to worship the Images of Christ and his saints ; for it is apparent , that there is such a relation and connexion , betwixt the image and the thing wherof it is an image , that the honor or deshonor don to the image for being a representation of the Prototype , is esteemed to be don to the Prototype : as when a man is by publick iustice burnt in Effigie his person is branded by the execution don in his image , and no man but will think the iniury don to his picture , an affront to his own person . wee therefore must worship the Images of Christ and the saints , because they are their representations , and in this vndoubtedly wee worship them , for the relation and connection that is betwixt the representation and thing represented : this worship resteth not in the Image , but passes to the Prototype for whose sake wee worship it . And therefore it may be called a transitiue , or relatiue worship ; The adoration of Latria due to God wee deny to Images , and detest it as much as you : and when wee declare our Doctrin and Faith so cleerly , its malice and knowen preiudice , to accuse vs of Idolatry , which consists in adoring as God , what is not God .

Inuoeation of Saints .

Mr Sall I hope does not forget that Maxim of the schooles , argumentum multum probans nihil probat , that an argument which proues more than the disputant pretends , or can pretend to proue ; proues nothing , but must be fallacious ; and doubtless any Christian will say that an argument that proues directly against the Scripture , is but a Sophistry . Let vs heare his argument against the Inuocation of Saints . God sayes he Rom. 8.34 . has appointed his son Iesus to make intercession for vs , who is more compassionat , better able , and more willing than any Saint or Angel to helpe vs , and his prayers are efficacious ; for , sayeth he , Io. 5.16 . Whatsoeuer we ask the Heauenly Father in his name , he will giue it vs .

This argument proues directly against Scripture ; for it proues that wee must not ask the Saints on earth to pray for vs , nay it proues wee must not pray for ourselues , but remit all to Christ ; who knowes ourwants , is more compassionat towards vs than the Saints on earth are , nay than wee are of ourselues ; loues vs better than they loue vs , or wee loue ourselues ; is better able , and more willing to help vs , than they are , and than wee are ourselues ; on the other syde his prayers are more efficacious , why then should wee ask the prayers of Saints on earth , or pray for ourselues . Yet Scripture commands vs to pray for ourselues , and recommends vnto vs , that wee should ask the prayer of our Brethren , and the Protestant Church also does practice it . Therefore this argument proues directly against the Scriprure and against the practice of the faithfull .

It s certain Christ loues vs better , than the Saints or Angels do , and is more able and willing ; but it is also certain , that he loues the Saints of heauen , better than he loues vs , poore sinners on earth ; ( I know not what opinion Mr Sall may haue of himself ) and so what he would not do for vs on earth , for our sakes ; wee may expect , he may do it for the sake of those that he loues most , which are the Saints and Angels in heauen . For wee haue examples in Scripture of some Blessings conferred on the liuing on earth , not for the sake of any liuing on earth , but of Saints departed . 3. Reg. 11.15 . God shewen mercy to Salamon , in differring the punishment which he deserued sor his Idolatry , not for Salamons sake , but for Dauid his Fathers sake , ( who was dead ) 4. Reg. 19.34 . God protected Ierusalem against the Assyrians , nor for Ezechias the Kings sake , though he loued him ; nor for Isaias his sake that then liued , and was a Holy Prophet , but for his owne sake and Dauids sake his seruant . Thus wee see , that though God loues vs more than the Saints departed loue vs , yet he loues them more than vs , and giues vs for their sake what he would not grant vs for our own .

He brings the words of S. Peter Act. 4.12 . that there is no saluation in any other , and no other Name vnder Heauen , wherby wee may be saued ; all which wee acknowledge , and yet Protestants as well as wee do ask the prayers of their Brethren on earth ; and why may not wee aske the prayers of the Saints in heauen ? for what wee expect by their intercession , and the value and worth of their prayers , is altogether grounded , and springs from the Merits of that name of Iesus . This is all that Mr Sall alleadges against this Tenet of ours , iugde you what strong considerations moued him to desert our Church . He ads the folly of two Spanish fryers that beyond all measure , euen of the Catholik Principles , as he grants , pag. 75. exceeded in the prayses of Saints , and he would be no longer a Catholick , since there were such madmen amongst vs , and perhaps some Protestants will haue the lyke encouragement for to leaue that Church , since Mr Sall is entred into their Congregation . But if , by your acknowledgment , these excesses are against our Principles ; therefore you grant , that our Principles do not wrrant any excesses in the Inuocation of Saints ; why therefore did you leaue the Church , whose Principles are sound ? because some fryers played the foole ? a pretty reason .

Now that I haue answered your obiections Mr Sall ; y pray answer me to this discourse ; that the Saints in Heauen do pray for vs , I proue it thus ; and , if I be not mistaken , euidently in the Principles of Religion .

The Saints in Heauen know euidently that there is a Militant Church on earth , for they euidently know that the Resurrection or general Iudgment is not as yet come ; wheras they know that they haue not assumed their Bodies ; consequently they know the world is not ended , and that there is a militant Church on earth . Also they know euidently that this militant Church is in continual warfare , still assaulted by Satan with temptations , beset with spiritual dangers : for this is the Essence of a Militant Church ; and in this it is distinguished from the Triomphant ; that This , is out of all danger ; That is in continual battle : by this it appeares that the Saints in Heauen , are not altogether ignorant of our affaires on earth , as our Aduersaries would haue them to be . Now I proceed in my discourse , can it be imagined that the Saints in Heauen , knowing our temptations , and battles with so fierce an enemy as Satan , should be so deuoid of Charity , as not to pray for vs ? I know not what you may answer , but I know what some answer : that they can not pray ; for , being rauish'd with the possession of an acomplisht Bliss , they cannot mind any thing els , but the glory of the obiect which they see . But this is in credible , that the Deuils in the bitterness of their torments should not forget vs , nor the hight of miseries should not allaytheir malice , but still tempt vs ; and the saints and Angels should abate their Charity in the greatness of their glory : specially that Christ ( sayes S. Paul Rom. 8. ) prayes inessantly for vs ; the possession therefore of the glory , cannot hinder the saints prayers for vs .

But I proue that their glory obliges them to pray for vs : you cannot deny , but that in the possession of that glory , they ardently desire , the exaltation of Gods name , the increase of his glory , the confusion of his enemy Satan ; and what greater confusion of Satan , what greater exaltation of Gods name and glory , than the victory of men against Satan , the victory of those that are tempted by him , and finally mens saluation ; vndoubtedly then , wheras they euidently know that the Militant Church is in continual battle against that enemy , in continual temptations , and dangers of damnation ; the very possession of that glory makes them desire ardently , and wish our victoryes , and saluation : this wish and desire of theirs , you cannot deny but that it is manifest to God ; and what els , I ask you , is a Prayer , but a pious desire of a thing , represented to God ? it is euident therefore that the saints and Angels pray for vs to God .

This discourse , you will say , proues that the triumphant Church , and each particular of it , knows the wants of the Militant Church in general , but not of each particular , or of any particular person of the Militant Church , therefore wee particular Persons ought not to pray to any of the Triumphant Church , wheras they do not know if wee pray , or any of our particular affairs .

But the argument proues at least that the saints departed and Angels are Mediatours for the Militant Church in general ; and so all Mr Salls discourse , for the only Mediatourship of Christ , falls to ground : more ouer I will proue by Scripture and reason that they know the temptations , and dangers of particular Persons of the Militant Church and consequently the former discourse proues , that they pray for particular persons , and heare their prayers .

Lu. 15. it s said that the Angels reioyce at ( and consequently know ) the conuersion of a sinner ; the Deuils know the state and condition of particular persons , and by their temptations allures them to sin : the glorious Spirits therefore , who in their natural knowledge are equal to , and in supernatural surpasse them , do know no less ; neither is it credible that God should permit the Deuil to know mans condition to tempt him , and should not permit the glorious Spirits , especially our Angels keepers to help and defends vs : the Protestants ought not to question this ; wheras in their Common Prayer Book , they haue this Collect on S. Michael the Archangels day the 29. of Sept: God who in a wonderfull manner dispenseths the Ministeries of Men and Angels , grant , that as they do thee constantly assist in heauen , so by thy appointment , they may succour and defend vs on earth . God therefore vseth the Ministery of Angels to help men , and consequently Angels know mens particular affairs . That there are witches in the world may not be denyed , if wee will not condemn most Commonwealths of folly and iniustice , which punish many for such , and if wee will not laugh at Scripture which relates 1. Reg. 28. that Saul by the help of a witch raysed the Spirit of Samuel ; that the witchs inuoke and are heard by the Deuils its out of doubt ; and shall the Glorious Spirits be deaf to them that inuoke them ? lastly many examples are recorded in Scripture of the ministery exhibited by Angels to men . 3.19.6 . Reg. 1. Gen. 48.16 . and 16.4 . Reg. 19.34 .

And that saints also departed know our affairs and do assist vs , the Scripture doth witness it : Saul , all fraught with afflictions , finding no comfort in the liuing , betooke himself to the Spirit of Samuel deceased , 1. Reg. 28. this proues that men in those dayes did belieue that the saints departed know our aflairs , and can help vs , and Samuels answer to him does euidence the same . Elias departed this world , that s to say all commerce with human kind , the 18. yeare of Iosaphas Reygn , as appears 3. Reg. 22. and 4. Reg. 2. and 3. Iosaphat dyed about seauen years after , which was the 25. yeare of his reygn , as appears 3. Reg. 22. Ioram succeeded to Iosaphat , and Elias that departed from all human commerce seauen years before , writ a letter to him , rebuking him for his wickedness , and threatning him with Gods indignation . can there be amore manifest proof that the saints departed know our affairs , and do help vs ? S. Peter 2. epist. c. 1. tells the Christians to whom he writ , that his death was at hand , and that he would be mindfull of them after his departure from lyfe , and help them to be mindfull of his Doctrin .

Can it then be doubted but that wee may prudently , and ought to pray to them , by whose means the Scripture assures vs that others did receiue Gods blessings ? either directing our prayers immediatly to God , praying that for his B. Mothers sake , for S. Peters sake , for Dauids sake ( this prayer is often made by the ancient Prophets in Scripture , Propter Dauid seruum tuum non auertas faciem Christi tui . Psal. 131. Memento Domine Dauid & omnis mansuetudinis eius . ps. 131. ) he would haue compassion of vs ? or directing our prayers immediatly to the saints and Angels , beseeching them to help vs , and pray for vs ; as Iacob Gen. 48. prayed that God , in whose sight he walked , and the Angel , who deliuered him from euils , should bless his children . This is it that 's vnderstood in that Article of our Creed , The communion of saints , that the saints of the Triumphant Church in heauen , of the Militant on earth , and the Patient in Purgatory , haue a Communication of prayers and merits betwixt them , that those of heauen pray for vs , and wee by our prayers and suffrages , do help them in Purgatory .

Mr Sall thinks it extrauagancy , that wee call the B. virgen our Sauioress and Redeemer ; and if he be impartial he must call the Prophet Dauid extrauagant also , when he sayes ( speaking of the saints ) Psal. 81. I haue said , ye are Gods , and the sons of the highest all : And perhaps he will not stick to blame God himself , who sayes to Moyses Ex. 7.1 . behold I haue made thee a God to Pharaoh ? wee call the B. V. so , because those names may be giuen in an improper sence to the chief Instrument of our Redemption , as she was , being the Mother of him who is truely our Redeemer . wee build more Churches sayes Mr Sall , and say more prayers to som saints than to God : wee answear that all the honor we exhibit to saints is giuen to God , for whose sake we honor them . To them we build Churchs for his sake because they are his great seruants . He assures vs in the Ghospel that what wee do to one of his little ones wee do it to him ; much more wee may be assured , wee do to him and for him , what wee do to , and for his saints in heauen , wheras himself tells vs , Io. 12 26. if any will serue me , my Father will honor him . Much more ought they to be honored by vs .

Purgatory and Indulgences .

Mr Sall rallyes about the situation of Purgatory and the nature of the torments that there are suffered , if cold , heat , rain , or tempest &c all which is to no purpose , for what is controuerted betwixt Protestants and Catholicks is not , what place is Purgatory in , or what are the payns inflicted there ; but if there be any such thing as Purgatory : the Protestants deny any third receptacle of souls departed , but must go either to heauen or Hell , for where the tree falls , there it remayns . The orthodox Doctrin is that there is a Purgatory , where souls departed with venial sins only , or that after the remission of their mortal sins in this lyfe by the Sacrament of Confession , or by an act of Contrition , haue not don sufficient pennance in this lyfe for their transgressions ; must suffer vntill they satisfy Gods iustice to the last farthing . This is an Article of Faith ; but the Church has not determined in what place is Purgatory ; that is a schoole question : as for the Nature of the torments there inflicted ; it s an Article of Faith that they are tormented with the priuation , or banishment from Gods sight : also it s of Faith that they are tormented by fyre : but the Church has not determined , what kind of fyre is that , or how it torments ; and though Diuins and Fathers speake of other torments , yet it s no Article of Faith , that they suffer this or that , of Cold , snow or tempest .

To proue our Catholick Tenet , I will first proue ; that there is some other receptacle of Souls departed besids Heauen and Hell of the Damned ; secondly I will proue that there is a Purgatory .

The first is proued by the Article of our Creed , he descended into hell , which cannot be vnderstood to be the Hell of the damned , for all Christians abhorr the blasphemy of Caluin that sayes Christ his soule suffered the payns of the damned : the Protestants giue a most obscure interpretation to that cleer text ; by the word Hell , say they , is vnderstood the Graue and the sense of the Article is , that Christ his Body descended into the graue . This is most absurd , for in the next word before this Article , the descent of his Body to the Graue is expresly declared , He was crucified , dead , and buried : to be buried what elss is it , but his Body to descend into the Graue ? and after telling vs in the word buried , that his Body was put in the graue , would they again repeat the same in a distinct Atticle , when they pretended ro giue vs a brief abridgment of the article of Faith ?

S. Peter expounds that Article , 1. ep. 3.19 . Being dead in flesh , he descended in Spirit , to the Spirits that were detained in prison , to preach to them that were incredulous in the dayes of Noe. Behold the Article of our Creed expounded ; his Spirit descended after his death , surely it did not descend into the graue ) to the Spirits that were detained in prison ; ( there was a prison therefore , where Spirits were detained ; ) and preached to them , ( certainly he did not preach to them that were in the prison of the damned ; ) therefore there was some other prison besids that of the damned , where spirits were detained .

Wee find Gen. 37.35 . that Iacob perswaded by his children that his son Ioseph was killed , and deuoured by a Beast , lamented and said , I will descend mourning vnto my sonne to Hell . Certainly he did not intend to descend vnto him to the graue , for he was persuaded he had none , but was deuoured by a Beast ; neither can it be imagined that he intended to descend vnto him , to the Hell of the damned , or belieued that his son descended thither ; Iacob therefore belieued that there was an other Hell , where his son descended , and he expected to goe after his death . This shocks the whole fabrick of the Protestant dostrin , of no Purgatory ; grounded chiefly on the perswasion of no other receptacle of souls , but Heauen and Hell of the damned .

Now that there is a Purgatory , I proue it : the Protestants deny it , because that if the sin be forgiuen in this lyfe , then all the punishment due of man for that sin is also forgiuen , and so there is no Purgatory : if the sin was not forgiuen , then it carries the soul to Hell , for in the other world no sin is forgiuen . But I proue that though the sin be forgiuen by the Sacrament , or Contrition , yet some temporal punishment is due of the sinner to God , to satisfy his iustice , is it not the dayly practice of Preachers , to exhort sinners , euen the reconciled sinners , to do pennance , for their sins ? what pennance did not Magdalen do , euen after that Christ had told her , that her sins were forgiuen ? what great pennance did not Dauid , S. Peter , and other reconciled sinners do ? this shews that the Faithfull were allways perswaded that pennance must be don , though the sin be forgiuen : and it is no aswer to say , that these austerityes practised by them were not for the sins they committed , and were forgiuen ; but for to arm them against future temptations ; for wee haue many passages of Scripture which shews punishments inflicted by God on the reconcilied sinners , for their sinns , after they were forgiuen .

For example original sin is forgiuen by Baptism , yet the corporal death , which is a punishment inflicted on mankind for that sin , as S. Paul sayes Rom. 6. and 5. is not forgiuen , but inflicted on all . The Prophet Nathan declared to Dauid that his sin of Adultery was forgiuen him , yet in punishment of that sin , the Child got by that Adultery , should dye . 2. Reg. 12 Iask , was that puuishment iustly due of Dauid after his sin was forgiuen or no ? If not , why should God inflict it for that sin ? if it was due ; let vs suppose that Dauid had dyed before that punishment was inflicted , ( which might haue happened , and dayly happens to others ; who dye before they do any pennance for the sins that by the Sacrament were forgiuen ) surely he must haue paid that debt in the other lyfe , before he could enter into Heauen ; where no soul , guilty of any thing , can enter . Therefore there must be some other place where sinners , whose sins haue been forgiuen , and that haue not don sufficient pennance in lyfe must be punished in the other world . A Prison I say where the last farthing may be paid , and that being paid , the prisonner may get out , for our Sauiour mentions such a prison after this lyfe . Mat. 5. and Luc. 12. but the last farthing cannot be paid in the Hell of the damned , for the debt is due there , for Eternity ; therefore there must be some other prison for souls departed besids the Hell of the damned .

Now if you read Mr Salls discourse vpon this subject , you shall not find that he brings any text of Scripture , that as much as seemingly sayes there is no Purgatory ; and yet the Reformers did separate themselus from the Church of Rome , wherof they were members , vpon pretext of errours ( wherof Purgatory is one ) which they would proue by cleer Scripture to be errours , and contrary to Gods written word : and not one text does Mr Sall , nor can he bring any cleer text to proue no Purgatory ; much less will you find any euident , or conuincing reason in his discourse to impugn our Tenet : what he does is to answer som texts ( the chief he sayes , but he is mistaken ) wherwith Bellarmin proues it , and giues only Bellarmins own answers , and thus he would perswade vs out of our Doctrin .

But first allow those texts that Bellarmin brings , do not conuince the existence of a Purgatory ; allow that texts which I heere alleadge , do not manifestly proue it : This , no man of iudgment will deny , but that these texts and glosses vpon them , haue as much probability , as much appearance of truth , as any that you bring or can bring against Purgatory : that your answers to those texts are not euidently true , for they are Bellarmins own answers , for the most part at least , and he reiects them very plausibly , since therefore wee were for so many ages in the actual belief of the doctrin , before you and your Reformers came to the world , why shall wee be bet from it , if you cannot shew stronger reasons or texts against it , than wee haue for it . Nay though wee brought no reasons at all to proue our doctrin , but this that we receiued it as the word of God from so many precedent ages ; is it reason that for you , or your Reformers pleasure , without a conuincing text or reason to proue it false , wee must disclaim it ? allow that those texts do not cleerly proue Purgatory , that s nothing ; wee are not Actors but Defendants , it s not our obligation to proue , but yours ; wee will defend ourselues against your proofs , and so hold our old doctrin .

But now I proue that those texts , which Mr Sall iudges inconclusiue , do proue what Bellarmin intended the first is out of 2. Mach. 12. a collection being made , he sent 12000. drachmas of syluer to Ierusalem , to haue sacrifice offered for the sins of the dead because he did consider that these , who receiued death with piety , would haue a very good reward it is therefore a holy and holsom thought , to pray for the dead , that they may be deliuered from sinns . This is the text though these Books were Canonical Scripture , sayes he , yet the text proues not Purgatory , for prayers for the dead , may be made for other ends , than that of drawing souls out of Purgatory ; first because that God being still present to all spaces of Eternity , foreseeing now , what prayers will be made many years and ages hence , for persons that are now , at this present , dying , and being a good Paymaster that oftentyms giues before hand , the rewards of what seruices will be don for the future , may now giue to the person dying the assistance of his grace and mercy , which he foresees will be in future tymes asked for them by friends that will pray for them : which Doctrin , sayes he , is taught by the Romish writers , and acording to this Doctrin wee may say , that the effect of those prayers made for the Iewes by Iudas Machabeus , was not do draw them out of Purgatory after thy were dead , but that God should haue giuen them for reward of those prayers a Good death .

Obserue , Reader , what is it that Bellarmin intended to proue by that argument , l. 1. de Purg. c. 3. § . ad sextum dico he speaks thus . Our consequence proceeds not thus : they prayed for the slain ; therefore there is Purgatory : but thus . They praied for the remission of the sins of the dead : therefore they iudged , that after their death they might be in Purgatory ; that they might after death haue some sins that needed expiation : and this praying for the dead , to deliuer them from sin after their death , is commended by Scripture : consequently sins may be forgiuin after death , consequently there is a Purgatory after death , otherwyse the Scripture would haue erred in praysing , prayers for the remission of the sins of the dead . And what man of common sense does not see , that these conclusions follow out of that text . For what Bellarmin pretended and wee pretend to proue out of that passage , is that it was the practice of the Iewish Church , and the belief of the People of God ( and consequently no new inuention of the Catholick Church ) that sins may be expiated and forgiuen after death and that prayers were vsed to be made for the dead , not only for to 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 would 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 water ( sayes he ) in the ps. 66.12 . wee passed through fyre and water , but thou broughtest vs out into a wealthy 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 water 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 world nor in the world 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 . M● 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 world 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 world , 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 will speake a word against the son of Man , it shall be forgiuen him ; but he that will speake against the H. G. it shall not be forgiuen him , either in this world , nor in future . I argue thus : the text denies to a blasphemy against the H. G. what it grants to a blasphemy against the son of Man . But what it denies to That , is remission in this lyfe and the other : therefore what it grants to This is remission in this lyfe , and the other : The text sayes again in this place . Euery sin and blasphemy shall be forgiuen to men , but a blasphemy against the H. G. Is it nor an euident sequele out this text , that as a blasphemy against the Spirit is vnpardonable so all other sins are pardonable ; but a blasphemy against the Spirit is vnpardonable in this world , and in the future ; therefore other sins are pardonable in both .

You will reply , that this argument proues too much ; for it proues that as a blasphemy against the H.G. is vnpardonable in the other lyfe , not only as to the punishment , due to the sin , but also as to the guilt , or fault ; so other sins are pardonable in the other lyfe , not only as to the punishment due to sin , which is what wee pretend ; but also as to the fault or guilt of sin ; which is more than wee pretend ; for wee teach that Mortal sins are not forgiuen as to the guilt or fault , in the other world : therefore this argument proues too much . Answer : that a sin may be said vnpardonable , its requisit that Nothing of it be pardonable ; for , as the schoole Maxim sayes Negatio totum destruit : wheras therefore the text imports , that a blasphemy , against the H. G. is vnpardonable in this lyfe and the future , it follows , that nothing either the guilt or fault of it , or the punishment due to it , be pardoned , either in this lyfe or the future . But that a sin may be said pardonable it suffices that some part of it at least may be pardoned ; wheras therefore our argument proues , that sins are pardonable in the other lyfe , its requisit that some part of it be pardoned or pardonable in the other lyfe ; either the guilt of sin , or the punishment due to it : Not the guilt or fault ; as wee belieue and proue by many euident arguments : therefore the punishment due to it .

He tells vs the doctrin of Purgatory makes men negligent of true repentance , and satisfaction for their sins in this lyfe , for the hopes it giues of the Remission of them in Pugatory . But this is incredible , that men being instructed of the bitterness of the torments of Purgatory , far exceeding all that can be suffered in this world , should be encouraged to omit the smale pennance and pains of this lyfe , for to fusser the far greater and more excessiue pains of Purgatory . It giues ( quoth he ) occasion to pittifull abuses of Simony in the valuation of Masses , of cruelty and iniustice : and what is there in the world so sacred and Holy , but the malice of man may abuse ? is it therefore all sacred things must be renounced and abolisht ? wee condemn the abuses as well as you ; but wee must not therefore condemn the Doctrin , but correct the malice of man that abuses it .

From this of Purgatory he descends to exclaim against Indulgences ; which he pretends to be groundless because Suarez , l. de Defen . fid. c. 15. sayes that Indulgences is a remission of the pains of Purgatory , and most falsly auers that Suarez doubts , if this power be in the Church , wheras in that place he affirms it is vndoubtedly certain the Church has it , and grounds this certainty on the infinitness of Christs Merits , which euen our Aduersaries grant , and on the power giuen to the Church , Mat. 18.18 . of binding and vnbinding ; which power sayes he , cannot be doubted , but it extends to the Remission of the pains of Purgatory ; for which in that place he brings no other proof but the constant practice of the Church , which he sayes is an vnquestionable proof ; and remits the more ample proof of this doctrin to To. 4. in 3. p. disp. 48.

Mr Sall iudges the doctrin not sufficiently proued , because Suarez alleadges in this place no other warrant but the ancient custom of the Church , which Suarez and wee hold to be an vndoubted proof ; This proof and no other does S Augustin bring to proue Infants Baptism , serm. 4. de verbis Apost. c. 18. This , the Authority of our Mother the Church hath , against this strenght , against this inuincible wall , whosoeuer rusheth , shall be crushed in peeces . By the same he proues the validity of Hereticks Baptism , l. 1. contr Crescon . c. 32. and 33. for which , he sayes , No examples is brought out of Canonical Scripture , but that which recommends vnto vs the Authority of the Church , who teacheth it . S. Chrysost. vpon the words of S. Pauls 2. Thes. 2. Stand and hold the Traditions , &c. Hom. 4. speaks thus : Let vs account the Tradition of the Church worthy of belief : it is a Tradition seeke no more . And again S. August . Epist. 118. If the Church through out the whole world practise a thing ; to dispute , whether such a thing can be don , is a most insolent madness . I conclude then that Suarez sufficiently proued the truth of the doctrin of Indulgences , hauing grounded it on the constant practise and custom of the Vniuersal Church .

You say the doctrin of Indulgence is not so Ancient : and that the first who began to giue these Grants was Gregory the seauenth , to the Emperour Henry the fourth to encourage him and the Christians to warr against the Sarazens ; as Baronius relates an . Dom 1084. if all this were true ; it s older notwithstanding than Protestancy by many hundred years : But if you haue no more skill in Diuinity or Moral Theology , ( your Treatise shews well what you know in Controuersy ) than you seeme to haue in History , you are but a fresh water scholler . That Indulgence you speake of , nor no other to any such purpose , was not granted by Gregory the seauenth , but by Vrban the second ; nor to Henry the fourth , who made no warr against the Sarazens , but to Henry the Third ; not in the yeare 1084 but 1095. Neither is this the first grant of Indulgences which you could meet , if you had read the Histories ; Baronius related by you , tells vs that Indulgences were granted by Leo the third the yeare 847. and by Iohn the Eight the yeare 878. Nor is it a good argument ; we do not read that Indulgences were giuen before ; therefore the Power of granting Indulgences was not in the Church before .

You add that priuat Bishops granted Indulgences for gathering of Monies to build Churches ; that is very true , but if Nostre-Dame of Paris was built vpon that account , is not so certain : by that you may see Indulgences are not so slightly granted as your Ministers do perswade their flock ; but on Condition that the Receiuers endeauor to put them selues in the state of Grace by true repentance of their sins , and that they exercyse some pious works of fasting , Prayers , 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 accus●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 . whateuer 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 , while wee do that , which the Authority of Scripture doth recommend vnto vs : that so , because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs , who soeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question , must haue recourse to the Church Cōcerning it , which without 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 , cannot 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 vnknowen 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 how can that be if the hearer perceiueth not the meaning of the words 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 whateuer language wee speake though vnknowen to the Congregation ; wee may say the publick Prayer in a language vnknowen to them .

Is not Prayer , say you , ( you see how your arguments recoyls against yourself ) a raising vp of our minds to God to prayse him or ask fauors of him ? will it not be conducent and necessary for this to vnderstand the Psalms and Prayers ? But Sr do you think it necessary that a Polander , who presents a Petition to the King of England in the English language , ought to be blamed , because he does not himself vnderstand that language ? or is it not enough for his purpose , that the King doth vnderstand it ? cannot he prudently rely in the Faith and honesty of the Notary or Clerk that writ it , who being instructed of what he pretends giues him the petition drawen to be presented ? If therefore Prayers , by your acknowledgment , are but our request to God for the obtaining of his Mercy , is it not sufficient for me that he vnderstands them ? and may not I rely on the Faith , and honesty of the Church , who giues me these Prayers , as so many petitions wherin my request is contained ?

You bring a text of S. Paul 1. Cor. 14.17 . against this Tenet , and you will not haue vs to consider the obiect or end to which he directed his discourse ; but the reasons and instances he alleadges : as if his reasons , or any mans reasons , could be of force to proue any thing , but in relation to the obiect , or subiect of his discourse . To the contrary , for to vnderstand the Apostles reason in the genuin fence , wee must obserue to what end he directed his discourse , and the subiect he treated of ; and no vnpreiudiced man will reade that Chapter , but will manifestly preceiue that he did not speake of Prayers to God , but of preaching and instruction of the congregation , which he some tymes in that Chap. calls Prayer , but the context shews plainly , that what he meanes is Exhortation , or instruction of the people : for all a long he disproues that Praying or speaking in an vnknowen language ; and giues for reason , because the Hearers did not vnderstand it : does not this reason apparently proue that he meant what was spoken vnto the people , which was what wee now call Sermon or exhortation ? For S. Paul could not condemn Prayers made to God in an vnknowen language , and giues that for reason , because the Hearers did not vnderstand it : for the Hearer of the Prayers made to God , are not the people but God , to whom the prayer is made ; and of him , S. Paul could not say , that he did not vnderstand : therefore he could not condemn speaking to him in an vnknowen language .

To be brief ; I propose this syllogism . S. Paul in that Chap. condemned speaking in a language that the Hearers could not vnderstand ; this is euident out of the tetx . But in the publick Prayer of the Church , wee only speake to God , he only is the Hearer of those Prayers , for to him they are made and directed and not to the people , and he can vnderstand in any language : therefore S. Paul did not condemn the publick Prayer of the Church in any language . Again S. Paul condemned speaking in an vnknowen language , that the Hearers , to whom one did speake , did not vndestand : But in the Church nothing is spoken to the people , but what is preached , or taught by exhortations , sermons , exposition of the Ghospell , &c. then , and only then , the Congregation are the Hearers : therefore what S. Paul condemned was preaching exhorting , or expounding the Ghospell vnto the people in vnknowen languages , because then the Hearers could not vnderstand what was spoken to them .

He tells vs what great blessings the Protestants enioye by hauing the Publick seruice in Common language , how much it conduces for the increase of deuotion and how vnhappy the Catholicks are in wanting this comfort ; but , alas , wee haue but too great an experience of the contrary ; that the putting the Lyturgy in common language , has caused the decay of deuotion ▪ the contempt of the publick seruice , the desrespect of sacred things sullyed by euery Coblers mouth ; your men of vnderstanding and zeale are sufficiently sensible of this , and would wish that these sacred things were kept at a distance from the common people .

The words of S. Augustin , l. 4. de doctr. Christ . c. 10. that he thinks do fauor him , proues what wee teach , what profiteth any excellency of speech , if not vnderstood by the Hearer ? ( when wee pray , God is the Hearer , and he vnderstands any language : and when wee preach or exhort , the congregation is the Hearers , and must speake to them in the language they vnderstand ) No cause being for speaking , if what we speake be not vnderstood by them , for whose sake wee speake , that they may vnderstand what wee speake . Could he speake in plainer terms of a preacher ? to let him vnderstand that he must preach in the language that his Auditory vnderstands .

The Antiquity of their practice ( of praying in the Latin language ) goes thus , sayes he : and when I expected he should tell vs when it began ; ( for this would be to declare the Antiquity ) he bids that task farewell , and only tells vs the motiue and cause why it was introduced ; not because the Latin or Greek were more Holy than other languages , but because they were more vniuersally vnderstood : and do you approue that reason ? if not why do not you say som what against it ; if you do ? why therefore do you check the practice ?

Now let vs briefly shew the lawfullness of praying in an vnknowen language , ( I say the Publick Prayer of the Church as for priuat prayers , its confessedly lawfull and commendable to pray in vulgar language ) and the necessity of it . The Lawfullness is proued The Iewish Church had their Publick seruice in the Hebrew language , which was not vnderstood by the People , the common language was the syriak : And Christ hauing assisted somtymes at their Publick seruice , as wee find in the Ghospell , though he reprehended often the abuses of that Church , neuer did he reprehend this , by what wee may gather out of the Euangelists : nay he publickly approued it for when he hung on the Cross exercysing the function of a High Priest in the sacrifice of his lyfe for mankind he prayd publickly Eli Eli Lammasabacthani which being Hebrew , was so far from being vnderstood by the people ▪ that they thought he called for Elias . Therefore it is lawfull in the publick Sacrifice and Lyturgy of the Church to pray in an vnknowen language . Moreouer it s not necessary that the people vnderstand the Priest or Minister who prayes , as the publick Minister of the Church , for the Congregation : how many of your Congregation that do not vnderstand agreat part of your psalms , though they be in vulgar language ? many Phrases of them being so hard and obscure , that the learned Men must haue the help of Interpreters to find out their true meaning : And the Deaf , and such that are at so great a distance that they cannot heare , do not they reape any benefit by your publick Prayers because they cannot vnderstand what is said ? And if a Hugonot of France came to Dublin , who did not vnderstand your language , would not you admit him to your Communion and publick seruice ? by this you see its lawfull of its self , to make publick Prayer in an vnkwnowen language .

You will say , and I belieue the Protestant Church will pretend no more , that it is not so conuenient for the edification of the people ; but more needfull , it should be in the language that is commonly vsed . To this I answer that the Publick Prayer of the Church may be in any language which is thought the most conuenient for the glory of God , and spiritual profit of the flock ; but I say also , that it is not you , or I , or this , or that kingdom or Prouince must be the iudge to determin in which language is it most conuenient it should be ; God has giuen vs a Church who will gouern vs , it s to her it belongs to iudge what Rites , Ceremonies , and manner of Diuin worship wee must practise , and as the particular subiects of each Kingdom , cannot question the Customs , Lawes , or Decrees of the Gouernment , so the Christian Kingdoms and Prouinces must not question , nor iudge of the conueniency of what Rites or practice the Church does establish ; let vs suppose that in relation to this kingdom of Ireland , it might be thought , and realy may be som what more aduantagious for the flock , to haue the Publick seruice in English or Irish , is it therefore it must be lawfull for this kingdom , without the approbation of the Church or suprem Pastor of it , to vsurp that practice ? no , but you are to represent that conueniency to the Church , and acquiesce to her resolution . But say you why would the Church of Rome stick on so inconsiderable a thing as that ; but rather than to be a cause of Schism or separation , grant the publick seruice may be in vulgar language ? and I ask also , why would not you , or this Prouince , or that rather becontent to want that particular comfort which you propose to yourself in doing this or that which is not conformable to the approued practice of the Church , rather than to run in desobedience against the Church whose command and Authority , is a sufficient warrant for you to allay what scruples your reason may suggest against it ? The Church ought not to condescend with you , and dispense with you in the obseruance of the publick practice and Ceremonies ; though they be but bcclesiastical and human institutions : for if it shoud grant you lycence to say Mass in English , why should it not grant France leaue to Communicat in both kinds , if France did ask it : and if Spaine did ask to Christean with three immersions of the Body and not otherwyse why should not the Church grant it ; and if Germany did ask the validity of Clandestin Marriages , why should it be denyed ; and so ( each Kingdom , desiring their respectiue priuiledge ) the vniformity in Diuin seruice , Administration of Sacraments ▪ and Ecclesiastical Rites so much commended in the Church , would be quite ouerthrowen .

It s the Church therefore must iudge and determin in what language is it most conuenient to worship God by Publick Prayers ▪ and wee are to acquiesee to the Decree and commands of the Church . And therfore Luther , who vnder pretence of greater conueniency and spiritual comfort of the congregation condemned Publick seruice , in vulgar languages , against the practice of the Church ; schismatically separated himself from her ; in which separation you continue by adhering to his Doctrin .

The Church established Publick seruice in the Latin language ; behold why ? because it is the common language of the Church : as in respect of England English is the common language , and spanish in respect of spaine ; so in relation to the Church spred throughout all Nations , the Latin is the most vniuersal and common . Therefore it was conuenient the Publick Prayer of the Church , which is said in all parts , should be in the publick and most vniuersall language which is the Latin . And as each kingdom ▪ has a language proper to it self , so the Church which is the kingdom of Christ , has its proper language which is Latin ; which is so vniuersally knowen . Secondly for to preserue vniformity in the manner of Diuin worship ; if the Mass had been in English three hundred yeare agon , how different would the Mass be now from what it was then ? the language being wholy an other , from what then is was : doubtless , it would haue caused great alteration in the publick seruice . Thirdly if the Mass were not in Latin or som language vniuersally knowen throughout the world , but in the particular language of each kingdom , when Priests would come from their own Countries to ours in Pilgrimage , ( or for other occasion , ) they would not be premitted , ( or not without great difficultie ) to say Mass , and so would be depriued of that spiritual Comfort .

Scripture prohibited .

I pray Sr what do your People learn in their houses by reading the Bible ? is it not Rebellion against their Church , and contempt of all Spiritual Authority , each one obstinatly adhering to that sense , of the text which he iudgeth the best , and thus your Church is deuided into a numberless number of sects ? this is smale encouragement for vs to permit to our common people the vse of the Bible , iudging it better to know to sobriety , as S. Paul counsels , than , by pretending to know more than behoueth , to run into those inconueniencies , wherin you haue fallen . You accuse the Catholick Church for exposing Images to the adoration of the flock , for the danger of falling into Idolatry ; and this is the reason that Caluin also giues : you haue liued many years in Spain , where Images are in great veneration : you haue been much acquainted with the Inquisition , as you would haue vs belieue ; you know the seuerity of that Tribunal against Hereticks , Iewes and Idolaters ; how many haue you seen in spain , that by adoring Images came to fall into Idolatry ? doubtless had there been any , the Inquisition would haue taken holt of him ; for though the Inquisition permits Images , it would neuer leaue Idolatry , occasioned by the adoration of Images , vnpunished . And not one , I dare say , did you euer see , or heare of , to haue been punished on this account .

Now consider , how many haue fallen into Heresies , and errours quite opposit euen to your Church , by the liberty granted for reading of Scripture ; hence has proceeding all the Sects that are in our kingdoms and elswhere . Does not this demonstrat , that there is far greater danger of Heresy in the vsual reading of the Bible , than of Idolatry in adoring of Images ? ought not you rather therefore , to decry the liberty of reading the Bible , than the adoration of Images ?

But , reply you , this proues that euen the Priests and fryers ought to be kept from reading it , for it s they that haue abused it , and broached all heresies : and things must not be prohibited ( that are in themselues good ) because they are abused but the Abusers must be punished : And this good consideration , Mr Sall , will not perswade you to admit the vse of Images : wee grant Mr Sall that principle to be good , that things , in themselues commendable , must not be probited , because they are abused ; when the vse of then is absoluty needfull , or conuenient ; and the abuses are not very frequent and pernicious ; as in this case of reading the Bible ; it s not needfull , nor can it be proued to be very profitable for the common people ; on the other syde the abuses are most apparent , frequent , and pernicious ; for thence comes all these sects and heresies ; therefore it ought to be prohibited : but Mr Sall , you must mind , what I aduertised you in my discourse of Prayers in an vnknowēn language , that it is not you or I nor any other , but the Church , that must iudge of the conueniency or inconueniency , the aduantage or desaduantage of reading of Scripture ; she must declare that , and acording what she iudges , who is constantly directed by Gods infallible Spirit in the gouernment of the flock , must permit or prohibit it .

This , your Church will not say , that the vulgar people are bound in conscience to read the Scripture ; for many cannot reade any thing ; others do not read all Scripture , nor do they think that they sin , by not reading ; others do neuer read any thing of it : what you can iustly pretend is , that it is conuenient and profitable , and therefore ought to be permitted : and heere returns what I discoursed of Praying in an vnknowen tongue . Let any vnpreiudic'd man iudge if it does not belong to the Church to determin , what is conuenient , or most conuenient ; since that God has giuen a Church to gouern vs ? Let any man iudge , if a particular man , that against the establisht authority , vnder which he liues , and is bound to obey ; should rise against that authority and make himself iudge of what is conuenient or inconuenient for the gouernment , and vnder pretence of a greater conueniency that appears to him , should alter the established practices of the Commonwealth , should not such a man , I say , be esteemed a seditious Reuolter , and be punished ? what therefore shall wee say of Luther ? he liued vnder the authority of the Catholick Church ; he was a priuat person , he found the vse of the Bible prohibited , and publik seruice in Latin ; he did not pretend that it was absolutly necessary for saluation , to pray in knowen languages , nor to reade the Bible ; but iudged it to be most conuenient , and therefore condemned the Church for prohibiting it ; is not this man to be esteemed a schismatick , that opposes himself to the publick authority , and makes himself iudge of the practices established by it ? and must not wee rang you with him that persists in the same rebellion ?

Priests and fryers haue abused Scripture , it s very true ; but for one that has , thousands haue not , and for one of the vulgar that has not , many haue : besids priests and fryers , being the Pastors of the Church , are obliged to reade , and when a Priest or fryer abuses the Scripture , its easy to punish him ; but when a multitude of popular people abuses it , the remedy is not so neer at hand . He quotes vpon Mr Stillingfleets word , a Council of Bishops at Bononia , that prohibited the Scripture giuing for reason that it discouers the corruptious of the Catholick Doctrin : but this Council must be of the same coyn of the 92 Canon of the Council of Lateran , which wee mentioned aboue , no such Canon of Lateran or Council of Bononia is , or was extant , but in Mr Stillingfleet and Salls imagination .

I conclude with these two Assertions : first its needfull that the Pastors , Prelats , and Doctors of the Church do reade the Scripture ; and that the flock receiue from them the sence of it , and the Doctrin contained in it . It s for this end that God placed in his Church some Prophet , some Apostles , some Euangelists , Doctors , and Pastors , to keepe vs in Vnity of Faith by teaching what wee ought to belieue S. Paul Eph. 4. Act. 20.18 . he commands the Pastors to watch ouer the flock , in which the H. G. hath placed them to gouern the Church . It s therefore Christ laid his command on the Apostles and their successors , to teach all Nations , to preach the Ghospell : and therefore sayes S. Basil . q. 25. Superiorum est ista scire , &c. it s the obligation of the Superiors ( to say the Pastors ) to know and learn these thing , which they may teach to others ; but of the others , not to konow more , than behoueth them to know . And Leo Pope writing to the Patriarck of Alexandria epist. 62. and epist. 82. ad Iul. You must haue care that none , who is not a Priest of the Lord , may presume to vsurp the authority of teaching or preaching , whether he be a Monk , or a layman though a learned man . And S. Aug. l. 1. de moribus Eccl. c. 1. what man of iudgment doth not vnderstand , that the exposition of Scripture , is to be asked of them , who by their profession are their Doctors . And if to proceed wysely , wee must consult the Lawyers , for the true meaning of the Law , and that each Commonwealth hath men whose profession it is to study it , and deliuer the true sence of it , to those that are not Lawyers by Profession , how much more , it is needfull , that there be Doctors in the Church whose obligation is to study the Scripture , and find out by the Fathers and Interpreters the true sence of it , and teach it to the people .

This and no more doth the authorities of Fathers produced by Mr Sall proue ; the reading of Scripture is recommended vnto vs , sayes he , by S. Basil , S. Chrysost ▪ and S. Augustin : it s very true ; but to whom ? to the learned men of the Church , whose obligation it is to teach the Doctrin it contains , and to the Layty no further , than to hold that sence of them , which the Pastors deliuer to be the sence of the Church .

The second Assertion , that it is not conuenient , nor lawfull for the Layty to reade them further , than with a total submission of their Iudgment to the sence giuen to them by the Church . This is manifestly proued by the multitude of sects , wherin to the world is deuided through the liberty assumed of reading the Scriptures , and vnderstanding them , as the Readers think best . Secondly by the obscurity of Scripture which wee haue demonstrated in the 2 and 3. ch. S. Peter , sayes Mr Sall , 2. Epist. 1.19 . exhorts vs to read , wee haue also a sure word of of Prophecy , wherunto ye do well to take heed &c. but S. Peter , by that sure word of Prophecy , means , not only the written word of God , but also the vnwritten word , which is the Tradition , by which the Church deliuers to vs the true sense of the written word ; which he bids vs to take heed of . S. Paul recommends vnto vs the reading of Scripture Rom. 15. and 2. Tim. 3. as being written for our comfort and instruction . That is not denied ; but the Apostle speaks to Timothy , and the Pastors of the Church ; and so of the rest of the texts alleadged by Mr Sall ; which are directed only to the Pastors and Prelats , or at most to such of the Layty , as are knowing in the Fathers and Interpreters , with a total submission to the sence of the Church . For if euen the very learned themselues , are puzl'd with the difficulties of Scripture , and often do wrest them to their perd●tion as S. Peter sayes 2. Epis. 3.16 . what will the vulgar people do ?

THE IMMACVLAT CONCEPTION of the B. Virgen ; and the Sacrament of Confession .

IT 's not my intention to discourse at large of the Immaculat Conception of the B. Virgen ; but neither can I omit to speake somwhat of it , wheras Mr Sall in the Conclusion or Third part of his sermon , accuses our Church of Tyranny in forcing the belief of this Doctrin vpon the Faithfull ; they force them to the belief and defence of Doctrins repugnant to their Iudgment , and not establisht by Catholick Faith ; as may appear in their violence in forcing all to belieue and declare for the Conception of the Virgen Mary without Original sin , so many clear testimonies of Scripture being against it , as affirm that all Men did sin in Adam ; that Christ was vniuersal Redeemer from sin , and Sauiour of all mankind . And pursues complaning that none is permitted to preach in Churchs , or receiue Degrees in vniuersities , but such as will protest publickly for the immaculat Conception .

I admire Mr Sall that you so confidently auerr that many cleer testimonies of Scripture are against the immaculat Conception , and mention none , what did you expect wee would belieue a Bankrrupt in Religion only vpon his bare word ? you should haue produced those cleer testimonies ; and if you call that a cleer testimonie against this Doctrin , which S. Paul has Rom. 5. all haue sinned in Adam , as if the B. Virgen were also included in that vniuersal Proposition All haue sinned ; it s rather a cleer testimony of your little insight in Scripture , which if you had , you might know that very often such vniuersal Propositions , admit exceptions , because they are not Logically vniuersal signifying euery Indiuiduum or Particular of the kind ; but Morally vniuersal signifying the greatest part or number of the kind ; That Proposition All men haue sinned in Adam , is true , because generally men did sin in Adam , though Christ who is a Man , nor Mary did not . wee could giue many instances of the lyke Propositions in Scripture , these will suffice ; Christ Io. 10. saying himself was the true Pastor , ads ; all that euer came before me were theeues and Robbers , but the sheep did not hear them . Does not this General Proposition admit no exception ? was the Baptist , Moyses and Elias theeues and Robbers ? when Iesus was in the house of Simon and Andrew , the text sayes , they brought vnto him all that were diseased , and possessed with Diuils , And in the next verse . All the Citty was gathered together at the door . what think you ? was there none , Man , woman , nor child of the whole town but was there ? it's morally certain some was absent , yet the Proposition is still true , because that vniuersall Proposition signifies that the Generality of the town flockt thither .

Christ you say is the vniuersal Redeemer from sin ; whence you would infer , that the Virgen Mary was in sin , or could not be Redeemed : but you ignore , or affect to ignore that there are two manners , or wayes of redeeming ; the one deliuering a man from the sin wherinto he has fallen , the other preseruing him from falling into the sin . Marie was redeemed by the Merits of Christ from sin , because by his Merits she was preserued from falling into sin , wherinto she had fallen had she not been preserued by him ; and this is the most noble way of Redemption , as it is a greater benefit , to saue a man from being wounded , then to permit him to be wounded and afterward to cure him .

Now Mr Sall to shew you that our Church is not cruel in this Doctrin of the Immaculate Conception , I hope you will not say its a sin to profess publickly that Doctrin , for at least you cannot deny but that it is very probable , though it be not an article of Faith ; as it is no sin to profess publickly the Doctrin of the Thomists , or that of the Scotists : nor will you deny but that its lawfull to any Community to require certain conditions , such as they think fit , so they be not vniust and sinfull , from any that will pretend to be a member of that Community , or partake of their fauors , or priuiledges ; does not the Colledge of Dublin require som conditions from them that are to be admitted to their Community ; and is it cruelty to deny them admittance if they will not embrace those conditions ? why then will you censure it to be cruel , that some vniuersities will not admit to Degrees , nor Churchs admit to preach but those that will protest for the Conception ? why will not you also accuse of cruelty some vniuersities which will admit none to Degrees but such as will profess and teach the Doctrin of Thomist ? But say you they oblige men to protest for the Conception ▪ against their Iudgment : and dare you to condemn this to be cruelty when the Church of England obliges to sweare the spiritual supremacy of the King , which in opinion of Caluin ( as I haue shewen aboue ) is a Blasphemy , in the iudgment of most learned Protestants is false , an in the opinion of Catholicks , which you ob●ige to sweare , is an Heresy ? The opinion of the Immaculat Conception is notheretical , euen in the iudgment of those who appose it ; and when an opinion or Doctrin is not heretical , a Spiritual or Temporal Prince , or any Community may lawfully oblige their subiects , for reason of state , and the peaceable gouernment of their People , to conform themselues exteriourly and profess that Doctrin , leauing them the Liberty of iudging interiourly what they please : and such as makes that exteriour profession it s their part to correct their iudgment , and conform it to their exteriour profession , which they can lawfully do , when the Doctrin is not heretical or erroneous . why may not the vniuersities and Churchs exact the outward profession of the imaculat conceptiō , which without heresy or error a man may inwardly iudge to be true ? and why can the Protestant Church exact the swearing of the spiritual Supremacy of the King from them , who cannot in conscience submit their iudgment inwardly to that Doctrin ?

In the Conclusion of his Sermon also Mr Sall accuses our Church of cruelty in the exercyse of the Sacrament of Confession ▪ And I obserue that he does not condemn the Doctrin of Confession which our Church belieues to be a Sacrament , necessary for such as haue fallen into sin ; perhaps he was conuinc'd to belieue the necessity of it by that vnanswerable text Mat. 18.18 . what soeuer ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen , and what soeuer ye shall loose on earth , shall be loosed in heauen , which words are also expressed Mat. 16.19 . sins therefore may be bound or vnbound on earth by the Apostles and successors , and the text marks ( obserue well ) that their binding , or vnbinding on earth by them , must precede to their hinding and vnbinding in Heauen , whence the necessity of Confession of sins to the Priests is absolutly concluded . But let vs see wherin are wee guilty of cruelty in the practise of Confession .

First , saies Mr Sall , in obliging to the minut expression of the most loathsom circumstances of secret thoughts and deeds , which renders it the most heaure of Christian duties . The man would haue a pretty sweet manner of Confession , to declare what each one is pleased , and no more . How ? the Protestants did hither to accuse vs that wee did facilitat sin ▪ and gaue and easy way for forgiuing it , by granting the Priest power of forgiuing and now Mr Sall accuses vs , that wee require too much ? by this wee may see which of vs ▪ Protestants or Catholicks , does encourage most to sin by an easy forgiuing it : for the Protestant for to be reconciled from sin requires no more but a Lord haue mercy vpon me , for I am as sinner , and that betwixt him and God : the Catholick requires the declaring of each particular sin and circumstance to a Priest , with an act of sorrow for hauing sinned , a firm purpose of a mendment , the fullfilling the Pennance that the Priest shall enioyne , and the restitution of what he has taken from his neighbor : this indeed is seuere , but no cruelty ; its needfull and conuenient : Conuenient , because that seuerity iustly deserued by sin , is a bridle which keeps vs within compass , and makes vs feare sin ; and experience teaches that though some who confess , do perseuere in their wickedness ; yet generally such as make a good Confession are reclaim'd , and those that frequent this Sacrament , are the most reformed in their lyues . Needfull because that the Iudicature of consciences , and power of binding and vnbinding being giuen to the Priest ; how can he exercyse that Iudicature , or know when , or what to bind , if the Penitent does not declare the state of his conscience , no more than a iudge in a secural tribunal can giue sentence , if he knows not the fact and circumstances of it : the fore said S. August . hom. 49. Nemo dicat , occulte ago paenitentiam , in corde meo ago , coram Deo ago , ergo sine causa dictum est quae solueritis super terram , &c. Let none say , I make pennance priuatly , in my hart , in the sight of God ; in vain then was it said , whatsoeuer ye shall vnbind , &c. And S. August . also lib. de vera & falsa poenitentia : Consideret qualitatem criminis , in loco , tempore , perseuerantia & varietate personarum . Let him consider the quality of the sin , reflecting on the place , tyme , continuance , and diversitie of Persons . You see Mr Sall , what a Confession S. Augustin requires , of the sin , of it's circumstances . Which yet he more expresly declares , l. 2. de Visit . Infirmorum , c. 5. Astantem coram te Sacerdotem Angelum Dei existima , aperi ei penenetralium tuorum abditissima latibula , nihil obscurum dicens , culpam nullis ambagibus inuoluens , designanda sunt in quibus peccasti , loca , tempora , cum quibus personis , &c. Haec autem omnia si taceantur , aut dicta callide pallientur animam iugulant . Looke on the Priest as on Gods Angel : disclose to him the most hidhen secrets of your hart ; not speaking obscurely , nor telling your fault with wheeling and winding expressions , declare the place , tyme , and persons with whom ; these if silenc'd , or craftily palliated , kill the soule . Seueral other Fathers of the Church speake no less pertinently to this purpose , but S. Augustin suffices for all .

The second thing wherin he accuses vs of cruelty in the exercyse of this Sacrament , is the reseruation of cases not to be absolued but by certain Persons . Which is so farr from being cruelty , that it appears to be most iust , either because that euery priest is not so learned as to be able to manage the consciences of all people and therefore are iustly denied the exercyse of that power ; or because that som sins are so horrid that to withdraw men from them , it 's very iust to restrain the power of forgiuing them , that by that restriction and difficulty men may be freighten'd .

The Third thing wherin he accuses vs of cruelty in this Sacrament , is that som Pastors make their flock belieue they cannot confess but to their own Curats , and extort by sordid auarice monies from them , for the Absolution . To this M● Sall himself answers , wheras ( quoth he ) this is the fault of som corrupt members , and he will not cast the dirt of the feet of the Church vpon her face , and confess the Church to be so much an enemy to this practice , that there are Decrees of Councils and Pop's against it . Mr Sall if you did know that the Church is not guilty of this crime , but som corrupt members , why did you therefore forsake the Church , but detest that abominable practice ? because , he sayes , he did endeauour to reform the abuse , and the persons guilty were so haughty and head-strong , that he could not preuayle : so that if he cannot reform what abuses he finds in som members of the Protestant Church , he must also forsake her , and he must be of no congregation , but of that which has no corrupt members .

CONCLVSION . Against the Third Point of Mr Salls discourse .

MOnstruous errors you say , obliged you to a separation from the Catholick Church , ( the vain pretext of hereticks of all ages , whose Names she has crushed to infamy , still Triumphant against the Gates of Hell ) and I must belieue they were errors that obliged you ; but imaginary only in her , and real in yourself we haue asserted her vnspotted ; and what renders you eternally criminal , is , that you know in your own conscience , they were no errors of the Church , which you stile by that name : I say you know it well in your own conscience ; for you that was so many years a Catholick , and a Professor ( as you say ) in Scholastical and Moral Diuinity in Controuersies , and what not ? You could not but know that the Pop's supremacy in temporal affaires ouer Princes , was no article of our Faith ; but a School-question denied by many Catholicks : you knew also the Pop's infallibility was but and opinion of som diuins and that what wee belieue as an article of Faith , is not the infallibility of the Pope alone ( of which only you speake ) but of the Church Vniuersal , as it is diffused , or representatiue in the Pope and Council together , was it not then knowen malice , and preiudice that made you recken as errors of the Church , these points , which are not Church Doctrin ? was it not wicked and damnable in you to separat from her for errors ( if they be such ) which are not her errors , but of some or many Doctors ? which you could haue denied , and not only remain a Catholick , but oblige Catholicks in refuting them !

But you had a mind to depart , and to render your separation more acceptable to our Aduersaries , you tooke for pretence those two points , which though you know well they were no points of our Religion , yet you knew they were very odious to our Aduersaries , and them you resolued to please vpon any account . was it not therefore that you exclaim against the Church of Rome saying t is but a part of the Church , and not the Church Vniuersal . pag. 24. as if you did not well know , that wee do not pleade for the Bishoprick of Rome , and that wee do confess it is but a part of the Church . Lastly you alleadge for a cause of your separation the forbidding of the Bible to the common people and the publick Prayers in an vnknowen language : in this your first Reformers erred damnably in departing , as you do , from the true Church for this cause ; for nothing can iustify separation from the Church but errors and practices inconsistent with saluation , which as well our Diuins as yours do confess ; and it is confessed by any man of common sense , that it is not needfull for saluation , ( whateuer you may say of its conueniency ) to reade the Bible , or haue prayers in a knowen language : therefore that could be no iust cause of separation to them nor to you . But much more criminal are you than they in separating for that cause : for you had a sad experience ( which they had not when they began ) of the confusion and multitude of sects , occasioned by the liberty granted to all people for the reading of Scripture : and therefore you were obliged rather to condemn that liberty than to assert it . You were forc'd to forsake our Church , you say for her errors : but S. Augustin tells you ( lib. cont . Parmen. c. 11. ) there is no iust necessity to diuide Vnity ▪ and epist. 48. It is impossible that any may haue a iust cause to forsake the communion of the Church . Our Church therefore , which was the only Church extant before , and in Luthers dayes , and is now the same that then it was , had no errors which might be a iustcause , or necessity for him , or for you to depart from her , and deuide Vnity of Religion . If her errors , wherof you accuse her , are fundamental errors inconsistent with saluation ; then there may be a iust necessity and cause to separat from the Church , which S. Augustin absolutly denies ; if they were but smale , inferior and not fundamental errors , as generally all sectaries say , then there is a iust necessity also to separat from all Congregations and Churches in the world ; since that in the opinion of all Sectaries , there is no Church or Congregation free from some inferior and not fundamental errors , the Protestants accuse the Catholicks of many , the Presbyterians accuse the Protestants , the Anabaptists accuse the Presbyterians , and so of all the rest .

And is it not a pretty iest that you would make vn belieue , it 's the desire of security of your saluation , which forced you to separat from the Roman Church , wherin S. Thomas Aquinas dyed , who in the acknowledgement of your own Doctors is a Saint , where S. Bernard dyed , who in the iudgment of your own Doctors was a Saint saies your whitaker de Eccl. pag. 369. a very pious Man , saies your Osiander cent. 12. a Saint of the Roman Church saies your Gomarus in speculo Eccl. p. 23. one of the lamps of Gods Church , saies your Pasquil in his Return to Eng. pag. 8. could not you secure your saluation in that Church wherin S. Gregory the Great , dyed and liued a Pope , that Blessed and Holy Father , saies your Godwin , in his Catal. of Bish. pag. 3. that holy and learned Bishop of Rome saies Mr Bell in his Suruey of Pop. pag. 189. these haue been , as your Authors freely confess , of the Roman Church , and haue been great Saints ; and , I hope , you are not so impious as to deny that Xauerius that grat Apostle of the Indies , S. Dominik , S. Francis , and S. Ignatius were Saints , nor so impudent as deny that they were of our Church . And can wee belieue that you were forced for to secure your saluation to forsake that Church , wherin these haue not only be saued , but dyed Saints , for the Protestant Church , wherof there was neuer yet any Saint . Let vs suppose , that both the Catholick and Protestant Church is a sauing Church ; yet for to secure his saluation will not any wyse man , rather chuse that Church wherin there are so many Saints than a Church which neuer yet afforded any ? as you would chuse to study in schoole , where many learned Doctors are bred , rather than in a schoole , where neuer any learned man was knowen what wyse man , tender of his saluation , would not chuse that Church and Religion ▪ which generally all persons who know both Religions , do chuse to dye in ? for , certainly , the election of that last houre , when men are most earnest to secure their saluation , and setting interest and Pleasures asyde , end eauour to prouide for eternity , is a great argument of the goodness of a Religion : that Church therefore wherin generally all men , who know both Religions , chuse to dye in , ought to be embraced by him who endeauors to secure his saluation ; This is the Catholick Religion ; for there haue been many who being born and bred Catholick , flincht to the Protestant Religion ; there haue been many also who being born and bred Protestants , were conuerted to the Catholick Religion ; and thus they knew both Religions ; and what Man did you euer heare of , who becoming from a Protestant to be a Catholick , and liued so vntill his dying houre , that desired to dye a Protestant , or called for a Minister to be reconciled to the Church ? but to the contrary , generally all those who of Catholicks become Protestants , and liue so vntill their dying hour , then they call for a Priest , for to be reconciled to the Catholick Church , then they dye , or desire to dye Catholicks and wee know by many experiences , that the friends of those dying Persons do watch the doores , to hinder the access of any Priest : is not this a strong proof , that it is not deuotion made them become Protestants , and that the Catholick Religion is the securest for saluation ? did you desire to secure your saluation ? why did not you obserue what Counsel Christ gaue vs for to be saued with aduantage , and then you would know which Religion to chuse ? Consider how much did Christ recommend vnto xs voluntary Powerty , if thou wilt be perfect ( sayd he Mat. 1921. ) go and sell what thou hast , and giue it to the poor . And in the same chap. exhorts vs to forsake Estats , Lands , houses &c. for his sake ; this has been practis'd by the Primitiue Christians . Act. 5. in our Church Kings , Princes , Noble Men , and rich men haue followed this Doctrin : I confess many of our Church do not follow it , but the quite contrary , but the Doctrin is not only practis'd by many , but the Church exhorts the Faithfull vnto it , and that to great effect , wheras our Conuents and Monasteries are in habited by many who changed their plenifull estates for powerty , their Silks end sattins for rags , their delicat dishs for a fryers portion , their liberty for retyrement , and their wordly pleasures for a continual mortification : you know this to be true , who knows the Order of the Carthusians , to speake nothing of other religious orders ▪ how much the Protestant Church is a stranger to this Doctrin and practise , the world knows : what Protestant did you euer hear of , that forsook a plentifull estate to becom a poor Minister ? did euer any Minister or Preacher of your Church exhort his flock to this practise , or would not he be esteemed a Mad man , that would do it ? How then Mr Sall ? did you for to secure your saluation , chuse that Church , where this Counsel of Christ is neglected , and which laughs at vs for following it ? did you for to secure your saluation , forsake powerty which Crist recommended as a means to be saued , and to which you were by solemn vow obliged , and go to a Church where you may haue , and does expect to be rich , Christ hauing branded Richs as dangerous to saluation ? This manner of securing saluation was euer yet vnknowen to all Saints , who esteemed Richs and Honors sworn enemyes to the soule ; they to secure their saluation , forsook Richs and Honnors , and you to secure yours , you forsake powerty ( Powerty I say to which you are obliged by solemn vow ) and seek for Richs .

Had you changed the Catholick Religion for an other more austere wee might belieue , that your aim was to secure your saluation ; for Christ recommended Austerity of lyfe , and the mortification of our flesh and senses , as a most powerfull means for to ouercom vice . I doubt not but that there are many Libertins in our Church , who do indulge and cherish their Bodyes too much to the preiudice of their souls ; but look to the Doctrin and Maxims of the Church ; Pennance , austerity of lyfe , mortifications of the Body is not only taught , as good and aduantagious to the soul , but is practis'd by innumerable Catholicks of all sexes , ages and conditions in disclplins , hair-cloaths , fasting sleeping on the bare ground rysing at midnight for to prayse God , abstaining from delicat meats and wearing of Linnen and seueral other chastisements of the Body ; Christ has recommended this austerity of lyfe , and Corporal mortifications by S. Paul 1. Cor 9.17 . the great Baptist did practise them Mar. 1. the Prophet Dauid ps. 148. S. Paul himself , and all the saints of the Primitiue Church ; and the Church did euer yet esteem these means very powerfull for to purchase virtue and ouercom vice ; and you to secure your saluation , you haue forsaken the Church , where this Doctrin is taught , and practis'd , for the Protestant Church ; did you euer heare of any Protestant , who disciplins himself , who sleeps on the bare ground , who ryses at midnight to sing psalms to God , who abstains from wearing of Linnen ? I do not wonder that many Libertins of your Church , should set these exercises at naught , but that the whole Body of that Church by their Doctrin and Principles should condemn them , as fruitless , Idle , nay and iniurious to Christ's Passion : is this the Church Mr Sall , which you haue chusen for to secure your saluation ? a Church whose Doctrin is so carnal , which will not smart the flesh , but cherish the Body ? it's lykly indeed that your aim was , in your change of Religion , to secure your saluation ; when you left a Religion where you in particular , were obliged to Austerity for a Religion , which obliges you to none , but to enioy pleasures ; a Religion where you were by vow obliged to Powerty , for a Religion where you expect to be , and may be rich ; a Religion where by your Profession you were incapable of Honors , for one where you may haue Preferments . No Mr Sall , you will not perswade the world , that it was any aduantage to your soul which moued you : your resolution will appeare to any impartial man , to be uniust and damnable ; and attended particularly in you , by innumerable sins ; for though the Precepts of the Church , of fasting , annual Confession and Communion , and keeping Holy dayes , reach not to oblige Protestants who are such by education ; but it 's out of controuersy that they oblige you , to whom her Power for commanding , and your obligation of obeying , is sufficiently knowen ; wherfore there is not a fasting day which you infring , an Annual Confession which you omit an Easter Communion that you neglect , or a holy day Mass , but you commit a haynous sin . Reflect on these monstruous effects of your resolution ; and amuse not your self with the hopes that you will be of the number of them , who at the last hour will be reclaim'd , and call for a Priest to be reconcil'd . It 's our duty to beseech God he may be so mercifull vnto you ; but it 's yours not to abuse Gods patience , least that in punishment of not answering now to his inspirations , you may heare then those dreadfull words of the Prouerbs ch. 1. v. 24. I haue called and ye refused-ye haue set at naught my Counsels , and would none of my reproof : I also will laugh at your calamity ; I will mock when your feare cometh-Then shall you call vpon me , but I will not answer , they shall seek me earnestly , but they shall not find me , for that they had knowledg and did not chuse the fear of the Lord .

FINIS .