Hereticks and laboured in declaring them and neglected the others came to be only confusedly knowen and not so exactly as they were deliuered by the Apostles and this occasions and has in all ages occasioned disputes in Religion When therefore the Church in Ceneral Councils declares an Article of Faith it does not as our Aduersaryes calumny vs coyn a new Article it ads nothing to what the Apostles deliuered but it declares to the Disputants in Religion what was antiently taught and belieued by the Apostles and was forgotten or misvnderstood by others Doubts in Religion are but Doubts of what the Apostles did teach some say onething others an other what wee pretend is that wheras these doubts haue been in all ages and euer will be there has been and euer will be an infallible Church to ascertain vs which is the true Doctrin for though the Apostles knew all Truths and taught them either by vvord of Mouth or in vvriting what Doctrin they deliuered verbally or by vvord of Mouth is doubted of by Posterity if This or That be of Apostolicall Tradition alsoe the vvritten vvord is questioned if This or That Part of Scripture be truely Canonical what wee pretend is that as though Christ taught all Truths to his Apostles yet he sent an infallible interpreter the Paraclet after his Ascension to assist and direct them in case of any Doubts arising of those Truths to declare vnto them the true sence of the Truths which he taught them That as though the Paraclet taught all Truths to the Apostles yet he still remayned with them to direct them if any doubts should occurr against those Truths and as though the Apostles taught to their Disciples all those Truths yet the Protestants themselues confess it was needfull they should haue left an infallible vvritten vvord to inform and ascertain vs what Doctrin the Apostles did teach so wee pretend that though the Apostles haue taught verbally and by their vvritten vvord all Truths of Religion yet since that wee see T is douted what the Apostles did teach verbally and which is their vvritten Doctrin it was absolutly needfull there should be left to vs after their departure an infallible Guide and Instructor for to ascertain vs which is the Doctrin and vvritten vvord of the Apostles and the true sence of that vvritten vvord which infallible Guide and instructor wee say is the Church constantly assisted by Gods infallible Spirit So long therefore shall the Church be assisted with that Spirit to direct vs as there shall be doubts against Religion which will be for euer VII CHAPTER THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLICK Church is the true Church appointed to teach vs Infallible in all Points of Religion BY the Roman Catholick Church wee do not vndestand the Dioces of Rome as Mr Sall willfully mistakes but the whole Congregation of Faith full spred troughhout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Pope as their Head and because he resides in Rome this Congregation takes the de nomination of Roman as though an Army be quartered twenty myles round the Camp takes its denomination from the head-quarter where the General lodges This Church wee say is the Church which Christ established to teach vs what Truths he reuealed for that Church established by Christ which florished in the Apostles tyme is it now extant or not if not wee all labour in vayn in prouing each of vs that his won Church is the true and Primitiue Church if it be it must be infallible as that was but no other Church but the Roman Church pretends to be infallible nay they lowdly disclaym infallibility therefore no other is the true Church but the Roman Catholick Yow say the True Church is infallible in Fundamental Points that Your Church is so far infallible and no other Church can iustly claym to any more consequently that yours is the true Church But I reply the Scripture sayes the Church is infallible and you now in some measure do consess it the Scripture does not limit that infallibility to points fundamental nay sayes the Paraclet shall leade her to all Truth by what Authority do you make that restriction the Apostles and Church in their tyme was infallible in all Points Fundamental and not Fundamental they taught as well the chiefe and prime Articles of Faith as the inferiour Truths they writ the new Testament which contains both kind of Articles Fundamental and not Fundamental and which is infallibly true in whateuer it contains and they were no less infallible in what they taught verbally then in what they vvrit wheras S. Paul commands vs to hold fast the Traditions receiued from them whether by vvritten Epistles or by speech 2. Thes 2. Now I ask were the Apostles infallible in the Points not fundamental and inferiour Truths that they taught or not if not Scripture is not infallible in those points nor could S. Paul say when he preached points not fundamental that their vvord vvas indeed the vvord not of men but of God for the word that is not infallibly true is not Gods word If they were infallible then the Church in the Apostles tyme was infallible in all points fundamental and not either that Church therefore is not now extant and so wee labour in vayn in pretending it is or there is a Church now extant infallible in all doctrin of Religion fundamental and not which can be ne other but the Roman Church wheras Protestants and all other sectaryes-owns themselues to be fallible You answer again it s the same Church as to the substance and essence of a Church which requires only to be infallible in fundamental points as yours is but I will proue that it is as repugnant to the essence of the true Church to be fallible or fals in smale articles of Faith as in great ones I say in smale articles of Faith for to teach a doctrin to be an article of Faith is to teach it is reuealed by God but it is impossible the true Church should teach any doctrin smale or great to be a reuealed Truth which is an vntruth and not really reuealed by God because the Church is commissioned by God to teach vs his doctrin what he has reuealed and for that purpose has giuen her the Mark and Seale of his Commission which are Miracles wherby to confirm their doctrin by which God moues men to embrace and belieue the Church which teacheth No proof more certain and strong of the true Faith Church and Religion than Miracles wrought in confirmation of it when Moyses Ex. 4.1 said They vvill not belieue me nor heare my voyce God gaue him the gift of Miracles as a mark and sign that he was sent by him When Elias raysed the dead Child to lyfe 3. Reg. 17.24 the Mother cryed out novv in this I haue knovven thou art a man of God and the vvord of our Lord in they mouth is true Christ being asked if he was the Messias proued himself to be such by the
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. VVhoeuer is or shall be separated from the Catholick Church although he thinks himself to liue most laudibly for this one vvickedness that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ shall haue no lyfe but the vvrath 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
this or that vvas not don in the gouernment of the vvorld vvhich seemeth to vs good to be don the Modesty of the Proponent added such vveight to this aduertisment that it touched me to the quick and reflecting on this point in my solitudes I savv saies he vvee might as vvell say that it belongeth to the goodness of God not to permit that his holy lavves should be transgressed by vile creatures nor that the Pastors of souls especially the Pope should scandalize their flock and as vvee do not iudge it a failure in his goodness to permit sins so vvee ought not vvauer in our opinion of his goodness and VVisdom if he has not appointed a visible Iudge for our direction hauing giuen us the holy Scriptures vvhich a bound vvith all light and heauenly doctrin to such as are not vvillfully obstinat Briefly Sr heere are three different opinions of Christ's presence in the Sacrament Catholik Lutheran and Protestant of the three quite opposit one to the other God has reuealed but one as I for merly discoursed and obliges me vnder pain of damnation to belieue that sence and no other I say under pain of damnation for said he if you vvill not eate the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Io. 6. must I not expect of Gods goodness that he will afford vnto me what is absolutly need full to acquit this obligation he absolutly requires of me to belieue that sence and no other of those three which he reuealed must I not then expect of his goodness some means to ascertain me which of those three different opinion is that which he reuealed would it be consistent with his goodness to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to flye to the Moon and afford me no wings which wee suppose are indispensably need full for to acquit that obligation The Assent which he requires at my hands is not a probable and dubious one but an Assent which renders me assured in the highest degree of certainty of the Truth I profess such and no other is diuine Faith such an Assent is impossible if there be not an infallible Authority on which it is grounded which you Protestants cannot deny for it s therefore you reiect Tradition and will admit no other Test of Faith but the written word of God because Faith must be grounded vpon an infallible Authority you say and Tradition is fallible and nothing infallible but Gods written word if Scripture were not written by the Apostles could not you say without any iniury to God that it became his wisdom to afford you some other infallible Authority wheras without such an authority it 's impossible to haue the Assent of Faith which he requires and was it not therfore that he gaue to his Apostles who preached to the primitiue Christians the credit of infallible Oracles because then there was no Scripture written nor any other Authority wherupon to bottom their Faith but the testimony of the Apostles Since therfore wee do manifestly proue that Scripture alone is not sufficient to determin Controuersies and instruct vs what wee are bound to belieue let not your instructors Modesty take it ill that wee say it becomes the goodness of God to appoint a liuing infallible Iudge on whose testimony and authority wee may rely and ground our Faith Vvee say with St Augustin l. de vtil cred ad Honorat Si Prouidentia Dei non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Si autem praesidet non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam esse qua velut gradu certo attolamur ad Deum If Gods Prouidence gouerns not the vvorld vvee need not be sollicitous of Religion but if Prouidence rules all it cannot be doubted but that God has appointed an authority by vvhich as by a certain assured vvay vvee may be lead to God Vvee must therefore grant such an Authority which is not Scripture as wee will proue or deny Prouidence Your instance is very weake and vn becoming so great a diuine as you profess to be Gods goodness cannot be questioned for permitting sins and the scandals of Popes nay it 's becoming his goodness to permit them for hauing created Man with perfect liberty for to work well or ill it becomes his goodness to giue him all that is needfull for the exercyse of that liberty and Man could not exercyse it if wee did not pretend to some extraordinary miraculous Prouidence for which wee haue no ground in Scripture nor reason and to which his goodness cannot oblige him if he did not permit him to sin and to question God why his goodness doth permit sin is to ask why he created Man with perfect liberty which if you do I answer because he gaue him liberty that he might vse it well and if he vses it ill it s his own fault VVee ought not say you to vvauer in our opinion of Gods goodness for not appointing a Liuing infallible Iudge vvheras he has afforded us the Scriptures vvhich abound vvith all heauenly light to them that are not vvillfully obstinat and this you proue 2. Tim. 3.16 Holy Scriptures are able to make us vvyse vnto saluation that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good vvorks But I infer to the contrary wheras the Scriptures though replenished they be with heauenly light are not sufficient for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to belieue wee might wauer in our opinion of Gods goodness if he did not appoint an infallible liuing Iudge for to instruct vs and that the Scriptures are not sufficient for the instruction of them that are not vvillfully blind Mr Sall himself proues it for pag. 17. he tells vs that doubting of the Tenets of our Religion his wit not content with an ipse dixit lyke Pythagoras his scholler demanded Reason for what he belieued he betooke himself to the frequent reading of Scripture but Sr if you be not content with an ipse dixit you are as vnfit for Christ's schoole as for that of Pythagoras and if your wit demands reason for what you belieue Scripture is no place to seeke for it which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit After reading the Scriptures he was so far from being sufficiently instructed that he confesses they made him doubt whence it appears that Scripture alone is not sufficient euen to those that are not vvillfully blind he was no such for he did read with a real desire of being instructed The text of S. Paul sayes that Scripture is able to make us vvyse to salvation but does noy say that Scripture alone is able if you will haue text to be for your purpose you must follow the example of Luther who to proue his error of iustification by Faith only corrupted the text of S. Paul Rom. 2.8 vvee account a man to be iustified by Faith vvithout the vvorks of the lavv and foisted
fundamental Truth reuealed by God is to diminish of the word of God by which you deserue to be blotted out of the Book of life Apoc. 22. If it be not a fundamental point it is a damnable error to say it is for that would be to add to the word of God which also deserues to be blotted out of the Book of life consequently in this our contest wee are indispensably obliged to belieue either that it is or that it is not nor can wee suspend our Iudgment but must resolue absolutly on either side but no text or texts of Scripture do declare if it be or be not a fundamental article of Faith if not expounded by some infallible interpreter therefore Scripture alone is not sufficient for to assure vs what wee are obliged to belieue III. CHAPT THE SAME ASSERTION proued LOoke back to the Infancy of the Church for the first eight or tenn years there was not a word of the New Testament written and the last part whateuer that part was wherin the Doctors do not agree was not written in 40. years after Christ his Ascension part of the Scripture after it was written did perish for example an Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians mentioned 1. Cor. 5.9 by which wee vnderstand that he writ three epistles to them whereof two only are extant also part of the old Testament was lost as appears Chron. 9.12 and 29. Nay this very Scripâ—ure that now is extant and owned by vs all to be Canonical for the first 402. was not a good part of it owned to be such for the Fathers of the Church disputed and many denyed S. Pauls epistle to the Hebr. Iudes epist second of saint Peter second and Third of saint Iohn to be Canonical consequently they could not be the Test of Faith because they were not belieued to be Scripture all this tyme as there was an obligation vpon Christians to belieue so they had the sufficient means for to know what they were obliged to belieue which was not Scripture because either it was not written or if written it was not all as now it is belieued to be Scripture therefore God must haue appointed some other means besids Scripture for to instruct vs in Religion And if you insist that the Scripture as now it is extant is the needfull and sufficient means for our instruction I infer therefore wee had not the needfull and sufficient means vntill all this Scripture now extant was written consequently the Church was for many years without the sufficient means for instruction I infer again therefore vntill the last text of Scripture was written wee had not the sufficient means and wheras you are bound to proue by a cleer text that Scripture alone is the sufficient means it must be with the last text of all scripture you must proue it for then and no sooner was the scripture the sufficient means when the whole Canon was completed and the last text was written and this is impossible to be proued also it follows that you must not pretend to proue the sufficiency of scripture by any text of the new or old Testament written before the last text wheras the whole Canon was not completed when those texts were written and consequently they could not proue the sufficiency of scripture which in your acknowledgment did not begin to be the sufficient means vntill the Canon was finisht Moreouer if the scripture as now it is extant be the needfull and sufficient means then the Lutherans whom you receiue to your Communion and embrace as Brethren haue not the sufficient means for diuine Faith and consequently nor Faith itself wheras they deny many parts of Scripture to be Canonical which you belieue But what most cleerly proues that Scripture as now it is extant is not the sufficient and needfull means is this discourse first its not the needfull means for if a very considerable part of this Scripture did perish wee would still haue the sufficient means in what would remain of Scripture to instruct vs in what wee are bound to belieue for what wee are bound to belieue vnder pain of damnation are only the essential and fundamental points of Religion whoeuer belieues them though he denies other points not fundamental and inferior Truths in the doctrin of Protestants belieues what is sufficient for his saluation but there are many chapters or at least half chapters or at least many verses of Scripture which do not in the least mention any essential and fundamental point of Religion therefore all those chapters and verses are not needfull for to know what wee are bound to belieue and if they did all perish wee would in what remained haue the sufficient means Now that Scripture as now it is extant is not the sufficient means I proue it for if any part of Scripture be the sufficient means it must be that part which contains the fundamental and essential articles of Religion and wheras you do not know nor could any of your Doctors euer yet though often desired by vs giue a Catalogue of those which you call fundamental points which they be and how are they distinguisht from not fundamental points its impossible that you can tell which part of Scripture is that which contains the the fundamental points of Religion and consequently you cannot tell which part of scripture in the sufficient for our instruction That the Church was the means appointed by God for our instruction before the scripture was written the Protestant do not nor cannot deny and if they will not wauer in their Principles they must confess it continued so vntill the whole Canon was finisht which was not vntill many years after Christ his Ascension But say they scripture being written which doubteless God gaue vnto vs for no other end than to be our guide and rule of Faith the Church surceased from that office and is not to be regarded further than as she agrees with that written word so that after scripture was receiued for Gods written Oracle the Church was casheered out of those glorious offices which formerly she enioyed because as our Aduersaries pretend there was no need of any other infallible Oracle but the scripture which in the iudgment of all is such If this discourse be good it proues also that the Apostles ceased to be our instructors and infallible Oracles after the scripture was written and that the Church ceased to be infallible in fundamental points because the scripture is an infallible oracle contains all points and one infallible Oracle is sufficient yet our Aduersaries confess that the Apostles remained still infallible and the Church in fundamental points And wheras all scripture was not written at once but successiuly by parts the Church was not deuested of teaching vs but by degrees as the parts of scripture were written which paradox though ridiculous follows out of the former discourse But what if part or all the scripture did perish which is not impossible both because that
differēce from vs to be bottom'd on the word of God that their figuratiue Presence is cleer in the Scripture that they will proue the pretended errors for which they forsook vs by Scripture they amuse the poore People with the specious pretext of Scripture no Rule of Faith but Scripture no Iudge of Controuersy but Scripture no warrant for Diuin worship but Scripture and after all its manifest by my former discourse that no Article of Protestancy as it is a particular Doctrin distinct from Catholecism can without sacrilege be sought for in Scripture If the Protestant Church be not The Church of Christ it can be no part of it for the same reason which but now I proposed for that no Article of Protestancy is the Doctrin of Christ being all but fallible Doctrin if they will not pretend to be a part of the Church because they belieue the chief and fundamental Articles wherin they agree with vs and that 's ridiculous because in so much they are not Protestants it s not for them Articles that they departed from vs and set vp a distinct Church this is to be a part of the Church in as much as they can pretend to be of the Roman Catholick Church and if they might be called a part of the Church for that reason Pelagians Eutychians and other Heretick Congregations may be called so also and thus the Church of Christ insteed of being the House of Peace and vnion be a house of confusion Out of this discourse also wee may vnderstand how vain is the pretence of Protestants and seueral other sects to vnity of Faith with the Roman Catholicks for when wee vrge them with this argument There is but One Faith as there is but one God S. Paul Eph. 4. without that one Faith its impossible to please God the Catholick Church has that Faith for you ackowledg its a true and a sauing Faith that holds all Articles necessary for saluation if therefore there be but one sauing Faith no other will saue but the Roman Catholick Faith they are so grauel'd with this discourse that they are glad to claim kinred with vs and say that wee all Catholicks Lutherans Presbiterians and Protestants haue but one and the same Faith as to the substance and Essentials of Faith because wee all belieue the Prime and chief Articles of Chlistianity Christs Incarnation Passion c. which with a good moral lyfe is sufficient for saluation nor is it possible that God will condemn a man that belieues those Articles and liues a good lyfe for denying Purgatory a tryfle nothing material if there be any or not This Omnifidian Doctrin of the Latitudinarians is now in great vogue and cryed vp for a charitable Doctrin that excludes none from saluation but lycenceth you to change Religions as your Interest or conuemency requires Out of this Principle follows that if they haue not the same Faith with the Roman Catholicks they haue not a sauing Faith otherwise there would be two sauing Faiths But they are not of the same Faith nay they are of a far different for it s not enough for vnity of Faith with the Catholicks to belieue the Prime fundamental Articles but all and euery particular Article though inconsiderable it may seeme to you which the Catholick Church proposes to be a reuealed truth any one Article that you deny though smale it be for example Purgatory breaks vnity of Faith with the Roman Catholick Church The Church belieues the Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament and belieues the Lawfullness of Marriage and the lawfullness of eating any victuals You cannot iustly say that one of these Articles is more Fundamental than the other why should the Lawfullness of Marriage be a Fundamental point of Religion more than the real Presence by your sence of Fundamental and not fundamental Articles they are of a seyse And what think you would he that agreeth in all other Articles and deny only the Lawfullness of Marriage would he I say haue vnity of Faith with the Catholick Church by your rule he would because he agrees in all fundamental and Prime points he only differs in an inferior truth a smale matter Yet S. Paul expresly sayes that he would not 1. Tim. 4.3 in the lather dayes certain vvill depart from the Faith obserue the word depart attending to the Spirit of errors and Doctrin of Deuils for bidding to Marry and abstain from meats Doth not this proue that the denyal of smale Articles breaks vnity of Faith you cannot therefore pretend to haue the same Faith with the Roman Catholicks that deny many Articles of their Faith Secondly the resurrection of the flesh is indeed a fundamental Article contained in the Apostles Creed but if it be to come at the end of the world or already past to such as are dead each soule after mans death reassuming again his body in a short tyme as Hymenaeus and Philetus said it s no fundamental Article as you Protestants vnderstand fundamentals for the chief and prime Articles yet S. Paul sayes of these two 2. Tim. 2.18 their speech spreadeth lyke Canker of vvhom is Hymenaeus and Philetus vvho haue erred from the truth saying that the Resurrection is past and haue subuerted the Faith of some Behold the denyal of smale and inferiour truths is called by S. Paul a spreading canker an erring from the truth a subuersion of the Faith it breaks therefore vnity of Faith and hence conclude that you haue not vnity of Faith with the Roman Church though you belieue with her the Trinity Incarnation and other chief Articles because you deny many others vnder the pretence of being smale and inferour Truths and deceiue not your self with that distinction of fundamental and not fundamental Articles wher with your Leaders do amuse you No article whateuer is man obliged to belieue if it be not sufficiently proposed to him that God has reuealed it and any article whateuer which is sufficiently proposed vnto vs to haue been reuealed by God wee are obliged vnder pain of damnation to belieue it so that as to our obligation of belieuing all Articles are equally fundamental if they be sufficiently proposed It s true som Mysteries of Faith are of their own Nature more requisit and needfull and on that account may be called fundamental as the Mystery of the Trinity and Christ his Incarnation but that is nothing to our purpose what obliges me to belieue them is not that they are so absolutly or greatly needfull for no such absolut nor great necessity of Christ his death can be proued he could haue redeemed vs with one tear he shed yet it is a fundamental Article because it is sufficiently proposed to me to be a truth reuealed so that in order to my obligation of belieuing all Articles sufficiently proposed as reuealed truths are equally fundamental And since that wee own our obligation of belieuing the Scripture to be Scripture Trinity and Incarnation vpon the testimony of the Church
kind Though Christ washed his Disciples feet before he gaue the Communion Might not the Council say Notvvithstanding that Christ did vvash the Receiuers feet yet vvee do not require that ceremony because that though he did so he did no oblige vs to it it s so in this case though in the institution he gaue both kinds he did not oblige to giue both and therefore the Council might haue commanded to giue but one which was not to prefer their Decrees to his institution but to make vse of the Power he gaue them Your example of the King of France proues against you for if the King of France had the Power and command from him of England to interpret the Laws and the Irish were commanded by him to vnderstand and practise them as the King of France should interpret them and not otherwse certainly you would not say in that case that the King of France woul haue more command and Prower in Ireland than the King of England if to flatter his Excellency you haue not a mind tn say that the Lord Lieutenant has more Prower in Ireland than the King and so bid fayre for a haulter Another example to proue wee extoll the Papal Laws aboue the Diuine Costerus sayes he c. 15. 17. he sould haue said prop. 9. doubts not to auerr that it is a greater sin in a Priest to Marry which he confesses is but a transgression of a Papal Law than to keep a Concubin which is against the Law of God You belye Costerus in saying that the Marriage of a Priest is but a transgression of a Papal Law Though it be but a Papal Law that any who receiueth Priesthood shall make a vow of Chastity yet the vow being once made it s a transgression against the Diuine Law to violat it a breach of vow a sacriledg sayes Costerus And this being euident it s no less that it is agreater sin for him to marry first because he shews by marrying that he is an Heretick belieuing that to be a marriage which really is none Secondly by marrying he testifies a steddy resolution of perseuearing in the sin Canus sayes he and others cited by him do auer that the Church can err materially and consequently allows no more infallibility to the Church than to a priuat Doctor Answer Canus and other Diuins say that the Church an err materially in matters of fact as I will declare in the next ensuing Point but in Points of Doctrin no Catholick sayes that the Church can err nor materially and Priuat Doctors can err not only materially but formally Lastly he impugns our Doctrin of infallibility with an argument as old as the Reformation because wee cannot proue it but by Scripture and wee proue Scripture again by the infaillibility of the Church and this again by Scripture and so go still round in circle which is ridiculous in the schools and hence he takes occasion to pick aquarrel with Becanus to no other effect but that his Auditory should vnderstand that he was acquainted with the works of great Diuins But I will declare how wee can easily expound the Resolution of our Faith without any Circle which I am sure the Protestants will neuer do An act of Faith is an Assent to a truth which is obscure and reason cannot comprehend an argument of things not appearing sayes S. Paul only because it is sufficiently proposed to vs that God reuealed it and therefore S. Paul calls it a captiuating of our vnderstanding which is to say sumission of our Reason By Resolution of Faith the Diuins vnderstand To declare the Motiue why I belieue or the ground whervpon our Faith doth rest God doth not require of vs to belieue suddainly that a doctrin is reuealed by him because the Proponent tells vs so S. Peter calls Faith a Reasonable Obsequy wee must haue strong reasons to moue vs for to belieue a Truth to be reuealed before wee giue our Assent therefore before the Act of Faith and in human Faith also it s so wee haue som inward dispositions preuious to the Assent a good opinion of the Proponent for his lyfe for his actions and conuersation which prepare our vnderstanding representing it reasonable to belieue what is proposed Christ himself when he came to preach did not oblige the Iews to belieue abruptly that he was the son of God but began with a Holy lyfe admirable doctrin miracles and supernatural signs and these were preuious dispotions to prepare them that hauing such strong and credible Motiues for to iudge him a Person aboue the rank of Ordinary men they should belieue him when he should teach them that he was the son of God wheras it was incredible that God should credit him with such supernatural works and continual marks of his beneuolence if he were an impostor This appears in the passage of the Blind man cured by Christs Io. c. 9. the Scribs and Pharisees said Christ was a sinner the Blind Man argued No in as much as he worked so great a miracle in him Nisi hic homo esset à Deo non poterat facere quid quam if this man vvere not from God he could do nothing all this whyle he did not belieue that Christ was God but a man from God extraordinarily fauored by him He being thus prepared with these external Motiues and iudgment of credibility wherby he iudged Christ to be somwhat more than ordinary Christ meets him again and bids him belieue in the son of God yea said he vvho is he behold how he was ready and prepared by that precedent iudgment for to belieue He that speaks to you is he said Christ and presently he belieued Credo Domine You see the Motiue of his Assent was the testimony of Christ which he thought he was bound to belieue hauing formerly seen his works which made it euidently credible to him that he must speake but truth wheras they proued him to be a man from God Thus the People of Samaria belieued him to be the son of God when they did heare him because they were preuiously disposed by the words of the Samaritan and the miracle she related of him Thus the Prophets and Apostles proceeded preparing their Auditory with the Holyness of their lyues secret energy of their doctrin miracles and supernatural signs which moued men to iudge that they were sent by God and that they could not be Cheats and the People which is to be obserued would be iudged obstinat and were iudged obstinat such as did not belieue their doctrin when they did see them or though they did not see them but were credibly informed by those that did see them Wee haue in the former part of this Treatise shewen the great inducements and Motiues wee haue to iudge that the Roman Catholick Church beyond all Congregations in the word is particularly fauored by God the sanctity of her doctrin the conuersion of Nations by her vnto a doctrin so seemingly contrary to reason and
true but what Mr Sall might well condole is the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the oath of supremacy that the King of England is head of the Church and let him consider if it be not cruelty against soules to oblige them to sweare a thing that not only Catholicks but all sectaries out of England denies nay Caluin in cap. 6. Amos Prophetae sayes Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae fuerunt homines inconsiderati erant enim Blasphemi cum eum vocarent summum Caput Ecclesiae And the very Protestant Doctors themselues not agreeing in what sence and how far is it true that the King is supream Head of the Church the poore People must be forced to sweare it Then say you the Council of Lateran erred in assuming that Power when it decreed Princes who did not purge their Territories from Heresies should be depriued of their Lands You abuse the Council neither it nor any other Council did no assume that Povver as you say but finding that is was that the probable and perhaps as they supposed the most probable opinion of Diuins that the Church had that power grounded their fact vpon that opinion and issued their Decree of that punishment against such Princes And the Catholicks who deny any such Power in the Church do not nor any man cannot say the Council erred formally that 's to say blameably in that Decree because it was grounded vpon a probable opinion and it is not requisit in any Tribunal for the iustice of a Decree or sentence that it be grounded vpon infallible grounds And the Catholicks who deny that power do say that Decree was Materially erroneous because the opinion vpon which the Council was grounded was false whence you can only gather that the Council may err Materially only in matters of fact such as that was but in Doctrina fidei morum in Doctrin of Faith and Manners it cannot err neither formally nor Materially because it is assisted in that Doctrin constantly by Gods infallible Spirit Transubstantiation How strangly Mr Sall is blinded in calling vs Idolaters for belieuing Christs real personal Presence in the Sacrament and pag. 116. sayes wee will be damned for this and orher Tenets if ignorance does not excuse vs and yet the Lutherans who are the Elder Brethren of the pretended Reformation whom Protestants do embrace and receiue to their Communion belieue that real personal Presence of Christ as well as wee are they Idolaters also and will they be damn'd if ignorance does not excuse them or will it be pardonable in them and damnable in vs He sayes wee haue no pertinent text of scripture for it pag. 21. and 28. but I defy him with all his Diuinity to answer me to these two following syllogism grounded vpon most cleer texts first Luk. 22.19 eate this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you The text declares he gaue them somwhat what to eat wee say it was his Real Body and proue it He gaue to them that which he gaue for them the text sayes it eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you But what he gaue for them was not a figure but his real and true Body therefore what he gaue to them was not a figure but his true and Real Body it will be no answer to say that he gaue to them figuratiuely what he gaue for them really for the text makes no distinction betwixt what he gaue to them and what he gaue for them and if you presume to say that what he gaue to them was but a figuratiue why may not wee as well say that what he gaue for them was but a figure and so fetch from Hell again the Heresy of Marcion that what suffered for vs was but a Phantastical Body For to leade you the second syllogism obserue that when the Multitude Io. 6. said This saying is hard hovv can this man giue vs his flesh to eate Christ called them Vnbelieuers There be som of you vvho do not belieue nay sayes they are damnable vnbelieuers v. 54 He that vvill not eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood shall not haue lyfe in him Obserue secondly that what the Iews though hard and impossible was that Christ should giue them to eate his true and real flesh for no man could apprehend any difficulty in that Christ should giue the figure of his Body wheras they did eat yearly the Paschal Lamb which they belieued to be the figure of the Messias Christ promised what they iudged hard and impossible what they iudged hard and impossible was not that he should giue a figure of his flesh but his true and real flesh therefore what Christ promised was not a figure but his real and true flesh and Mr Sall himself pag. 63. does acknowledge that the Iews did vnderstand Christ to haue spoken of his true and real flesh The Ievvs vnderstood him to haue spoken of a corporal and fleshy eating as the Papists do Now answer me I pray to this syllogism A damnable vnbelieuer is he who denies a Truth sufficiently proposed to him to be reuealed by God The Iewes in this occasion were damnable vnbelieuers and what they denied was a fleshy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it therefore Christ in this occasion did sufficiently propose vnto them a fleashy eating of his real Body as the Papists belieue it Pag. 63. he rayses an argument vpon this text for the figuratiue presence for sayes he the Ievvs vnderstood him to speake of a corporal and fleshy eating of his Body as Papists do and so represented difficulties that reason dictated against the lyke expressions as vvee did in the beginning of this discourse but he did correct their vnderstanding by his subsequent vvords v. 63. it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the vvords that I speak are spirit and lyfe by vvhich he dravveth them from the apprehension of a corporal eating to that of a spiritual feeding consequently Christ did meane a figuratiue spiritual eating of his flesh thus Mr Sall. By this you acknowledge that the Iews did not apprehend or think of any figuratiue eating consequently they could not either belieue it or deny it for how can a man deny that which neuer fell into his apprehensions tell vs therefore what is that which they denyed and denyed damnably they could not deny but that which they apprehended was spoken and what they apprehended as you confess was a corporal fleshy eating That therefore they must haue denyed therefore they were called vnbelieuers but how were they damnably vnbelieuers if Christ did not sufficiently and credibly propose vnto them a corporal and fleshly eating For none is bound to belieue if the reuealed Truth be not sufficiently and credibly proposed to him either therefore Christ his words My flesh is truly meat my Blood is truly drink did sufficiently and credibly propose a corporal eating of his real flesh or they ought not
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 hovv 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 vvhich 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
the blind see the lame vvalk though they see they are called blind because they were blind and are restored to their sight And S. Io. 2.9 sayes vvhen the Ruler of the feast had tasted the vvater that vvas made vvine The liquor that the Ruler of the feast tasted was true wine yet the text calls it vvater because from water it was conuerted into wine So the bread which by the words of the consecration is conuerted into Christ his Body retains the name of bread because it was once bread because it has still the appearance of bread and because wee should vnderstand that true bread and wyne and nothing but bread and wyne is requisit for the due administration of that Sacrament as for the Baptism true natural water is necessary And that you may not be startled at S. Pauls calling it so often bread obserue you the rule I haue giuen and you will easily perceiue that the word bread so often vsed after the consecration signifyes not true and real bread but beares only a mystical or figuratiue signification for you will find that the Predicats that are said of that bread after its consecration cannot in any wyse be verified of true substantial bread and consequently that the word bread after the consecration cannot signify real but figuratiue bread for example Christ sayes of that bread that S. Paul speakes of the bread that I shall giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld what was giuen for the lyfe of the world was not true bread but true flesh consequently when that flesh is called bread the word bread must not signify real bread Christ sayes of that bread this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you This Predicat vvhich is giuen for you cannot be verified of bread in its true and proper signification consequently the word bread after the consecration signifyes but figuratiue bread the appearance of bread But sayes Mr Sall wee all agree in calling the Eucharist a Sacrament a Sacrament is but a sign of a sacred thing why should not wee agree also in calling the Sacrament of Christ his body the sign of Christ his Body and heere he brings a rapsody of texts of S. Augustin S. Denis and others to proue that it is but a type a Symbol a figure and remembrance of Christ his Body which labor he might haue well spared for wee do freely grant that the Eurachist is a sign type remembrance and Symbol of Christ his body offered for vs on the Cross the Eucharist is a commemoration and representation of that bloody sacrifice but it is also Christ his true Body the vnbloody oblation of his Body in the Eucharist is a figure and representation of the bloody oblation of the same body on the Cross as a King that would act a Part in a tragedy of his own victoryes he would be the thing represented and the representation He alleadges the words of some Fathers of the Church that expresly say the Symbols in the Sacrament are not changed in their Nature but do abyde in their proper substance figure and form nay more distinctly they say that the Nature and substance of bread and vvyne remaine after the consecration thus speaks Saint Chrysost if you belieue Mr Sall in an epistle he writ ad Caesarium but if you belieue Bellarmin S. Chrysost neuer writ any such epistle also Gelasius a Pope sayes Mr Sall though Bellarmin sayes he was no Pope but som Monk and Theodoret dial 2. c. 24. And is it not a pretty thing that the Protestants would perswade vs that these Fathers and others did belieue only a figuratiue Presence and yet from the very first begining of their pretended Reformation they constantly auerr that all the Fathers fell into the errours of Purgatory real Presence Adoration of Saints c. whoeuer will read those Fathers will find the real Presence most cleerly asserted in seueral places of their works especially in S. Chrysost and for one or two obscure passages or expressions that our Aduersaryes meet with they must be for a figuratiue Presence Bellarmin and our Catholick Authors giue a Catholick sence to those words the Protestants giue an other the Fathers do not liue to speake for themselues and declare what sense they intended is it not necessary therefore that wee should haue an infallible liuing iudge who may deliuer vnto vs what wee must belieue in this Mystery This aduertisment I must giue my Reader that the Fathers in all ages of the Church some spoke nothing at all of the Mysteryes now controuerted and belieued by vs others spoke of them but briefly and obscurely others wrote in some places of their works plainly and distinctly but in other places in expressions subiect to misconstruction The reason was that the Fathers of each age professedly writ or altogether or for the most part of their works of those points of doctrin which were opposed by the Hereticks of those tymes and those they deliuered in their proper Notions expresly and carefully shunning any dubious words but of other Mysteryes and Articles of Faith that were vnanimously belieued no contradiction of Hereticks requiring an exact discussion of them either they omitted to speake of them or writing of them they were not so carefull in speaking with cleer expressions because they had no occasion of fearing a misconstruction of their words particularly when in other places of their works they had deliuered themselues in plain terms Hence it is that wee must not be startled if wee do not find any mention of Indulgences Purgatory or real Presence in some Fathers or if wee meet some words in some Fathers which may be wrested against our Tenets as in this of the real Presence which vntill about the yeare 800. had not any opposition among Christians then it was apposed by Iohn Scotus not the Franciscan fryer and by the Arch Bishop of Sens in France but this storm was soon and easily calm'd about the yeare 1100. Berengarius raysed much dust against this Mystery and drew many Abettors to his faction then the Catholick writters did declare the Mystery and defend it and Berengarius was condemned by fiue Councils successiuly assembled against him and his Partizans the Fathers who writ since that tyme speake so manifestly in fauor of the real Presence that you will hardly find any expression in their works wherat your vnderstanding may stumble It s most false what Mr Sall imputes to Scotus Ocham and other more modern Catholicks that the doctrin of Transubstantiation it not contained in the Canon nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council they expresly teach especialy Scotus in 4. dist 11. q 3. that the doctrin was belieued before the Council continually in the Church but more explicitly declared by the Council who for that end introduced the word Transubstantiation which expresses better the doctrin belieued as the Council of Nice introduced the word Consubstantial to signify the equality of the son with the Father
nay Scotus in that place brings for example the Creed of the Nicen Council which sayes he was no new doctrin of the Council but a more explicit declaration of the sence formerly belieued by the Church so the Decree of the Lateran Council was but an explicit declaration of the sence that was held by the Church in all ages in this point of the real Presence Suarez indeed tells vs that Caietan but speaks nothing of Bassoly so much you add of your own spoke rashly of this Mystery but tells vs also that his expressions were censured by the Church and all that Mr Sall can proue by this is that Caietan did err and what then But fayes he Bellarmin and the Roman writers do agree that in that text this Cup is the nevv Testament of my blood the word Cup is taken by a Trope not for the material Cup but for the thing it contains and why will wee not also admit a Trope in the words relating to the bread consecrated Mr Sall playes the Catholick vndoubtedly vnder the mask of Protestancy for this argument proues manifestly our Doctrin wee confess that in the text alleadged the word Cup must be taken by a Trope for what it contains not for the material Cup so wee desire him that in this text the bread vvhich I vvil giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld the word bread may be taken by a Trope not for the material bread but for what it contains which wee proue to be in the Cup the true blood of Christ because of it and not of the material Cup it can be verifyed that it was shed for vs in the bread the true flesh of Christ for of it and not of the material bread that Predicat can be verifyed giuen for the lyfe of the vvorld He concludes with a discourse which shocks the Hierarchy of the Church of England Mr Anderton has lately proued in his iudicious Treatyse stiled a Soueriagn Remedy against Atheism and Heresy the Nullity of the Protestant Clergy and Mr Sall not sufficiently as yet engaged in the defence of that cause as wee may iudge by his so weake opposition of our Tenets and defence of theirs that he has not as yet got so great aduantages by his Reuolt as he expected that should edge his wit to plead with more vigor I know not with what design strengthens this Assertion with his following argument against our Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament How can you sayes he giue Diuin Adolration to the wafer wheras in your own Principles you cannot be sure that Christ is there present for in your Principles That depends of the intention of the Priest who consecrats and of his true ordination this depends of the intention and due ordinatiō of the Bishop that ordained him and this Bishop depends of the true ordination of others that consecrated him and so vpwards of endless requisits impossible to be knowen certainly consequently you cannot certainly know that Christ is present in that wafer how then are you so desperat as to adore it Answer its question less on both sydes yours and ours that som things are essentially requisit for the validity of a Sacrament the defect of which or any one thing of them nullifyes the Sacrament as for the validity of Baptism water is essentially necessary and the form of words I baptize you in the name of the Father son and Holy Ghost This you belieue as well as wee now who doubts but that it depends of the free will of the Minister to vitiat the form for since that the validity of the Baptismdoes not require that he vters the form in aloud voyce he may pretend to speak the form and vtter som what els in lieu of it or if he should pronounce some words of it with an audible voyce he may with an vnder voyce omit some word or add som word that would destroy the form this may happen through malice or ignorance and wee cannot possibly be certain that it does not or has not happened and consequently wee can haue no assurance if Mr Salls discourse be good of the truth of any mans Baptism The ordination of your Ministers depends essentially in your Principles also as well as in ours of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop for if he be no true Bishop he can giue no orders and of the exact form or words essentially requisit for a due ordination the Iurisdiction of the Bishop depends of the due ordination of the Consecrators for he must be consecrated by the imposition of hands of true Bishops and the vttering of the form of Consecration the due ordination of the Consecrators depends of the like requisits in those from whom they receiued their Caracter now since that the defect either of the true form of the Consecration or of the true Ordination of the Consecrators nullifies your Hierarchy and that there is no possible means for vs to know certainly that neither of those two was wanting in any one of the whole trayn of your Ordainers for if it was wanting in any all the Ordinations deriued from him are Null what assurance haue you or can you haue of the truth of your Hierarchy and but that you are all buth meer laymen without any authority or iurisdiction for preaching or administring Sacraments Thus Mr Sall obliges his Church in opening a way to question the Iurisdiction of the Clergy let him make his peace as he can with his Church and Clergy wee will answer his obiection thus Wee can without hazard of Idolatry and ought in conscience to adore the wafer consecrated though wee be not infallibly assured of the Priests intention for our obligation of adoring is grounded on and guided by that General Principle of Faith which is infallibly true that Christ is really present in the wafer duely consecrated this General Principle applied to this particular case of this vvafer consecrated by this Priest obliges me to adore this wafer though that application of the said general Principle be not infallibily sure or I am not infallibly ascertained that it is applyed in this particular case it is sufficient for my obligation of adoring that I am morally assured that it is applyed As in this case this General Principle of Nature Parents are to be honored by their children is infallibly true and iust and grounds an obligation in all children to honor their Parents in virtue of this general Principle applyed this particular Man and woman that are your Parents you are obliged to honor them but are you infallibly assured that these are your Parents not at all are not you not withstanding obliged to honor them is it rashness or folly in you to honor them for though the general Principle that Parents must be honored be infallibly true and iust yet you are not infallibly assured that this general Principle is duely applyed to these in particular but for your obligation that is not requisit its sufficient that you are morally
forgiuen him but he that vvill speake against the H. G. it shall not be forgiuen him either in this vvorld 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 vvall vvhosoeuer 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 vvhich recommends vnto vs the Authority of the Church vvho 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 vvorthy of belief it is a Tradition seeke no more And again S. August Epist 118. If the Church through out the vvhole vvorld practise a thing to dispute vvhether 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 vve do not read that Indulgences vvere giuen before therefore the Povver of granting Indulgences vvas 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
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 vovv 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 vvould none of my reproof I also vvill laugh at your calamity I vvill mock vvhen your feare cometh-Then shall you call vpon me but I vvill not ansvver they shall seek me earnestly but they shall not find me for that they had knovvledg and did not chuse the fear of the Lord. FINIS