in the word Faith alone 2. S. Paul in that text speaks only of the Scripture wherin Timothie was versed and which he had perused from his Youth which was only the Old Testament so that if the text proues the sufficiency of the Scripture for our instruction it proues the sufficiency of the Old Testament only 3. S. Paul in that vers ch v. 14. sayes to Timothie thou continue in those things thou hast learned and are committed to thee knovving from vvhom thou hast learned them Whence its apparent that he remitted Timothie for instruction to the Scripture and also to the doctrin deliuered to him by a liuing Oracle which was the Apostle himself Lastly the whole Canon of Scripture was not compleated when S. Paul writ that text nor in many years after and you can not pretend that euer wee had the sufficient means for our instruction in any part but in the whole and entyre Canon therefore you cannot pretend that that text doth proue the sufficiency of Scripture II. CHAPT SCRIPTVRE ALONE NOT THE Means for to instruct vs in Faith IF Scripture alone were the means appointed by God for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to belieue is it not strange that Christ should not himself haue left vs a Written word to walk by when he laid vpon vs the obligation of embracing true Religion or that he should not at least haue laid a Command vpon his Apostles of deliuering vs a written word reade the whole Canon and you shall find no such command but he left Apostles and Pastors and a command vpon them to teach and preach vnto vs and vpon vs of belieuing and obeying them which argues that the means which he designed for our instruction in Religion was not a written word but a liuing Church Necessity is laid upon me yea vvo is vnto me if I preach not the Ghospel 1. Cor. 9.16 He feared no vvo for not vvriting but for not preaching the Ghospel because he would depriue the flock of the means which God appointed for their instruction And the Channel by which Faith is conueyed vnto vs being our Eares fides ex auditu and not our Eyes it seems apparent that the means which he appointed is a liuing Oracle who speaks and not a volum which wee reade But let vs suppose that the Apostles did by special command of Christ write the Ghospel this is manifest that since the very beginning of the Church Christians did doubt which was the true Scripture written by the Apostles and which not there is not one part of all Scripture but was questioned and denied by some Christians to be Canonical Cerdon the Valentinians and Manichaeans denyed the Old Testament to be Scripture Epiph. Haer. 41. The Ebionits reiected the four great Prophets the Books of Salamon and Psalms of Dauid Epiph. Haer. 30. Marcionits reiected all the Ghospels except that of S. Luke idem Haer. 4.2 and Irer l. 1. c. 6. the Ebionits did own only that of S. Mathew They also reiected the Epistles of S. Paul Epiph. Haer. 30. And the Disciples of Cerdon would not belieue the Acts of the Apostles Tert. de Praescrip c. 51. The Lutherans this day blot out of the Canon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews as also that of Iude the second of S. Peter and second and Third of S. Iohn all which the Caluinists belieue The Church of England will not admit the Books of Machabees Esther Iudith and others which the Chatolik Church admits nor did the Ancient Fathers of the Church proue against the Marcionists and other Hereticks those Books to be Scripture by the Scripture itself but by the Church as S. Augustin l. cont Episc Man c. 5. Euangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoueret Authoritas I vvould not belieue the Ghospel to be the Ghospel if the authoriiy of the Church did not moue me to it Now I argue thus you say true Religion is knowen by Scripture alone that 's to say wee haue no assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth but by Scripture alone Therfore wee can haue no more assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth than wee haue of the Scriptur's which contains that Truth being true Scripture if therefore you be not innfallibly ascertained that this is true Scripture you cannot be infallibly ascertained that the Truths which it contains are reuealed Truths But Scripture alone giues no assurance that it is true Scripture that it is not corrupted either by the malice or ignorance of the translators or inaduertency of the Printer for there is not a text in all Scripture that mentions it therfore the Scripture alone cannot ascertain vs of the Truth of Religion And it cannot be imagined but that since the true sence of Scripture is doubtfull God has prouided vs of some means to know which is the true sence so also since that wee are obliged to belieue with diuine Faith that this Booke is Scripture it cannot be doubted I say but that God has afforded some means for to ascertain vs which is true Scripture and to confound those that deny the Scripture to be Scripture But Scripture itself alone can neuer assure vs of its being Scripture For to say that Scripture doth manifest itself to be Gods word by certain Criteria or signs found in Scripture itself as a diuine beam of light a Maiesty of style an energy of vvords wherby it does manifest it self to the humble and well intentioned harts to be Gods word these are but fond imaginations for all the Ancient Fathers of the first 402. years of the Church doubtless were as humble and as well intentioned as wee and all that tyme the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews Iude and S. Peeters second Epistle and second and Third of S. Iohn were not belieued as an article of Faith to be Scripture nay were absolutly denyed to be such by Tert. Cypr. Lactan. and others and yet they had the same Majesty of style and energy of words as now they haue and whateuer you may iudge of vs Catholiks Luther you will say was humble and well intentioned and could see no such Criteria or signs in those Epistles which Caluin belieues to be Canonical and 't is but a fond imagination to conceit any such lustre or Majesty in those Books which you belieue more than in the Books of Tobias Esther and others which you deny Consider I pray if a Pagan desirous of his saluation were placed in a vast Library could he distinguish the Scripture from other Books and know it to be the word of God only by reading it and if you did euer reade of any Kingdom couerted to Christianity by reading the Bible only without Apostolical men to expound the Christian Doctrin and by that you may gness which were the means appointed by God for our instruction if Scripture alone or a liuing Church And allowed wee be assured this Book and an other is the word of God of the Scripture wee
without feare of being mislead that rest of mind in the assurance of the truth for you may err by belieuing fallibility as I haue by belieuing infallibility my condition then is still better than yours and my doctrin to be prefered before yours Your Church as you confess may err in points of Religion whence it manifestly follows that it is not the true sence of Scripture that leads you in the road to Religion for the true sence of Scripture is absolutly infallible I ask you therefore on what do you ground your Faith You tell me that vpon the Scripture as interpreted by your Church and comparing one text with an other but it may happen that your Church may err in the interpretation that you confess for you say the true Church may err now I argue thus whoeuer may err relying vpon a Principle can neuer be sure that he does not err whylst he relyes only on that Principle this proposition is vndeniable for if he can err relying on that Principle it s because the Principle is fallible and if the Principle be fallible it alone without the help of some other can neuer giue any assurance that you do not err for example you belieue the King is in London because an honest Man tells you so that is a fallible ground which you rely on and you may err by relying on that ground and as long as you rely only on that mans testimony and haue no other you will neuer be assured of the Kings being at London You belieue the Church fallibility and on what ground do you rely on Scripture as interpreted by the Church you may err relying on this Principle as you confess therefore as long as you rely on this Principle only and haue no other you can neuer be assured that you do not err the Church of England has no other nor will admit no other Principle to ground their Faith vpon but the Scripture interpreted by her and comparing one text with an other therefore she can neuer be assured of the doctrin she belieues consequently cannot be assured of the fallibility of the true Church What will you say in this case there is a Man accused of Murther before your tribunal he does not only deny the fact but many circumstances fauours his innocency and the very Person that accuses him saies he is not sure he is the Murtherer surely you would not condemn this Man to death it being against all the maxims of iustice to punish a man that is not conuicted criminal This is the very matter in hand the true Church is accused of fallibility and falshood in her doctrin the circumstances of hauing florished for so many ages in the credit of an infallible Oracle fauors her innocency and her Accuser which is the Church of England does confess that she may err in her accusation and consequently must confess as wee proued that she cannot be sure she does not err for she grounds her accusation on the Scripture interpreted by her in which she may err and whylst she has no other Principle but that she can neuer be certain she does not err will not you then acquit the Church of whose crime her accuser is not sure as you would that Man accused of Murther Add this discourse to the former it is a Principle in all well gouerned Commonwealhs that a preacable Possessor is not to be disturbd from his possession vntill that by vnquestionable proofs he be conuicted an vniust vsurper or detainer no coniectures nor probable reasons will put him out of possession he will still with a safe conscience maintain it and the law will continue him in it vntill that by euident proofs he be conuicted The true Church was in all ages in peacable possession of this prerogatiue of infallibility neuer denyed to her but by some few condemned Heretiks what euident vnquestionable proofs can you bring to conuince her an vniust vsurper or detainer of it Reason affords you none for to say that infallibility is an Attribut proper to God is impertinent wheras she clayms no other infallibility but such as you grant to the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists but say you in a General Council which is a multitude of Men where a point of Religion is to be resolued by the maior part of Votes and where passion and interest somtymes may sway it may happen that an errour may haue more Abettors and truth be out voted This is to say that God has no Prouidence ouer his Church since he has promised the conduct of his infallible spirit to her for to lead her into all truth and keep her vnspotted from all errours let each particular of that multitude be euer so corrupt in himself God who can as easily gouern the harts of many as of one will not permit them to determin an errour nor truth to be out voted Was not the Council of the Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem a multitude Were not the first four General Concils multitudes which the Protestants confess to haue been infallible and guided by Gods spirit which was as necessary to the Councils of succeeding ages the emergent Controuersyes being no fewer in number nor less in weight Neither does Scripture afford you any match if you can these texts I am vvith you all the dayes untill the consummation of the vvorld Math. 28.20 and if the Church did teach an vntruth would Christ be with her then He vvill give you an other Paraclet the Spirit of Truth that vvill abyde vvith you for euer vvho vvill leade you into all truth Io. 14.16 vvhen the Paraclet vvill come vvhom I vvill send from my Father the Spirit of truth he vvill giue testimony of me and you vvill giue testimony Io. 15.26 the Paraclet and the Chruch are ioynt Witnesses of the truth Nor does experience fauor you all that you can shew is that some Pope did err or that some Council did err but that 's not to the purpose if you do not shew which you will neuer do thal a Pope and Council together has erred wheras therefore neither scripture Reason nor experience doth afford you any vnquestionable evident proofs that the Chruch is an vnuist vsurper or detainer of that prerogatiue of infaillibility which she has en ioyed in all ages why will you pretend to disturb her peacable possession Let vs heare what the scripture suyes Lu. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Christ spoke to his Apostles and Disciples on whom he layd the charge of teaching and preaching and who were the Church representatiue whateuer therefore wee heare from the Chruch representatiue wee heare it from Christ whateuer the Church speaks Christ speaks otherwyse wee should not heare Christ speak when wee heare the Church speake the Church therefore is the Mouth by which Christ speaks and as we cannot heare an vntruth from him as he cannot speak any so she cannot speake nor be heard to speake an vntruth this is de clared by S. Paul 1.
Thes 2.13 vvhen you receiued from vs the vvord of the hearing of God you receiued it not as the vvord of Man but as indeed it is the vvord of God And therefore sayes he 1. Thes 4. S. he that despeiseth these things despeiseth not man but God Could a man speake more pertinently to signify that the doctrin of the Church is the doctrin of God that when wee heare her we heare him and that her words are infaillible wheras they are the words of God Observe that the Council of Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem Act. 15.28 deciding the Controuersy concerning Circumcision delivers their sentence thus It seemeth good to ihe Holy Ghost and to vs. Signifying that the resolution proceeded ioyntly from both from the Holy Ghost by his inward inspiration and direction from the Council by its outward declaration can wee doubt therefore but that the resolution of Controuersyes by that Council was infallibly true and not only of that but also of all succeeding Councils wheras the Apostles pronounced their sentence in those words grounded on the words of Christ He that heareth you heareth me grounded on the words of Christ Io. 15.26 vvhen the Paraclet vviâ—l come he shall giue testimony of me and you shall give testimony in which words Christ did speak to his Church which was the witness which ioyntly with the Holy Ghost was to giue testimony of him and grounded on the Promiss of his Paraclet which was made by Christ not only to the Apostles but to his Church for euer vntill the consummation of the vvorld This is yet more cleerly proved by the following discourse Christ commands vs to heare the Church that he that despeiseth her despeiseth him Lu. 10.16 to obserue and do what those that sit on Moyses his chayre bids vs do Mat. 23.2 commands them to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans that will not obey her S. Paul commands vs Heb. 13.17 not to be carried away with various and strang Doctrins but obey the Church wherin sayes he Eph. 4. God has placed Apostles Evangelists Doctors and Pastors to teach vs out of these and the lyke texts which are frequent in scripture largue thus He that does what Christ bids him do and belieues what he bids him belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour but Christ bids vs belieue and do what the Church commands vs to belieue and do as appeares by these texts therefore he that does what the Church commands him to do and belieues what she commands vs to belieue cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour consequently what teuer the Church teachs is no errour To conclude S. Io. 1. epis 4.6 hauing warned vs to try our Spirits if from God or Satan he gives vs a rule wherby to try them he that knovveth God heareth vs he that knovveth not God heareth vs not In this vve knovv the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of errour This is the way prescribed by S. Iohn to ascertain vs of the nature of our Spirits if our Spirit be conformable to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of Truth if it does not conform itself to the Spirit of the Church it s a Spirit of errour but if the Spirit of the Church de fallible it can give me no assurance of my Spirit whether it be of truth or of errour for what assurance can you haue that the Cloath which you measure is of a yard in length if you be not assured that the yard wherwith you measure it is an exact yard neither therefore can you be assured that your Spirit is of truth by trying it with the Spirit of the Church if you be not assured that the Spirit of the Church is of Truth But because our Aduersaries will still reply that all this is to be vnderstood of the Apostles who were infallible whylst they liued and are now infallible in their written word I haue already shewen that the written word is not sufficient to ascertain vs of the truth or vntruth of our Spirits and will now proue in this VI. CHAPT THAT NOT ONLY THE APOSTLES and Church in their dayes but that the Church in all succeeding ages is infallible THe Church of England confesses that the Apostles and Church in their tyme nay and for some ages after if you ask how many they do not agree was infaillible this is not consequent to their Principles that say only God is infallible but howeuer it s their Doctrin as appears in Mr Salls discourse pag. 18 professing to belieue the Holy scripture the Apostles Creed and S. Athanasius his Creed parallelling this wth the other two vvith the heauenly gift of faith and if the Council of Nice which deliuered vnto vs the doctrin contained in Athanasius his Creed had not been directed by the Holy Ghost as the Writers of the scripture were it were à Blasphemy to belieue that Creed and the doctrin of the Council with the same Faith with which wee belieue the scripture Now the Protestants all agree in this that now nor in these many ages the Church is not infallible for which assertion you must expect no scripture from them nor no reason but their bare word But let vs see what reason they pretend God say they having giuen vs an infallible written word sufficient to instruct vs Church infallibility was for the future needless what school boy but sees the weakness of this reason first after the scripture was written the Church continued infallible for some ages Mr Sall must confess by what I haue now said as generally all Protestants say and as all must say otherwyse Arrius and other Heresiarks might have questioned the truth of their doctrin if they had been fallible and could not be obliged in conscience to acquiesce to their iugdment nor ought not tobe held for Hereticks nor excommunicated for not submitting to them if they were fallible as yon do not esteem yourself an Heretick for not submitting to the Catolick Church on te same account S. Gregory l. 1. c. 24. sayes of the first four Councils I do embrace and reuerence the four General Councils as the four Books of the Ghospell which had been rashly and impiously said if they had not been infallible Secondly if Church infallibility was needbess because the scripture which is infallible was written then it was also needless that the Church should be infallible in fundamental points of Religion and yet Protestants do constantly auer that the Church is still infallible in fundamental points thought he scripture be infallible also in them Thirdly the Apostles remayned still infallible after the Scripture was written and why not the Church fourthly if infallibility is needless because the Scripture is infallible wee may say also that S Iohn is not infallible in is Ghos pell at least as to those points which were al ready mentioned in Mathew Mark and Luke or that these three lost their infallibility by the writing of S. Iohns Ghos pell because one infallible Ghos
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
some part of it has perisht already and that there is nor in all scripture any promiss of its perpetuity as there is of the perpetuity of the Church then I hope the scripture would return to her ancient prerogatiue of being the needfull means appointed for our instruction this extrauagant position you are bound to affirm and you can shew no scripture for it and yet you can belieue nothing but what is in scripture I should think this a good discourse the Church was once our guide and means appointed to ascertain vs of the truths when the scripture that now is extant was not written But the scripture now owned for such does not say the Church was deuested of that Prerogatiue therefore I am still obliged to belieue she enioyeth it for the obligation that once was and it not proued to be abolished remains still in force there was an obligation of belieuing the Church to be Gods infallible Oracle nothing appears that taketh away that obligation therefore it s still in force To conclude the Necessity of an interpreter besides Scripture for to instruct vs what wee are to belieue is proued not only because Christ did place Apostles Euangelist Doctors and Pastors in his Church Eph. 4.11 for this end as the Apostle distinctly faies for to keep vs in Vnity of Faith to instruct vs that vvee may be no more Children vvauering to and fro and carried avvay vvith euery vvind of doctrin but also by the practice of the Catholik and Protestant Churchs who giue such vast reuenews to Ecclesiastical persons for teaching the flock and expounding the Mysteries of Faith if scripture were so cleer in the necessary points what needed any more but to giue each one a Bible and imploy the Rents of the Clergy in some other vse what needed so many authentick Christian doctrins published by both Churchs for to declare the Mysteries of Religion what needed so many Volums and Commentarîes of the Fathers vpon the scripture if it alone is cleer full and plain in what wee are bound to belieue IV. CHAPTER A TRVE CHVRCH ESTABLISHED by Christ to decide Controuersies and deliuer the true Doctrin vvhich vvee are bound to belieue NO Protestant at least of our tymes will deny the existence of a true Church it being an article of the Apostles Creed I belieue the holy Catholik Church The true Notion of it wee haue from S. Paul Rom. 12.4 by a comparison of it with a Natural Body as this hath seueral members each one wherof hath its proper function so wee all as so many different members which exercise diverse functions concurr to constitute one Body in Christ In the natural Body there is a head which is the seat of the Iudgment which gouerns there are eyes to see ears to heare a mouth to speake hands to work and feet to walk thus in the Church Christ's mystical Body there must be a head to gouern which is the suprem Pastor there must be eyes to pry and examin the truth and these are the Doctors there must be hands to deliuer the word of God and a mouth to speake and these are the Preachers Pastors and Curats there must be eares to heare and feet to walk which are the flock Hence wee gather the true Notion of the Church of God to be a visible society of true belieuers under one suprem Pastor where the Faith of Christ is taught and belieued The Church therefore is constituted of two parts the One whose obligation is to teach and rule the flock the other whose obligation is to obey and belieue what the Church by her Pastors and Doctors does teach and command and wheras the Church was still extant or the article of our Creed was some tyme false it follows there were still extant Pastors and Doctors who did teach the true Faith of Christ and a flock that belieued it As to the obligation of the Church to instruct and gouern vs these texts of scripture euince it Necessity is laid vpon me for to preach and vvo be to me if I preach not 1. Cor. 9.16 Attend to yourselues and to the vvhole flock vvherin the H. G. has placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God Act. 20.23 Which obligation was layd an the Apostles and their successors when Christ commanded them to teach all Nations to preach the Ghospel vnto all creatures which obligation S. Paul doth in seueral places of his Epistles declare but particularly Eph. 4.11 He placed in his Church som Apostles and som Prophets others som Euangelists others som Pastors and Doctors and declares to what end did Christ prouide his Church of them for the consummation of Saints into the vvork of the Ministery that vvee may meet in the vnity of Faith that vvee be no more children vvauering to and fro and carried avvay vvith euery vvind of Doctrin Whence two consequences follow the first that if you be tossed in your mind and doubtfull what to belieue if tvvo Sacraments or seauen if real Presence or figuratiue you are not to be carried away with euery wind of Doctrin but go the Church which God has furnished with Doctors Apstoles and Pastors for to instruct you the second consequence that Christ Faith being but One and wee obliged to liue in the Vnity of that Faith the Apostle tells vs in this text that the means which he has appointed for to keepe vs in Vnity of Faith are the Apostles Euangelists Doctors and Pastors of the Church that the Church by them may lead vs to the professiion of one Faith The other part which cōstitutes the Church is the flock whose obligation is to obey and belieue what she by her Doctors and Pastors does teach and command vs this obligation is manifestly proued Mat. 23.2 all that they vvho sit on the chayr of Moyses vvill say vnto you that obserue and do Lu. 10.16 Christ commands that he who will not heare the Church is to be esteemed a Heathen and a Publican and adds that he vvho despeiseth her despeiseth him that is to say he that despeiseth her Doctrin which S. Paul expounds 1. Thes 4.8 when after giuing them instructions he saies He that despeiseth these things despeiseth not man but God and 2. Thes 3.14 he that obeyeth not our vvord do not acompagny him that he may be confounded These cleer and manifest texts proue the obligation of the flock to belieue and obey the Doctrin and commands which the Church by her Pastors and Doctors layeth vpon them Whence it appears that the Church is the Oracle and Mistress which Christ has appointed on earth for to instruct and gouern vs. This discourse that the Church is constituted of two parts the one whose obligation is to teach and gouern the otherwhose obligation is to learn belieue and obey is cleerly shewen in the 1. Cor. 3. where the Apostle compares the Pastors and Prelats to Husband men who soweth the seed and to Masterbuilders that make a house and compares the
flock to a field that receiues the seed and improuments and to an edifice But saies he He that planteh and he that vvatereth are one and euery man shall receiue his ovvn revvard according his ovvn vvorks vvee are labourers together vvith God ye are Gods Husbandry ye are Gods building All is but one body one common wealth but with this distinction that some in this Body and commonweath are labourers some whose charge it is to plant and sovv the seed which are the Apostles and their successors others are the Husbandry the field which is vvatered and receiues the seed whichs the flock Out of these Premisses I discourse thus as it is impossible that God laying an obligation vpon vs of belieuing reuealed Truths should not haue afforded vs the necessary means to know what Truths he has reuealed so it is a madness in me to expect to come to that knowledge by any other way or means than by that which God has appointed for our conduct it 's an vnquestionable truth that God might haue established an other manner of Prouidence for the saluation of man whitout Scripture Sacraments or Church but if God has decreed in this his present gouernment not to saue Man but vpon certain conditions will you be so peremptory as to expect by special priuiledge as a person particularly fauored to walk a path by yourself and be exempted from those conditions which are generally required fromall God might do so there is no doubt of it but it 's a madness in you to expect it You are to enquire what worship God requires from Man what truths he has reuealed which is the true sence of Scripture I do not doubt but God might if he were pleased vse other means for your instruction without Church Scripture Pastors or Doctors snatching you to the Third Heauen as hedid S. Paul 2. Cor. 11.4 or by sending an Angel to resolue your doubts or by inward illustrations and diuine lights but since that in this his present Prouidence he has established a Church furnished as wee mentioned with Doctors Pastors Apostles and Euangelists and layd an obligation vpon her to teach you and vpon you to belieue and obey her will you as a person particularly priuiledg'd expect to haue the knowledge of what you ought to belieue and to yet the true sence of Scripture by any other means than by and from that Oracle which God has appointed for the instruction of all I pitty some deluded souls who ery out God knovvs if I did knovv the true Religion and the true sence of Scripture I vvould embrace it But friend do you expect a reuelation from Heauen or an inward light for to ascertain you God has afforded means for to instruct vs and commands vs all he excepts none to heare and oby her which is the Church make vse of the means which he has appointed and you will be instructed think not that your ignorance will excuse your incredulity of what you ought to belieue when God has giuen you means wherby to be instructed and you will not make vse of those means and if you say you do not know which Church is that which God has appointed for your instruction both by what I haue already discoursed and what shall be said in the ensuing chapters it will manifestly appeare that it is the Roman Catholik Church But say you I search the Scripture as Christ commanded 10.5.39 and what I meet not there I do not belieue because I am persuaded it 's it that God has left vnto vs for to instruct vs and that it contains expresly and cleerly what wee are bound to belieue But wee haue proued in the two former chapters that Scripture does not contain all articles which wee are bound to belieue and that euen the fundamental points of Religion are not sufficiently proued by Scripture alone without an infaillible interpreter for there is not any text hardly of Scripture but may be interpreted in different sences and Scripture alone does not ascertain vs which is the true sence And if an Heretick did aryse and say that it is not lawfull to keepe sunday for a Holy day but saturday because God commanded this should be kept and the Apostles could not alter it against the express command of God Ex. 20. if he should say that it is lawfull for vs to keepe but one Holy day and no more in the weeke and that wee are obliged to work the other six dayes according that text six dayes thou shalt vvork but the seaueth is the Sabaoth of they Lord Ex. 20. can his errour be eleerly proued by Scripture alone if he should say that it is not conformable to the instruction of Christ to giue the Communion to Women because wee do not read that Christ should haue giuen it to any by what Scripture will you conuince him of an error If he should say that you cannot in conscience defend your right against one who commences a suit in law against you or that is an vniust vsurper of your goods he will giue you plain Scripture for it To him that vvill contest vvith you in Lavv and take your Coat from you giue him also your Cloak Mat. 5.40 and by what text will you conuince him that he misvnderstands that text if he should say with the Luciferians that a Priest who would apostatise from his Religion ought not to be receiued again to the Communion of the Church though he did repent grounded vpon the words of Christ Mat. 5. if the salt that 's to say the Doctors and Pastors of the Church hath lost its Sauour vvher vvith shall it be salted it is therfore good for nothing but to be cast out and trod vnder foot of men This is a damnable error the doore is still open Mr Sall if you will but knock with repentance yet no text of Scripture doth cleerly conuince that errour finally there was neuer yet any Heresy no neuer will be but will hit vpon some text of Scripture to proue its error and if it be lawfull for euery man to interpret he Scripture in the sence that seems best to him they will neuer be conuinced by Scripture alone Hence it follows that since the texts of Scripture admit different sences either of two things must happen or that God has left it arbitrary to Mankind to belieue that sence which each one bonafide thinks in his own iudgment to be the best and has not obliged him to submit his iudgment to the sence giuen by any other and if so Arriants Protestants Catholiks and all are of a good Religion for each of vs belieues that sence of Scripture which wee think the truest which is all that God requires Or if God has obliged vs all to belieue one sence of Scripture though that sence may not seem the best to this or that particular man and will haue vs submit our iudgments and belieue that sence which he obliges vs all to belieue if so then God
pell is sufficient at least as to the points it contains These instances shew that reason to be very friuolous and if it proued any thing at most it can proue that the Church infallibility is not necessary for our instruction but it might be-necessary for other ends of Gods prouidence who might haue left still that gift of infallibility to his Church for a mark of his loue to her wee find he did promise the conduct of his infallible Spirit to his Church wee de not find he should haue limited this grace to any tyme nay to the contrary wee find that he sayd it should be for euer all dayes to the consummation of the vvorld why should wee therfore limit that fauor vnto à tyme to conclude wee haue proued in the 2 and 3 chap. that Scripture is not sufficient to instruct vs and consequently an infallible Church is still necessary An other reason no less silly to proue that the Church after few ages became fallible for the Popes Prelats and People became very vicious and from the debauchery of manners they came by Gods iust iugdment to fall into errours in doctrin which Mr Sall pretends to proue by Scripture pag. 32. the promise made by Christ of the Paraclet for to lead the Church into all truth vvas a conditional promise as appears by Christ his vvord Io. 14.16 if you loue me keep my commandmens and I vvill ask my father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet that he may abyde vvith you for euer euen the Spirit of Truth vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue The Paraclet is promised on condition they Keepe the commandments and by the later words vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue the Paraclet is flatly denied to all those the Scripture styles by the name of vvorld that is to say the wicked and wordly men Hence sayes Mr Sall wee can be no more sure that the Pope and his Council are infallible than wee are that he liues in Gods loue and obseruance of his commandments and wheras it is manifest by our own Historyes that the Pope Pastors and flock haue fallen into many crimes it followes they haue forfeited the conduct of Gods infaillible Spirit If from the lewdness of manners wee might conclude the Churches corruption in doctrin what Ghospell could the world expect from Luther and the other pretended Reformers for whose wickdness there are as good Records as for the debauchery of Popes and Prelats the sinns of Prelats did deface the Ghospell and did the Apostasy of Luther and the Sodomy of Caluin restore it to its splendor Christ did foresee that they who should sit on the chayre of Moyses would be wicked in their lyues and yet commanded vs to obey and belieue their doctrin The conduct of Gods Spirit promised to them for to leade them into all Truth was not a personal gift giuen to them for their own sakes but for the flock for to keepe them in vnity of Faith and therefore though God does permit them to fall into wickedness of lyfe his Prouidence will not permit them to fall into errors of doctrin that the flock which it obliged to obey them may not be mislead To proue that the Promiss was only conditional you corrupt the text for as well your Bible as ours sayes thus if you loue me keepe my Commandments and there puts a punctum Then ads a distinct verse or section And I vvill ask my Father and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet c. which makes an absolut sence independent of the former That this is the true interpretation of that text it appears for in seueral other texts That assistance of as Mat. 28 20 behold I am vvith you all dayes euen to the consummation of the vvorld Mat. 16. the Gates of hell shall not preuayle agaiust her Io. 16 13. vvhen the Paraclet shall come the Spirit of Truth he shall teach you-all truth And is it not strang Mr Sall should auerr the Paraclet was promised vpon condition of Gods loue and obseruance of his Commandments wheras the Church remayns still infallible infundamental points notwithstanding that it has fayled in that condition as Mr Sall and all Protestants do deknowledge But what he will neuer answer is that if that Promiss was conditional it folloues wee cannot be sure the Ghospell is infallible if wee be not sure that the Euangelists when they wrote it haue been in the loue of God and obseruance of his Commandments for if they were not they had not the Paraclet sayes Mr Sall but no text of Scripture tells vs that the Euangelists were in the state of Grace when they writ the Ghospell nor nothing else giues vs assurance of it Therefore wee are not assured the Ghospell written by the Euangelists is infallible nay which is worse in the common doctrin of Protestants wee are assured it is not infaillible for the common doctrin in their Church is that it is impossible to keepe Gods commandments the Euangelists therefore when they writ did not keep Gods Commandments consequenly they could not haue the Paraclet to lead them into truth consequenly the Ghospell is not infallible and so Mr Sall ouerthrows all-Christian Religion Let vs consider what inducements had the primitiue Christians to belieue the Apostles infallible was it not the testimony of the Apostles confirming their doctrin with many Miracles look into the Historyes of all succeding ages and you will find that the Church which affirmed herself to be infallible did confirm her doctrin with many and great Miracle as wee will euidence in the ensuing Chap. And on what do you ground your beliefe when you say the Apostles were infallible You say that vpon the Scripture but I defy you to shew any text of Scripture which declares the infallibility of the Apostles that relates not to the Church in succeeding ages as well as to them either therefore they proue the Church to be infallible in succeeding ages or they do not proue the Apostles to be infallible For example wee proue the infallibility of the Apostles by the words of Christ he that heareth you heareth me Lu. 10. whence followes that the words of the Apostles were the words of Christ But Christ himself Mat. 18. declares that text must be vnderstood of his Church whereuer it be if he vvil not heare the Church let him be to you as a Heathen and Publican We proue it out of S. Iohn 14.18 He vvill giue you an other Paraclet the spirit of truth that vvill a byde vvith you for euer but this text playnly declares that the Promiss was made also to the Church in succeeding ages by the word for euer for the Apostles were not to be for euer in their own persons but in their successors and to remoue all occasion of cauilling vpon the word for euer saying that it signifyes only the tyme of the Apostles lyues Christ declares himself in a cleerer expression Mat. 28. I am vvith you all dayes to the consummation of the
irksom to our natural inclinations miracles wrought by her in all ages the constancy of her Martyrs euen in the youngest age and weaker sex Her vnity in doctrin against the persecutions of so many Tyrants and Heresiarks that almost all ages opposed it these marks which are proper only to her and that no other congregation can claim makes it euidently credible that if God speaks to vs by the mouth of any it must be by hers The lyke and no other had the Primitiue Church to iudge of the Apostles that God spoke by them and such as in the Apostles tymes did not belieue them hauing so great inducements to iudge them men of God were condemned for obstinat people and consequently who will not iudge the same of this Church ought also to be held for obstinat notwithstanding any pretence of ignorance they may alleadge Hauing these inducements to prepare our vnderstandings for Faith it follows that what euer this Church proposes vnto vs to be a Truth reuealed by God wee are obliged to belieue her and embrace her doctrin vpon her testimony wheras it appears by those inducements so credible that God speaks by her as he did by the Apostles Now I resolue my Faith thus you ask why I belieue the Trinity I answer because God has reuealed it You ask why I belieue that God reuealed it I answer because the Church by which God speaks tell vs so You ask why I belieue that God speakes by the Church heere is the difficulty I must not answer because the Scripture sayes it for I belieue Scripture only vpon the testimony of the infallible Church and to proue again the infallibility of this by the Scripture would be a circle neither must I answer that I belieue God to speake by the Church because she works miracles for if the miracles be absolutly euident they can be no Motiue of Faith which is of its own nature obscure and if they be but morally euident miracles they cannot be the Motiue because the motiue of Faith must be infallible and because the Motiue of an Act of Faith must be Gods word and miracles are not Gods word but signs and Marks of his word Wee must therefore answer to that question again because the Church by vvhich God speakes saies that God speakes by her and I am obliged to belieue he speaks by her because he does credit her vvith so many miracles and supernatural Marks vvhich makes it euidently credible that he does speake by her Where you distinguish the Motiue of your Act of Faith from the Motiue of your obligation of belieuing and your iudgment of credibility the Motiue that you giue for your Act of Faith is only the word or voyce of God by the Church and nothing els but the word of God can be the Motiue of Faith the Motiue you giue for your obligation of belieuing and iudgment of credibility are the external inducements of miracles and supernatural signs You reply To belieue that God speaks by the Church because the Church by which God speaks sayes so is to belieue that God speaks because Gods speaks by the Church which is idem per idem to belieue a thing for itself and an obscure thing for a thing equally obscure which is vnreasonable wheras an obscure vnknowen thing cānot be belieued but for somthing that is more cleer and knowen I answer what is belieued is that God speaks by the Church which is obscure and vnknowen to our reason The Motiue why wee belieue it is the voyce of God by the Church euidently proposed to our vnderstanding by the external Motiues of credibility to be credibly his voyce so that the same thing which of itself and considered without the external Motiues of credibility is obscure and vnknowen acompanied with the motiues of credibility is more cleer and knowen and moues me to belieue but so that the Motiues of credibility are not the Motiue nor any part of the Motiue why I belieue the testimony of the Church to be the voyce of God but are the Motiues why our vnderstanding euidently knows it to be very credible and iudges it very iust and reasonable that wee should belieue it to be the voyce of God And that this is the way of Resoluing Diuine Faith it s proued for wee haue the same Faith that the Primitiue Church of Ierusalem Antioch and Damasco had and consequently wee must haue the same Motiue of Faith When the Apostles preached to them they belieued the Trinity not for Scripture for but little or nothing was then written of the new Testament but because God told them by the Apostles that it was a reuealed Truth And if you did ask them whey they belieued that God did speake by the Apostles they would answer because the Apostles who were Gods Messengers told them so and they could not but be obliged to belieue it because of their miracles and supernatural signs Thus wee say of the Church Now the Church being belieued infallibly true wee belieue the Scripture to be the word of God vpon her testimony and the Scripture being belieued Gods word then wee draw out of the Scripture new proofs and Motiues of belieuing the Church to be infallible because the Scripture which is the word of God sayes it But the chief and last Motiue whervpon our Faith must rest is the word of God speaking to vs by the Church the Church I say by which God actually in this present age speaks vnto vs for wee do not belieue because God did speak in the 1.2 and third age by the Church for that is Tradition and Tradition nor Scripture is not the Motiue but the Rule of our Faith the Rule by which the Church is guided to know which and what is the word of God the Motiue of our Faith is because God speaks now by his Church as he did in those first ages for which wee haue euident arguments of credibility as the first ages had Pop's supremacy What is belieued as an Article of Faith by the Church is the spiritual supremacy of the Pope his supream Power either Direct or indirect in temporal affaires ouer Princes is no Articles of Faith but a question disputed in the schools and neither Partie that denies or affirms is condemned of Heresy by the Church if Mr Sall mislyked the Doctrin he might haue disclaimed it and remain a Catholick as many other Catholicks do He speaks of the sufferances of the Irish vpon the account of this Doctrin a meer fiction as wittily as maliciously inuented to make the Pope odious to the People That the Irish should haue suffered for that cause is false but it s very true that they suffered for not swearing the contrary Doctrin That the Pope has no such Povver which no man can sweare wheras he is not certain of it and wheras it is a question disputed in the schools if he has or not that Power how can any man in conscience sweare either part to be
are conueyed vnto vs not for the effects conueyed wheras what Christ promised to the Receiuers of the bread and Cup he promises to the Receiuers of the bread alone He that eats this bread shall liue for euer Io. 6.38 which he repeats three tymes in that chap. is not this all that is promised to the Receiuers of the Bread and Cup not for the verifying of Christ his words for that text Io. 6. which is the strongest that our aduersaryes can alleadge if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not haue lyfe in you The particle and which seems to require the taking of the Cup as well as the bread Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 25. and Suar. in 3. par disp 71. sect 2. do manifestly proue that it must be vnderstood disiunctiuly and signify or and the sence of the text is if you do eat the flesh of the son of Man or drink his blood c. And that in the Hebrew or Syriach language wherin Christ did speake it signifyes so and that the Apostle S. Iohn writing in Greek retained the Hebrew Phrase Now that the particle and which vsually is Copulatiue somtymes in Scripture signifyes disiunctiuly they proue it by seueral examples of Scripture as when S. Peter was asked an alms Act. 3. he answered I haue no syluer and Gold meaning that he had neither syluer nor Gold otherwise the excuse was friuolous Ex. 15. and 21. He that vvill kill his Father and Mother let him dye the sence is Father or Mother Psal 1. the impious shall not ryse in iudgment and the sinners in the Council of the Iust The sence is nor the sinners So in that text if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood c. The word and must be taken in a disiunctiue sence and signify he that vvill not eat his flesh nor drink his blood which is declared by Christ his subsequent words He that eats this bread shall liue for euer signifying that eating alone and consequently or drinking alone was sufficient But say you Christ Mat. 26. after giuing the bread and commanding to Eat gaue the Cup and said drink ye all of this If the Apostles only were commanded to drink they only were commanded to eat and so as the Layty is excluded from drinking they must be also excluded from eating and if the command of eating did reach to the Layty the command also of drinking did extend to them For to answer this Obiection you must obserue the difference betwixt a sacrifice and a Sacrament a sacrifice is a worship of God by the oblation of some visible thing which wee offer in homage of his greatness so that a sacrifice is directed to God and consists in an Action exhibited to his honour A Sacrament is a sensible sign giuen to a Creature for some spiritual inuisible effect so that the Nature of a Sacrament consists in the Reception of a visible sign by Gods Creatures and is directed to them for a spiritual effect The Eucharist is a Sacrifice a Sacrament It s a sacrifice of Christs body and blood vnder the Accidents of bread and wyne offered to God in representation of Christs body sacrificed on the Cross and that the representation should be full and compleat it was ordained in bread to signify his body broken for vs and in the liquid species of wyne to represent his blood effused This sacrifice is offered not only by the Priest and for the Priests that consecrats but by and for the whole congregation but because each Person of the multitude is not the immediat Minister of the sacrifice but all do offer it by the hands of consecrated Persons on whom Christ layd the commend of sacrificing Do this in commemoration of me commanding them to do as then he did it is not need full that each particular of the congregation should receiue either the bread or the vvyne consecrated as it is a sacrifice but that the immediat Minister who offers it for all should receiue both Hence I confess that Christ in the institution of this Sacrifice in the last supper directed his commands of eating and drinking only to the Apostles and their successors which he then consecrated Ministers of the Sacrifice and that neither the word Drink nor eat in those texts extend to oblige the Layty But the Eucharist is also a Sacrament for that very body and blood of Christ which he ordained to be a sacrifice to God vnder the accidēts of bread and wyne he ordained them to be giuen vnder the same Accidents to man for the spiritual nourishment of his soule I say vnder the same Accidents not that both kind of Accidents of bread and vvyne are needfull for the perfect receiuing of a Sacrament but either for the Eucharist in the Accidents of bread alone is a sensible sign containing the body and blood of Christ which nourishes the soul and giues lyfe euerlasting He that eats this bread shall liue for euer therefore its a perfect Sacrament whence I conclude that since it is giuen to Creatures as a Sacrament and not as a Sacrifice its sufficient they receiue vnder the sensible signs either of bread alone or wyne alone for in either its a perfect Sacrament and only in both a perfect Sacrifice If you ask where then if not in the words of the last supper was there any obligation layd on vs to receiue the Eucharist Sacramentally I answer Io. 6. if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man c. Mr Sall concludes that by Suarez his confession 3. p. disp 42. s 1. the Accidents of bread and wyne are the constitutes of the Sacrament consequently by taking away the Cup wee depriue the Layty of the Sacrament Suarez sayes that the Accidents of bread and wyne and either of bread or vvyne are constituts of the Sacrament and throughout the whole disput 71. largely proues in three sections that the whole essence of the Sacrament is contained in either kind VVorshipp of Images Mr Sall sayes the worship of Images is expresly prohibited in the 20. Chap. Ex. which text also expresly prohibits the making of grauen Images or the lyknefs of any thing that is in heauen aboue and on the earth or vnder the earth or in the vvaters and then adds in a distinct verse thou shall not adore nor vvorship them If Mr Sall will admit no interpretation of that text but vnderstand it literally the Protestants are also transgressors who make pictures of the King Queen and seueral other things and yet the text prohibits the making of the likness of any thing If he will interpret the text to signify no image must be made to be adored wee say the text does not only prohibit the adoring of them but the making of them if notwithstanding he will still insist vpon his interpretation then he must giue vs also leaue to giue our interpretation
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
Alms deeds and such others as they who giue the Indulgence require and that the Alms which are enioyned in such cases though by the malice of some they may be turned to sinister vses are designed for pious vses You mention some words of the 92. Canon of the Council of Lateran vnder Innocent the Third and that Council has but 70. Canon in all nor does the Council speake any thing in any Canon of Indulgences it s no new practice of your fraternity to coyn new Canons and texts as you want them You cite S. Thom. and S. Bonauen who relate some were of opinion that Indulgences were but a pious fraud of the Church to draw men to charitable Acts its true those saints relate that opinion but relate not who were the Authors of it but only that some did say so and they condemn it as impious and iniurious to the Church S. Bon. in 4. dist 20. q. 6. sed hoc est Ecclesiae derogare dicendo eam sub specie mentiri quod abhorret mens recta Thus you only proue by this argument that there were some impious people that accusâ—d the Church of being a cheat And do not you do the lyke wee embrace most willingly the aduertisment of Bellar de amiss Gratiae l. 6. which you relate but nothing to your purpose that in things depending of the freewill of God wee must affirm nothing but what he has reuealed in his Holy Scripture but you are mistaken in asserting that God has not reuealed the Doctrin of Indulgence in the Scripture for that text Mat. 18.18 vvhateuer ye shall vnbind on earth shall be vnbinded in Heauen signifyes the Power of vnbinding from the pains of Purgatory you say it does not and you cite Durandus and Maior who say it does not and that Indulgences are not found expresly in Scripture but I say that though they be not expresly found in scripture they are implicitly found there and you confess in the beginning of your discourse that wee are bound to belieue not only what is contained in Scripture but the vndeniable consequences out of it out of that text the Power of vntying from the pains due to sin is an vndeninable consequence the Church declares it and interprets the text so to whose Authority Dur. and Maior must yeild And though there were no text in Scripture that either explicitly or implicitly did import Indulgences in particular yet by Scripture it self wee are bound to belieue it it being the Doctrin of the Church as S. August said of Hereticks Baptism l. 1. cont Crescon c. 32. and 33. oBserue his words which comes very appositly to our present subiect Although verily there be brought no example for this Point he means the validity of Heretick Baptism for which he sayes there is no text in Scripture yet euen in this Point the truth of the same Scripture is held by vs vvhile vvee do that vvhich the Authority of Scripture doth recommend vnto vs that so because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs vvho soeuer is afraid to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the Church CoÌ„cerning it vvhich vvithout ambiguity the Holy Scripture doth recommend vnto vs. By which sentence of S. Augustin you find that wee follow Scripture whylst wee follow the Doctrin of the Church which the Scripture commands vs to heare and obey You will perhaps infer out of this discourse a consequence which may seem to you absurd thus therefore wee are bound to belieue as an Article of Faith what Doctrin the Church proposeth to vs though that point in particular be not contained either explicitly or implicitly in any text of Scripture only vpon the testimony of the Church This consequence is true and the reason is that the Church being Gods infallible Oracle caÌ„not propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but only that Doctrin which truly is reuealed by God God reuealed all Truths of Religion to the Apostles as wee haue discoursed in the 6. Chap. the Apostles deliuered all those truths to the Church to be handed from age to age to Posterity the Apostles did not deliuer all those Truths in writing as wee haue discoursed in the 2. and 3. ch but part in writing and this is Scripture part by vnwritten Tradition and this is the Depositum that S. Paul speaks of to Timothie the Church is the keeper of this Depositum and as by the Scripture wee know what written Truths the Apostles deliuered so by the Church wee know assuredly what vnwritten Truths they deliuered Now wee say that the Church cannot propose to vs as a reuealed Truth but what was deliuered by the Apostles who doubtless knew and taught to their Disciples all truths of Religion to the Church for wee do not say nor belieue that the Church can coyn new Articles of Faith but only deliuer the Old that through carelessness came to be confusedly knowen and almost forgotten wee do not pretend that the Church has new reuelations of new Doctrin which God did not deliuer to his Apostles but that she has the assistance of Gods Spirit to know certainly and find out the truths that were formerly reuealed and taught by the Apostles not only in writing but by word of mouth what truths therefore the Church proposes vnto vs wee are obliged to belieue them as reuealed truths though they be not in Scripture particularly mentioned for if they be not there they were taught verbally by the Apostles they are of Apostolical tradition and if the tradition be obscure or doubtfull the declaration of the Church renders it certain Thus it matters not that Indulgence is not expressed nay nor implicitly contained in Scripture if it be not it must of necessity haue been taught verbally by the Apostles since that the Church proposeth this Doctrin as a reuealed Truth and no truth is a reuealed truth but has been reuealed to them and by them deliuered vnto their Disciples Publick Prayer in an vnknovven Language Ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam your own position is the strongest argument I can alleadge for Publick seruice in an vn knowen language you say thus the purpose of Nature by speaking is to communicat the sense of him that speaketh to the hearer but hovv can that be if the hearer perceiueth not the meaning of the vvords he speaketh Therefore wee must speake in a knowen language I ask to whom do wee speake in the Liturgy or Publick seruice of the Church Sure it s not to the congregation but God it s to him wee direct our Prayers for to prayse him and implore his Mercy The Hearer is God properly and not the Cougregation and therefore where there is no Congregation present the Psalms are sung in the Oyre and Publick seruice don if therefore wee communicat our fence when wee say Mass or publick seruice to God who is the hearer wee satisfy the purpose that Nature intends by speaking and wheras God vnderstands our fence in
must haue appointed some suprem Autority to declare vnto vs what sence is that which he will haue vs all belieue to which all dissenting Parties must assent and submit their iudgment for it were vnbecoming the goodness of God to oblige man vnder pain of damnation to belieue one sence and no other of all the different sences the letter of Scripture admits and not to afford som assured means and publick Authority for no priuat authority will suffice to propose vnto vs what sence it that Nor will it be possible to keep vs in Vnity of Faith without this suprem Authority for it s not possible to haue Vnity of Faith if wee do not all hold one and the same senee of Scripture nor it is possible that wee all hold the same sence if there be not a publick Authority for to propose vnto vs what sence is it that wee must hold to whose iudgment wee must be all bound to acquiesce for if it be lawfull for euery man to reiect that Authority and hold that sence of Scripture which he iudges the best it will be lawfull for euery man to liue in a different Religion from that of others and so there will neuer be any Vnity of Faith and Religion Now that the suprem Authority appointed by Christ for to decide our Controuersies and deliuer vnto vs the true sence of Scripture is the Church establisht by Christ it s proued by the texts of Scripture alleadged in the beginning of this Chap. its proued also by the practise of all ages for when in the Apostles dayes there arose a controuersy about the Circumcision of the Gentils som affirmed they ought not only be baptised but also circumcised others denyed the Necessity of Circumcision both Parties alleadged Scripture but neither was appayed and how was the controuersy decided and the true sence of Scripture alleadged by both proposed by the Church conuened in a Council at Ierusalem Act. 15. the one Party was condemned for Hereticks if they did not submit and acquiesce to the Doctrin proposed by the Church About the yeare 324. arose a dispute betwit Arrius that was a member of the Catholick Church and others also Catholicks concerning the Diuinity of Christ each of the disputants alleadged seueral texts of Scripture and pretended his own to be the true sence who decided this Controuersy was it the Scripture alone without a publick authority to propose the sence of it No but the Church gathered in the Nicen Council to whose decisions all Christians were bound to acquiesce and condemned as Hereticks that would not About the yeare 378. arose a dispute between Macedonius and other Catholicks concerning the Diuity of the H. G. which he denied both Parties cited many texts of Scripture but the dispute was not ended vntill the Church gathered in a Council at Constantinople examined that question and texts produced by both Contestants and concluded against Macedonius after which Decision it was not lawfull to doubt of the Diuinity of the H. G. To be brief look into all ages that euer any question arose concerning Religion the final decision was alluayes deuolued to the Church who deliuered the true sence of Scripture quoted by the Disputants and esteemed an Heretick that did not submit This shews that the world did euer yet belieue the suprem authority of deciding controuersies and deliuering the true sense of Scripture was still in the Church But the wery Protestants themiselues who decry the Church and will haue no other Iugde of Controuersies but Scripture do confess that betwixt two Parties prouing their differents Assertions of Religion out of Scripture the Church hath the suprem authority of deciding and deliuering the true sence of Scripture to which both Parties are obliged in conscience to acquiesce read Doctor Porter in his Treatise of Char. Mist pag. 195. and Chilling-worth in his Book of the Protestant Religion a safe vvay of saluation pag. 206. and B. Lawd cited by Doctor Porter they teach that the Decrees of General Council bind all Persons oblige in conscience til euideuce of Scripture or a demonstration maks their error appeare that they are not to be controlled by priuat spirits nor cannot de renuersed but by an equal authority of an other General Council But because Protestants easily contradict one an other and others will say these are but opinions of priuat Doctors and not the Doctrin of the Protestant Church I will proue that what euer their Doctrin be their practice proues that they belieue the supreme authority of deciding Controuersies betwitxt two Parties disputing out of Scripture to be only in the Church the proof Arminius a Minister of Amsterdam and Professor of Diuinity at Leyden broached new Doctrin touching points of Predestination Grace and Liberty quite contrary to the Doctrin of Caluin receiued in the Churchs of Holland By his wit and credit he got many Proselyts that in a short tyme his Doctrin made great progress throughout all the States Gomarus nothing inferior to him in wit and reputation an ancient Professor of Diuinity at Groeningue opposed this nouelty and with all the ancient Ministers stood for the Doctrin of Caluin Printed Pamphlets were publisht Texts of Scripture quoted but neither did yield to the other each drew Abettors to their opinions and the Prouinces were deuided into two factions of Armenians and Gomarists The Churchs of Hollands petitioned to the States General for a National Synod to determin the Controuersy but Armenius strengthned with the protection of Barneuelt A duocat General of the States obtained that in lieu of a Synod the matter should be discussed in a conference of Diuins the States deputed som persons of quality for to heare the Disptutans Arminius presented himself with four Diuines and Gomarus with as many Arminius his fiue articles were scan'd texts of Scripture searched for and carefully examined reasons proposed by both Parties with all ardor nothing omitted that wit or industruy could giue and after a tedious and eager dispute the question remained vndecided the Parties receded each proclaming the victory Armenius dyed soon after but his schollers took vp the cudgle and gain'd so much ground vpon the Gomarists that all the three Prouinces of Holland Vtrecht and Ouerissel embraced their fiue Articles and pretended a petition to the States General for a toleration in the profession of that Doctrin which they offered to defend with the pure word of God adding it did not appertain to a National Synod but to the Diuins of each particular Prouince to take cognisance of the affairs of Religion in that Prouince and therefore they protested against any National Synod The Gomarists on the other syde cryed out for a Synod the controuersy did not only trouble the peace of the Prouinces but made a great Ecco in the neigh bouring Reformed Churchs The King of England by his Embassador Sr Dudley Carleton represented to the States that the only means for to allay those disputes was a National Synod to whom
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
commits many disorders in adoring I mages y deny any such abuses that may reach to Idolatry and that the Authority which God has giuen to gouern vs and which wee are bond to obey is to take cognisance of that which when they do and prohibit Images wee will obey them in the mean tyme wee will giue you and your Church leaue to bark at the Moon But I must mind you of one mistake for to conclude this discourse Clemens Alexandrinus say you Hom. 7. I pray where haue yow seen or any other Homilies of Clemens Alexandrinus but this is not the mistake that I am to aduertise you of and in his Paraenesis speaking of Images in general declareth thus vvee haue no Images in the vvorld it is apparently forbidden to vs to exercyse that deceitfull art for it is vvritten c. you are mistaken Mr Sall and it cannot be but maliciously if you haue read his Paraenesis for he does not speake of Images in general but of Idols and such as were adored for Gods by the Gentiles to whom he directed that Paraenesis disswading them from Idolatry to the worship of one true God This is a matter of fact let the Reader peruse the Author himself and he will find that you are mistaken Hence wee conclude that Images of Christ and his saints cannot be called Idols For an Idol is a representation of a God that is not or a Deyty that has no being Images of Christ and the saints are representations of things that haue a real Being and to say that Christ his image is an Idol is to say that Christ who is the Prototype has no real Being wee conclude that the making of Images was neuer prohibited for God made man to his own Image commanded many Images to be made the Ark of the Testament the Brasen serpent and seueral others mentioned in Scripture and the Protestants them selues make many Images of Kings Queens and saints wee conclude that all worship to Images is not prohibited for wee worship the King particularly because he represents Gods Power and greatness nor all religious worship of Images is prohibited for wee giue a Religious worship to the Holy name of Iesus to the Bible beyond all other Books because it is the word of God and the Protestants to the Sacrament which they say is but a figure of Christs body Reason proues wee ought to worship the Images of Christ and his saints for it is apparent that there is such a relation and connexion betwixt the image and the thing wherof it is an image that the honor or deshonor don to the image for being a representation of the Prototype is esteemed to be don to the Prototype as when a man is by publick iustice burnt in Effigie his person is branded by the execution don in his image and no man but will think the iniury don to his picture an affront to his own person wee therefore must worship the Images of Christ and the saints because they are their representations and in this vndoubtedly wee worship them for the relation and connection that is betwixt the representation and thing represented this worship resteth not in the Image but passes to the Prototype for whose sake wee worship it And therefore it may be called a transitiue or relatiue worship The adoration of Latria due to God wee deny to Images and detest it as much as you and when wee declare our Doctrin and Faith so cleerly its malice and knowen preiudice to accuse vs of Idolatry which consists in adoring as God what is not God Inuoeation of Saints Mr Sall I hope does not forget that Maxim of the schooles argumentum multum probans nihil probat that an argument which proues more than the disputant pretends or can pretend to proue proues nothing but must be fallacious and doubtless any Christian will say that an argument that proues directly against the Scripture is but a Sophistry Let vs heare his argument against the Inuocation of Saints God sayes he Rom. 8.34 has appointed his son Iesus to make intercession for vs who is more compassionat better able and more willing than any Saint or Angel to helpe vs and his prayers are efficacious for sayeth he Io. 5.16 VVhatsoeuer vve ask the Heauenly Father in his name he vvill giue it vs. This argument proues directly against Scripture for it proues that wee must not ask the Saints on earth to pray for vs nay it proues wee must not pray for ourselues but remit all to Christ who knowes ourwants is more compassionat towards vs than the Saints on earth are nay than wee are of ourselues loues vs better than they loue vs or wee loue ourselues is better able and more willing to help vs than they are and than wee are ourselues on the other syde his prayers are more efficacious why then should wee ask the prayers of Saints on earth or pray for ourselues Yet Scripture commands vs to pray for ourselues and recommends vnto vs that wee should ask the prayer of our Brethren and the Protestant Church also does practice it Therefore this argument proues directly against the Scriprure and against the practice of the faithfull It s certain Christ loues vs better than the Saints or Angels do and is more able and willing but it is also certain that he loues the Saints of heauen better than he loues vs poore sinners on earth I know not what opinion Mr Sall may haue of himself and so what he would not do for vs on earth for our sakes wee may expect he may do it for the sake of those that he loues most which are the Saints and Angels in heauen For wee haue examples in Scripture of some Blessings conferred on the liuing on earth not for the sake of any liuing on earth but of Saints departed 3. Reg. 11.15 God shewen mercy to Salamon in differring the punishment which he deserued sor his Idolatry not for Salamons sake but for Dauid his Fathers sake who was dead 4. Reg. 19.34 God protected Ierusalem against the Assyrians nor for Ezechias the Kings sake though he loued him nor for Isaias his sake that then liued and was a Holy Prophet but for his ovvne sake and Dauids sake his seruant Thus wee see that though God loues vs more than the Saints departed loue vs yet he loues them more than vs and giues vs for their sake what he would not grant vs for our own He brings the words of S. Peter Act. 4.12 that there is no saluation in any other and no other Name vnder Heauen wherby wee may be saued all which wee acknowledge and yet Protestants as well as wee do ask the prayers of their Brethren on earth and why may not wee aske the prayers of the Saints in heauen for what wee expect by their intercession and the value and worth of their prayers is altogether grounded and springs from the Merits of that name of Iesus This is all that Mr Sall alleadges against
in themselues good because they are abused but the Abusers must be punished And this good consideration Mr Sall will not perswade you to admit the vse of Images wee grant Mr Sall that principle to be good that things in themselues commendable must not be probited because they are abused when the vse of then is absoluty needfull or conuenient and the abuses are not very frequent and pernicious as in this case of reading the Bible it s not needfull nor can it be proued to be very profitable for the common people on the other syde the abuses are most apparent frequent and pernicious for thence comes all these sects and heresies therefore it ought to be prohibited but Mr Sall you must mind what I aduertised you in my discourse of Prayers in an vnknowēn language that it is not you or I nor any other but the Church that must iudge of the conueniency or inconueniency the aduantage or desaduantage of reading of Scripture she must declare that and acording what she iudges who is constantly directed by Gods infallible Spirit in the gouernment of the flock must permit or prohibit it This your Church will not say that the vulgar people are bound in conscience to read the Scripture for many cannot reade any thing others do not read all Scripture nor do they think that they sin by not reading others do neuer read any thing of it what you can iustly pretend is that it is conuenient and profitable and therefore ought to be permitted and heere returns what I discoursed of Praying in an vnknowen tongue Let any vnpreiudic'd man iudge if it does not belong to the Church to determin what is conuenient or most conuenient since that God has giuen a Church to gouern vs Let any man iudge if a particular man that against the establisht authority vnder which he liues and is bound to obey should rise against that authority and make himself iudge of what is conuenient or inconuenient for the gouernment and vnder pretence of a greater conueniency that appears to him should alter the established practices of the Commonwealth should not such a man I say be esteemed a seditious Reuolter and be punished what therefore shall wee say of Luther he liued vnder the authority of the Catholick Church he was a priuat person he found the vse of the Bible prohibited and publik seruice in Latin he did not pretend that it was absolutly necessary for saluation to pray in knowen languages nor to reade the Bible but iudged it to be most conuenient and therefore condemned the Church for prohibiting it is not this man to be esteemed a schismatick that opposes himself to the publick authority and makes himself iudge of the practices established by it and must not wee rang you with him that persists in the same rebellion Priests and fryers haue abused Scripture it s very true but for one that has thousands haue not and for one of the vulgar that has not many haue besids priests and fryers being the Pastors of the Church are obliged to reade and when a Priest or fryer abuses the Scripture its easy to punish him but when a multitude of popular people abuses it the remedy is not so neer at hand He quotes vpon Mr Stillingfleets word a Council of Bishops at Bononia that prohibited the Scripture giuing for reason that it discouers the corruptious of the Catholick Doctrin but this Council must be of the same coyn of the 92 Canon of the Council of Lateran which wee mentioned aboue no such Canon of Lateran or Council of Bononia is or was extant but in Mr Stillingfleet and Salls imagination I conclude with these two Assertions first its needfull that the Pastors Prelats and Doctors of the Church do reade the Scripture and that the flock receiue from them the sence of it and the Doctrin contained in it It s for this end that God placed in his Church some Prophet some Apostles some Euangelists Doctors and Pastors to keepe vs in Vnity of Faith by teaching what wee ought to belieue S. Paul Eph. 4. Act. 20.18 he commands the Pastors to watch ouer the flock in which the H. G. hath placed them to gouern the Church It s therefore Christ laid his command on the Apostles and their successors to teach all Nations to preach the Ghospell and therefore sayes S. Basil q. 25. Superiorum est ista scire c. it s the obligation of the Superiors to say the Pastors to knovv and learn these thing vvhich they may teach to others but of the others not to konovv more than behoueth them to knovv And Leo Pope writing to the Patriarck of Alexandria epist 62. and epist 82. ad Iul. You must haue care that none vvho is not a Priest of the Lord may presume to vsurp the authority of teaching or preaching vvhether he be a Monk or a layman though a learned man And S. Aug. l. 1. de moribus Eccl. c. 1. vvhat man of iudgment doth not vnderstand that the exposition of Scripture is to be asked of them vvho by their profession are their Doctors And if to proceed wysely wee must consult the Lawyers for the true meaning of the Law and that each Commonwealth hath men whose profession it is to study it and deliuer the true sence of it to those that are not Lawyers by Profession how much more it is needfull that there be Doctors in the Church whose obligation is to study the Scripture and find out by the Fathers and Interpreters the true sence of it and teach it to the people This and no more doth the authorities of Fathers produced by Mr Sall proue the reading of Scripture is recommended vnto vs sayes he by S. Basil S. Chrysost and S. Augustin it s very true but to whom to the learned men of the Church whose obligation it is to teach the Doctrin it contains and to the Layty no further than to hold that sence of them which the Pastors deliuer to be the sence of the Church The second Assertion that it is not conuenient nor lawfull for the Layty to reade them further than with a total submission of their Iudgment to the sence giuen to them by the Church This is manifestly proued by the multitude of sects wherin to the world is deuided through the liberty assumed of reading the Scriptures and vnderstanding them as the Readers think best Secondly by the obscurity of Scripture which wee haue demonstrated in the 2 and 3. ch S. Peter sayes Mr Sall 2. Epist 1.19 exhorts vs to read vvee haue also a sure vvord of of Prophecy vvherunto ye do vvell to take heed c. but S. Peter by that sure vvord of Prophecy means not only the written word of God but also the vnwritten word which is the Tradition by which the Church deliuers to vs the true sense of the written vvord which he bids vs to take heed of S. Paul recommends vnto vs the reading of Scripture Rom. 15. and 2.