the Living and the Dead and by consequence no Transubstantiation uppon which this Sacrifice is builded And here their Purgatory falls to the Ground for besides that it is contrary to Scriptures to Reason to the Antient Fathers and injurious to the satisfaction and merits of Christ moreover if there be no Sacrifice there can be no Mass and by consequence no money for the delivery of Souls out of Purgatory Here also falls to the ground their Doctrine of Concomitancy for the sake whereof as Gelatius one of their Popes Intimates they have committed Sacriledg in the Cup from the Laity which although the Council of Constance confesseth to be contrary to the Primitive Institution of Christ and Custom of the Antient Church yet for some ridiculous reasons such as That some persons hands do shake that some have deformed Whiskers and Beards pronouncing an Anathema against him that will contradict it And I have many times wondred why by the same Doctrine of Concomitancy they may not as well give the Cup and take away the Bread or take away the Cup from the Clergy as well as the Laity Why it is a fufilling of the Law to abstain from the one and a sin yea a mortal sin to abstain from the other There is neither reason nor Scripture to countenance it in the least So that the Reformed Churches teach sound Doctrine both as to the Nature and the Integrity of this Sacrament The last Point I shall touch upon is the worshipping of Saints The Protestants agree herein with the Scriptures and the Ancient Fathers that the Saints are to be honoured by imitation but not to be religiously adored and that for these three Reasons 1. We cannot believe in Saints therefore we cannot worship them how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed Rom. 10.14 2. We are severely forbidden to worship any but God Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Mat. 4.10 3. The Saints do not know our thoughts nor can they hear our Prayers Abraham is ignorant of us and Israel acknowledgeth us not Isa 63.16 Hence Aquinas saith To know the thoughts of the heart is the property of God and elsewhere The Angels know not the secrets of the heart And again to know the particular thoughts and actions of men is above the perfection of a create understanding And Durandus denies that the glorified Saints do know our thoughts Finally Augustin saith that the dead know not what is done here God onely knoweth the hearts of the Children of Men 1 Kings 8.39 Peter the Apostle though a Saint would not suffer Cornelius to worship him saying I my self also am a man Acts 10.26 nor would the Angel suffer John to prestrate himself to him worship God saith he Rev. 19.20 Yea a Heathen Poet could tell that God onely is to be worshipped Nec Dâ—a sum dixit nec sacro thuris honore Humanum dignare capuâ— Their distinction betwixt latria and dulia and hyperdulia hath been abundantly refuted by many of the Reformed Writers I shall onely conclude that if Papists cannot be accused of formal Idolatry yet they are certainly guilty of material Idolatry Having demonstrated that the Protestant Churches do defend the Holy Scriptures and conform their Doctrine thereunto in the most weighty points I justly infer that the Protestant Church is a true faithful and sincere Church I shall shut up all with this Observation that the Papists perceiving that they cannot prevail against the Protestants in disputing of their Doctrine They question the Protestant Minestery as not Legitimate But besides that their own Scholasticks as Bannes Canus c. do allow that the power of Ordaining is not lost by Heresy their own practice doth evidently confute them for these that have been ordained in our Churches are not reordained by them as to the substantial part of Ordination And it is certain enough That a bad Governour or Governours of the Church may send good Labourers into Christ's Vineyard yea Antichrist himself being under the Cloak of Christs Vicar may distribute the Offices of Christs Temporal and Earthly Court to good men that are willing to serve Christ So when Christ was upon Earth the Church was very much corrupted and yet they sent good Workmen into the Lords Vineyard such as Joseph Nicodemus and othes I shall conclude all with thanks to Almighty God for that he hath been pleased to open mine eyes to see the way of truth and prayers to him to confirm me therein and my hearty wishes that every one may reject the way of abomination and be rooted and built up in Christ and established in the faith lest he be spoiled by vain deceit after the Tradition of Men after the Rudiments of the World and not after Christ Come out of Babylon my People lest ye be partakers of her sins Embrace the true Protestant Religion which is pure in Doctrine holy in Manners and faithful to God and the King FINIS
shunned not to declare the whole Counsel of God professeth that he had said no other things than those which Moses and the Prophets did say should come I quickly concluded that the only mark of the true Church is to be taken from this Fountain That the Church is built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and the chief Corner-stone is Jesus Christ And I found that Augustine that glorious Light of Antiquity did agree with me writing Contr. Ma. Arian l. 3. Neither will I alledge the Nicene Chuncil to your prejudice nor ought you to alledge the Council of Ariminum to mine Let us not make use of Writings partial to the one or to the other Party but of the holy Scriptures that are impartial Judges of both and compare Cause with Cause Matter with Matter and Reason with Reason And elsewhere writing against Donatus There namely in the Scriptures let us seek for the True Church there let us discuss the point Being now fully confirmed in this general Principle I began to enquire narrowly into the Purity of particular Churches and upon enquiry found that none do so exactly agree with the Scriptures as the Reformed Churches Wherefore I firmly resolved with my self to forsake the Roman Idolatry and associate my self to the Protestants which I accordingly performed in France and having renounced the Romish Superstitions I adjoyned my self to the Reformed Church as being the true Church of Christ which I shall now shortly evince by the following Arguments That is the true Church which 1. Vindicates and maintains the Authority of the Scriptures 2. Teacheth Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures 3. Because I will not be so Scripturary as to neglect the Testimony of the Fathers and Councils Which agrees also with the Testimony of Ancient Fathers and Councils But the Reformed Church is such Therefore the Reformed is the true Church As for the first the Reformed Church maintains the Authority of the Scriptures against the Papists who affirm That the Scriptures have no Authority as to us at least but from the Church Which distinction was found out by Bellarmine namely that the Authority of the Scripture considered in it self doth not depend upon the Church but only in respect of us But how frivolous is this distinction For all Authority is Relative and therefore it cannot be considered without a relation to us And moreover the Supposition is false that the Scriptures Authority as to us depends upon the Church But before I come to overthrow this Assertion it will not be amiss to observe that the reason which induceth the Papists to defend it is evidently this They know not how to answer the Protestants Arguments from Scripture without wresting the sense and therefore hold that the sense of the Scriptures depends upon the interpretation of the Church which obligeth them to desend that the Authority of the Scriptures depends also upon the Church being that without the Churches Tradition we can have no certainty of the Scriptures themselves nor of their sense In this they imitate exactly the Ancient Hereticks of whom Tertullian says When the Hereticks are confuted from the Scriptures they presently begin to accuse the Scriptures as if they were not of sufficient Authority or were otherwise written than they are cited by the Orthodox and of which there is no certainty without Tradition Where you may see an exact Portraicture of the Modern Papists But to return to our purpose we assert That the Scriptures Authority doth no way depend upon the Authority of the Church but of the Holy Ghost only speaking internally in our hearts and externally in the Scriptures because he is their Author 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 and therefore he alone can give them their Authority And as Christ seeks a Testimony from none besides the Father so neither doth his Word need any other which he hath left upon Earth instead of his own Person And as it were very absurd to affirm that the Authority of the Kings Proclamation depends upon the Cryer or a Rule upon the thing ruled or that the Sun borrows his light from his own Orb or Vortex so it is no less ridiculous to affirm that the Authority of the Scriptures depends upon the Church The Church is the Candlestick the Word of God is the Candle Revel 1.20 Luk. 8.16 Now as a Candlestick contributes nothing to the light of the Candle so neither doth the Church to the Authority of the Scriptures We reject not the Ministerial Testimony of the Church in this affair because thereby we come to the knowledge of the Scriptures as the Samaritans came to the knowledge of Christ by the Samaritan Womans Testimony which nevertheless was not the reason or ground of their Faith but the Instrument only The Papists object that the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3.15 And from hence they conclude that the Authority of the Scriptures as to us depends entirely upon the Church But to pass Camero's observation that these words belong to the sixteenth verse where there is a Copulative Particle which otherwise were useless and that the Apostle first compares the Church to a House and then teacheth us what is the chief Pillar of that House viz. God manifest in the Flesh For a House cannot be called a Pillar but a Pillar is in a House In this place Paul means not an Architectonical Pillar that sustains the Authority of the Scriptures but a Political to which the Fdicts of the Supreme Governour are affixed Nor is Bellarmines Exception against this distinction of any weight that the Church may be as well called a Bibliotheck as a Pillar in this sense For we affirm that the Church doth not only keep these Books but also teach and publish the Contents thereof and expose them to the view of the people So then the Testimony of the Church may be one Motive to induce us to believe the Divine Authority of the Scriptures but cannot beget in our minds a firm and certain perswasion of it which is the work of the Holy Ghost only whom God joyns with his Word Isa 59.21 My Spirit which is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Augustine speaks well to this purpose in his Confessions But how shall I know that these are thy words Moses said so indeed but Moses is gone and if he were present and should speak Hebrew I could not understand him but if he spoke Latin and I understood him how could I be certain that he spoke the truth The Truth it self which is neither Greck Latin Hebrew nor Barbarian without any sound of the tongue or noise of Syllables would say unto me inwardly in the Cabinet of my heart he speaketh truth You see Christian Readers how Augustine was perswaded of the Divinity of the Scriptures not by the Authority of the Church nor of Moses and the Prophets but by the Internal Truth
speaking in his heart which is the Holy Spirit It 's in vain to reply hereunto that every one may pretend the Spirit for pretensions cannot prejudice the Truth the Question between us and the Papists is not Whether the Scriptures are of Divine Authority or not for both of us assert that they are But Whether he that admits this is perswaded of it To which whether they or we give the most satisfactory answer we leave the whole Christian World that are not partial to either Party to judge We conclude therefore that as this Question Whether the Scriptures are the Word of God is unworthy of a Christian So Jesuit Sambays's Assertion de fide Orthodoxa is foolish and ridiculous That the Protestants have not the Scriptures For besides that he defends it for no other end but that he may shun the dint of their Arguments drawn from the Scriptures He useth no other Medium to prove that Assertion but that the Reformed Church wanting the Marks of the true Church is a false Church and therefore cannot have the Scriptures which do both in their matter and form depend upon the Church Which Argument is most false and doth manifestly beg the Question viz. That the Scriptures and their sense depend upon the Authority of the Church which we utterly deny and that not without reason as I shewed above Moreover the Jesuit sheweth his Cause to be desperate by endeavouring to rob us of the Scriptures for none of the Ancient Fathers denied the Scriptures to any Heretick that argued his own Cause from them and Augustine that we quoted above affirms that the Scriptures are not peculiar to any one Party but impartial Judges of all We might with far better reason return this Argument upon the Papists because we have proved that their Representative Church is not only false but no Church at all But I am not so much afraid of their Arguments from Scripture and therefore do not deny them the Bible Having established the Opinion of the Reformed Churches in reference to the Authority of the Scriptures I shall now proceed to the properties of the same First therefore I affirm that the Scriptures are perfect by a perfection of parts as well as degrees and so sufficient to Salvation Psal 19. The Law of God is perfect Their sufficiency appears from the forecited place 2 Tim. 3.16 17. The accession of the New Testament to the Old doth not disprove the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures For he that revealed the whole Counsel of God to Believers did nevertheless reveal no other than what Moses and the Prophets had written before as we hinted above Hence the Ancient Fathers said very well As the New Testament is hid in the Old so the Old is made plain and clear in the New Nor doth a difference in degree alter the nature or species of a thing neither is the Question betwixt the Papists and us concerning this or that part of the Scriptures but concerning the whole Canon as it was received by the Ancient Church and enumerated by Hierom. So that in this Argument there is evidently the Fallacy of dividing what ought to be joyned together And as we justly cut off the Apocryphal Books from this perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures because they contradict both themselves and the Canon nor were they ever received in the Jewish Church to which the Oracles of God were committed Rom. 3.2 So we reject the Popish distinction of Protocanonical Deuterocanonical Books with the same facility that they propose it being without proof Hence we do but little esteem unwritten Traditions because what is written doth sufficiently instruct us what we are to believe and do in order to life eternal John 20.31 It 's ridiculous to refer the several Orders of Monks and particularly the shaving of their Crowns to these unwritten Traditions because Christ says I have yet many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now Joh. 16.12 For if this had been the thing that Christ had further to say unto them he might easily have sent for a Barber and caused their Heads to be shaved Besides that the Monks whose duty was to weep and not to teach saith Hierom were shaven as a sign of their penitence not of any honour or preeminence Secondly The Scriptures are plain and easie to be understood The Commandment enlightning the eyes Psal 19.8 Whatsoever things were written afore-time were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Rom. 15.4 Those things therefore which are absolutely necessary to Salvation being very few and very easie are clearly and plainly set down in the Scriptures though other things not so absolutely necessary may puzle the most Sagacious understandings Chrysostom says well The holy Scriptures are such that a Lamb may wade in them and yet an Elephant may swim Seeing then that the Scriptures are plain as is evident from Reason and the Testimony of the Fathers the Reformed Churches do with good reason attribute a judgment of discretion in Controversies of Faith to every true Christian So that every Believer by frequent reading and comparing of the Scriptures may easily understand their meaning at least as to things absolutely necessary to Salvation For no Prophesie of Scripture is of aâ—y private interpretation nor came by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1.20 21. As for the Fathers of the Ancient Church and the four Primitive Councils we willingly imbrace them as Interpreters of the Scriptures yea moreover we affirm that in subordination to the Scriptures they may bind but not force our belief But we utterly deny that the Fathers or these Councils or the Pope are Judges of Controversies about matters of Faith but the only Judge of all such Controversies is the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures or as Augustine saith Christ himself Let Christ judge of this Controversie who although he be absent in his Person yet is present in his Word Hence it doth appear that the Scriptures may rightly be called a Normal Judge deciding the question in manner of a Law though not outwardly proclaiming the sentence The Word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4.12 We have sufficiently proved that the Reformed Churches do vindicate the Authority and Properties of the Scriptures It remains now to be proved that they teach according to the Scriptures I shall pass the Doctrines of God and his Attributes of the Trinity and the like because there is little difference between the Papists and us in there Points except in some Preter-fundamental things which the Jesuits and Dominicans do also dispute among themselves I shall now only take notice of this that the Jesuits do very absurdly define Free-will viz. A Faculty whereby all things requisite to action being present the will may act or not act act this or the contrary For
of another but an absurd name is fit enough for such an absurd thing Conveniunt rebus nominal saepe suis 4. The thing which is distributed in the Sacrament is called by the Ancients a Sign and a Figure of Christs Body Now nothing can be a Sign or a Figure of it self therefore Christ cannot be Corporally present Augustine saith The Lord was pleased to say this is my Body when he gave but the figure of his Body And most of the Ancient Fathers do understand the words c. Also the Scriptures call it A Seal of the Righteousness of Faith as we said before now the Seal cannot be the thing it self It were too tedious to consider all the arguments of the Papists against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning the Lords Supper only this one I cannot pass by which I have read in an Anonymous Jesuit whereby he endeavours to invalidate our last reason against Transubstantiation by giving this instance that David might have been a sign of himself as sighting with Goliah if he had presented himself to the peoples view upon a Theater But I answer 1. David had not been in that case a sign of himself but of the actions he performed in the Combat 2. If David had been sowed up in a Sack or laid himself down upon the Theater covered with an Asses skin as they say Christ's Body is covered with the accidents of Bread and Wine so that he could not be seen I do not understand how he could have been a sign of himself or his actions either I shall omit to observe that the Sacrament was instituted in Commemoration of the Man Christ a that Commemoration is only of absent persons as likewise many of their Exceptions against us for brevities sake Only I shall shortly demonstrate the other Proposition viz. that the Lords Supper is not a Sacrifice for the sins of the Living and the Dead by this general argument Where there is no Priest no Altar no proper Host there can be no proper Sacrifice for sin But in the New Testament there is none of these beside Christ himself Therefore c. The Major is most certain for Relatives are mutual and the one presupposeth the other therefore where there is a proper Sacrifice there must be an Altar a Priest and an Hoast properly so called So Bellarmin himself saith That Altars use not to be Erected unless for Sacrifices properly so called de Miss Lib. 1. Cap. 16. And elsewhere without an Altar can be no Sacrifice de Cult San. l. 3. c. 4. Now to prove the Minor there is no material Altar to be found in the Scriptures as one to be used in the New Testament Christ who instituted this Sacrament Celebrated the same on the Table Luk. 22.21 The Apostle Paul calls it the Lords Table 1 Cor. 10.21 But there is no mention made of an Altar which had been certainly done if an Altar had been in use Hence the great Bellarmin says de Miss l. 1. c. 17. The Apostles did not use the Names of Priesthood Sacrifice Altar as knowing well there could be none after the material Sacrifices were Sealed up But the Papists object Heb. 13.10 We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the Tabernacle I answer This Text speaketh of an improper figurative invisible Altar but we deny onely a proper and material Altar for that the words are figurative evidently appears because no Body can eat of a material Altar And moreover the Sacrifice that the Apostle would have to be offered up upon it doth plainly discover what kind of Altar he means By him therefore let us offer the Sacrifice of Praise to God continually that is the fruit of our Lips giving Thanks to his Name The Ancient Fathers also do agree with us None of these is visible neither the Priest nor the Sacrifice nor the Altar Ambrose in Epist ad Heb. I think that the Altar is nothing else but the Body of the Lord Bernard in Serm. 4. Nazianzen calls it the Altar which is above Orat. 24. And finally the Papists themselves are forced to confess that here is meant an improper Altar I do not urge the place it self Bell. de Miss l. 1. c. 14. as also Thomas Anselmus and many others 2. Nor is there any proper Sacrifice in the New Testament For Daniel prophesieth That the Sacrifice and Oblation shall cease And we see this Prophesie fulfilled The Apostle Paul saith Nor yet that he should offer himself often but now once in the end of the World Heb. 9.26 Every Priest standeth daily ministring and offering but this man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God Heb. 10.12 where the Apostle evidently asserteth that Christ offered himself but once and doth not offer himself nor can he be so offered again Yea the Apostle urgeth the sufficiency of Sacrifice by these two Arguments 1. Because he offered himself but once and did not repeat his Sacrifice as insufficient 2 Because having perfected his Work he sat down on the right hand of God for ever But the Priests did always stand which signifyed that they had not yet compleated their Work but must lay their hands once more to it before they might sit down and rest from their work Therefore the Papists devising daily Sacrifices of Christ after that one Sacrifice doth derogate from its sufficiency and makes Christ lyable to the Ministry of standing who is already set down for ever at the right hand of God This was also the reason why God destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple after Christs Mediatory Office was fulfilled as to one part of his Priesthood namely his Sacrifice that there might be no more material Sacrifices that being the place to which they were confined The Papists urge the Custom of the Ancients and the expressions of the Fathers who speak very often of Sacrifices But it is clear that the Fathers meant no other thâ—n Sacrifica Eucharistica Sacrifices of a Thanksgiving which were commonly performed at the Lords Supper which with Prayers and Alms are indeed a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable to God Rom. 12.1 Hence Clemens Alexandrinus saith that a righteous Soul is a holy Altar and holy Prayer is the Incense Lactantius saith two things are to be offered a Gift and a Sacrifice both incorporcal integrity of mind is the gift Prayer and Psalms are the Sacrifice Augustin calls our heart an Altar Humility and Praise a Sacrifice and Charity the Fire So ronimus Ambrosius and others As for the Priest there is none besides Christ for he is a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedek and Levitical Priests they cannot be being that Order is ceased Thus having proved that there is no Altar Priest nor Hoast besides Christ himself who is our Sacrifice our Priest and our Altar Epiphan lib. 2. com 1. hoeres I conclude that there is now no proper Sacrifice for the sins of
THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST EXPOSED To the View of all SOBER CHRISTIANS from the Word of GOD Sound Reason AND THE Ancient FATHERS By JAMES SALGADO a Spaniard a Converted Priest London Printed by T. B. for the Author 1681. To the Right Honourable HENEAGE Earl of Nottingham Lord Chancellour of England THis most Important Affair which concerns the Conversion of a Man to God cannot better be offered to any Person than to one that manages the greatest Affairs of a Mighty Monarch to the Glory of his God to the Credit and Interest of his Prince to the Honour and Repute of the Nation to the gladding of the hearts of all good Subjects therein and the Terrour of Offenders to his own Immortal praise here and Immortal Felicity hereafter with universal steady unshaken Loyalty Justice and Integrity It is to speak in short most agreeable for one that is the Quintessence of all Excellencies both Divine and Humane The boldness which I have to present this Book to your Honour doth not only bid me hope for Excuse but also promise my self that your Honour will receive it according to your wonted Noble and Generous Condescention being your Poor Offerer tenders it with the Profoundest Reverence and Respects imaginable I humbly pray your Lordship to take both my Self and Book to your Honours Protection and it shall be my daily Prayers to Almighty God to take under his Especial Charge your Honours Person and under his Especial Conduct all your Honours Actions so that both may be acceptable to his Divine Majesty and his Majesty of Great Britain and to all true English Spirits being My Lord Your Honours most obedient Servant JAMES SALGADO THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST c. IT was not without Reason that the Fathers compared the Church to the Ark of Noah because that as none that were out of the Ark could escape destruction by the Flood so none that are without the Bosom of the Church can escape Everlasting Damnation for those that are no Members of the Church cannot partake of her peculiar Priviledges such as Vocation Justification Sanctification c. without which it 's impossible to attain Eternal Life And as any Member cut off from the Body is thereby deprived of Life Sense and Motion because it is no more united to nor influenced from the Head even so those that are cut off from the Church are thereby deprived of Eternal Life because they are not united unto Christ who is the Head of the Church and therefore want that influence of his Spirit which is the Author of all Spiritual Life For this reason David affirms that the Heathen knew not the Laws of God even because they were not in the Communion of Israel to which the Church was confined under the Old Testament Psa 147.19 20. The Apostle Paul writing to the Ephesians doth yet further confirm this Assertion At that time you were without Christ being Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel and Strangers from the Covenant of Promise having no hope and without God in the world Eph. 2.12 Namely because they were not in the Bosom of the Church they were therefore excluded from the Communion of Christ who is the faithful Husband of the Church his only Spouse as he himself affirms Cant. 6.1 My Dove my Vndefiled is but one But when the Fathers used this similitude they meant the Universal Church whose beginning Augustine deriveth from Abel and deduceth the continuation thereof even to the end of the World Therefore it is not this or that Church in this or that part of the World that can be called Catholick in this sense but that Church which was which is and which is to come and comprehends the Triumphant as well as the Militant And if that be properly Catholick which hath been always and every where believed by all Vincent Lirinensis contra profanas novitates then that is the Catholick Church which hath and will be always found in all Nations for the thing ruled cannot be narrower than the Rule and Faith cannot be found but in believers I don't deny that there are many particular Assemblies and many Provincial or National Churches and some of these purer than others but none of these Assemblies or Churches can be called Catholick taking the word strictly because they are only parts or members constituting one general body and therefore cannot be called universal without a plain contradiction unless you would give to the Hand or Foot the name of the whole body Hence it follows that the Roman Church being but a particular Church supposing that it were Orthodox which yet we utterly deny cannot claim unto it self alone exclusively to other Churches that profess Christ the Title of Catholick I confess I am not so rigid as to exclude the Roman Church and her Followers from the Latitude of the Universal Church because besides that men living in that Communion but in the simplicity of their heart professing God and his Christ and sincerely endeavouring to work out their Salvation although in many points they neither understand the thing it self nor the manner of the thing because of an invincible ignorance may attain unto eternal life for God is no respecter of persons but in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him Act. 10.34 35. I say besides this the Popish Church may be called a Church in a Physical though not in a Moral sense even rs an Adulterous Wife doth not lose the name of a Wife although she lose the name of an honest Wife But because the Court of Rome will have their Church to consist in the Pope or Council or both I shall evince their Church so taken to be fallible erroneous and false And although the Church in this sense be but representative yet seeing all the rest do depend upon her as infallible and have nothing left them but a blind obedience taking the denomination of the whole from the principal part I rightly affirm that the Roman Church is false uncatholick yea and no Church at all The Papists not contented to pronounce all Churches without their Communion Hereticks and Schismaticks and therefore without any hope of Salvation have moreover asserted that their own Church is infallible and void of all Errour A great Assertion indeed and which is not only false in it self but also is one great reason why other Churches dissenting from her cannot joyn into one Body nor hold Communion with her For besides that no particular Church such as the Roman is can be called infallible it necessitates them after the manner of the Athenians to worship they know not what and erect an Altar to the unknown God It is in vain to dispute concerning the property or priviledge of any thing while they that attribute these priviledges to it have no certain knowledge of the thing it self Therefore in vain do they assert that their Church is infallible while they cannot determine when or where this Church is