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
may say what S. Paul said of the Lords supper This if worthily taken is life and saluation if vnworthily is damation if Scripture be vnderstood in the true sence intended by the Holy Ghost it leads to true Religion if vnderstood in the wrong sence it leads to perdition as S. Peter sayes 2. cpist 3.16 speaking of the Epistles of S. Paul the vnlearned and vnstable depraue them as the rest of the Scripture to their perdition by misunderstanding them Grant this volum to be the word of God the words of it may be and are interpreted in diuerse and quite opposit sences as that command of Christ he that vvill not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud shall not haue lyfe in him it is interpreted in three opposit sences by Lutherans Catholiks and Protestants and it is euident that Christ intended only one of the three sences wee are bound vnder pain of damnation to eat his flesh and drink his blood in that sence which he intended and no other will suffice the Scripture alone does not assure vs which of those three sences is that which Christ intended for wee haue all the Scripture wee read it wee study wee pray and wee cannot agree in the sence of those words either therefore there must be somwhat else beseids Scripture for to assure vs of the true sence of it or God has left vs with an obligation of belieuing and not afforded vs the sufficient means for to ascertain vs what he will haue vs to belieue To say that God giues an inward light and testimony of the spirit to the humble and well disposed harts which assures them the sence which they hold of the Scripture is the true sence is a groundless fancy exploded euen by the modern Protestants wheras those illuminated persons cannot be assured if that inward light be an illumination from God or an illusion of Satan often transfigured into an Angel of light our Controuersists haue fully refuted this foolish fancy I only add that if the means appointed by God to assure us of the true sence of Scripture be that inward light and testimony of the priuat spirit God has afforded no means for to keepe vs in vnity of Faith for there are as many different lights and testimonies of the spirit as there be men almost and so his house will not be a house of peace but of confusion and if that be the true sence of Scripture which the inward light and testimony of each mans spirit does suggest those lights and inward testimonies of the spirit being quite contradictorily opposit one to the other it follows that the H. G. intended quite opposit sences in each text of Scripture Nor could any man reasonably pretend to persuade an other to be of his religion for since he has no assurance of the truth of his Religion but what he has by that inward light and spirit how can he in reason go about to persuade me that his light and spirit is true rather than that which I haue my self so each man must be content to haue his Religion to himself and seeke no other to be of it S. Iohn 1. Epist 4.11 bids vs not to belieue euery spirit but to try it and in that very ch directs vs to a touch stone wherat to try our spirits He that knovveth God heareth vs he that is not of God heareth vs not in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth and the spirit of Error If your spirit heares and obeyes the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of Truth in this vvee knovv the spirit of Truth in hearing vs not in reading vs. If your spirit will not heare the Church but prefer it self before the spirit of the Pastors and Prelats of the Church your spirit is of error The means therefore to distinguish spirits to know the truth and the true sence of Scripture is not Scripture it self nor your inward light but the Church which is the approuer or reprouer of spirits The Modern Protestants haue found out an other way for to defend the sufficiency of Scripture for to vnderstand by it alone the true sence of it for say they though some text or texts of Scripture be obscure yet comparing them with other texts they are expounded and the true sence found by the scripture alone comparing one text with an other especially in what concerns the fundamental points of Religion necessary for saluation which are easily found and cleerly set down in Scripture Mr Sall pag. 105. of his discourse seems to be of this opinion saying that all necessary knovvlegde for Faith in God to serue and prayse him is fully contained in vvhat is cleer of Scripture There is nothing more cleer than that the Holy Scriptures are most obscure euen in points necessary for saluation the obscurity consisting in the hight of the Misteries it contains in the difficulty of its phrases in the seemingly contradictions it contains that the most learned men that euer were in the Church found it a task too great for their vnderstandings to expound it learned Protestants themselues do confess it and our Controuersists haue so euidenced it that it were a superfluous labor to proue it that only text of saint Peter 2. epist 3. ch which I quoted but now sufficiently proues it and that no text nor texts of scripture compared doth declare sufficiently euen the fundamental points of our Religion two instances do cleerly euidence First Gods Vnity in Nature and Trinity in Persons in all Christians acknowledgment is a fundamental article of Religion wee belieue he is One not in Person but in Nature wee belieue he is Three not in Nature but in Persons And what text or texts compared one with an other can you bring to shew this Mistery Let the dispute be betwixt a Protestant an Arrian and a Pagan suppose the Pagan confesses and agrees with both that the scripture is the word of God but will not admit that either the Protestant or Arrian is infallible in the interpretation of it how will the Protestant proue against the Pagan that God is One in Nature and Three in Persons He will alleadge out of saint Iohn 1. ep 5. the Father the son and the spirit and these Three are One the word One signifies Vnity in Nature and the word Three Trinity in Persons But sayes the Pagan that is against all reason and the principles of Philosophy that Three distinct Persons should haue but One Nature and though I do belieue the word of God to be infallibly true euen in what surpasses my reason yet I will not belieue against my reason but what the word of God does assuredly say and that text which you alleadge does only say they are One but does not express if that Vnity be in Nature or in Person nor doeth the text express that the Trinity is in Persons and not in Nature nay the Arrian who is a Christian as well as you saieth
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
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
say man must be saued if in any but if his Lordp did speake to the purpose and to what wee belieue by the Roman Catholick Church as I declared 5. ch and in the entrance to this chap. wee vnderstand all Christians throughout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Church of Rome which is the chiefe and Mother Church if he sayes This is but a part of the Church of God where is the other part I say where was it when Luther began his pretended Reformation for then there was no visible Congregation of Christians at least No Protestants nor any thing lyke them that did administer Sacraments and preach the word of God but was vnited in Faith and Communion with the Roman Church only such as were then held by Luther and now by vs schismatick as you are which then was the other part of Christ's true Church but this is not all how could he say and you belieue that the Roman Church take it either for the Dioces of Rome or as wee vnderstand it is a part of the Catholick Church if it be guilty of damnable errors can that be the true Church or any part of it that professes damnable errors against Faith S. Athanasius his Creed sayes no for it requires to haue an entyre and inuiolable Faith and you that is a Professor of Diuinity will say that a particular Person who holds damnable errors against the doctrin of the Church and obstinatly adheres to them is an heretick and no member of hers consequently you must say and your Instructor deluded you in saying the contrary that the Roman Church can be not part of the true Church if in her there was no saluationthrough damnable errors in doctrin You see Mr Sall that against the doctrin of the Church of England against your own and your Instructors concessions you haue engaged in that blasphemous assertion of not saluation in the Catholick Church to vse your own expression pag. 75. to spight the Catholick you ran beyond all measure euen of your ovvn principles as to spight the Ievv and seem a good Christian one vvould eat more Pork than his stomak can beare And to get the credit of a sound and zealous Protestant among your new Brethren you haue exceeded them in decrying the Church But the Reader will vnderstand by what I haue discoursed in this Chapter that the Catholick Church is the true Church that she cannot err in any point whateuer of Religion and consequently that saluation is to be sought in her VIII CHAPT THAT THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it That they cannot vvithout blasphemy alleadge Scripture for their Tenets That they haue not one and the same Faith vvith Catholicks that out of the Catholick Church there is no saluation Hovv far can ignorance excuse Protestants IT is the constant doctrin of the Protestant Church for I call not the Puritans and Hugonots of France Protestants whose error in this point I haue she wen in the former chap. that the Catholick Church has not erred in fundamental points of Religion because the true Church such as the Catholick was before Luther confessedly and now is in their acknowledgment cannot err in essential and fundamental articles consequently they discourse that the Protestant and Catholick Church differ only in points not fundamental and inferior truths which say they are pernicious errors but break not Vnity of Faith nor destroyes not saluation That the true Church can err and is fallible in points not fundamental and inferior truths This is faithfully the doctrin of the Protestant Church as you will find in the Authors I quoted in the former Chapt. in Stilling fleet in his book miscalled a Rational Account and in seueral others cited in the Protestant Apology tr 1. c. 6. and tract 2. c. 2. Now wee must consider what is the Protestant Church properly it belieues many Articles and as they say all fundamental Articles that the Catholick belieues so far they are not Properly Protestants but their proper Notion is to be taken from those Tenets wherin they differ so that Protestancy properly and as it is condistinct from Catholecism or Popery as you say is the doctrin wherin the Protestant Church differs from the Catholick Now I proue that the Protestant Church as it is properly the Protestant Church condistinct from the Catholick is not the Church of Christ because it does not teach the doctrin of Christ and no Church can be called of Christ further that it teacheth his doctrin and doubteless if wee did ask the Protestants and first Reformers why they did separate from the Catholick Church they would say To belieue and practise the Doctrin of Christ vvhich the Catholick denyed But I will proue that their doctrin for which they separated from vs and wherin they differ from vs is not the Doctrin of Christ The argument is in Ferio thus No fallible doctrin is the doctrin of Christ For who would be so blasphemous as to say that what Christ has taught is fallible Doctrin But Protestancy that 's to say all the Doctrin wherin Protestants differr from Catholicks and for which they separated from vs is altogether fallible Doctrin therefore Protestancy as it is properly the Doctrin of the Protestant Church is not the Doctrin of Christ That Protestancy or the Doctrin wherin wee differ is all fallible Doctrin its manifest for Protestancy or Doctrin wherin wee differ is altogether of points not fundamental wee all agree in the fundamental Articles as they vnanimously confess wee only differ in inferiour Truths wherin the Catholick Church has erred But the doctrin of points not fundamental and inferior truths is fallible Doctrin for it s their constant Doctrin also that the true Church be it the Catholick or Protestant can err and is fallible in articles not fundamental and inferiour truths therefore all your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin therefore it s not the doctrin of Christ I confess ingenuously I think this argument cannot be solidly answered For is it not certain that you differ from vs as you say only in not fundamental articles is it not also your doctrin that the true Church is fallible in articles not fundamental how can it then be denyed but that you differ from vs only in fallible doctrin the doctrin wherin you differ from vs is Protestancy and nothing els is properly Protestācy but that for which you departed from vs therfore your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin and consequently not the doctrin of Christ Hence I infer that you cannot without Blasphemy looke for your doctrin in Scripture no text or word of God can be alleadged for Protestancy nor any other warrant but your meer fancy for your protestancy is but a parcell of fallible doctrin and no fallible doctrin can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture which contains nothing but Gods infallible word Obserue how vainly the Protestants do boast their Religion and
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
haue disputed with the Deuil as Luther did in points of Religion for the Deuil is not so kind but to the grand Heresiarcks thus far he imitats Luther that in the beginning of his Apostacy his chief drift was a separation from the Catholick Church vpon any account whateuer I say vvhateuer for it is euident that the first Reformers had not fixed on any one settled Religion in oposition to the Catholick wheras they were strugling and disputing for many years in seueral meetings had to that purpose to determin what ought to be belieued by all and what articles of Popery ought to be denyed and which not which doth euidence that their first drift was to separat from the Catholick and their second endeauour was to find out some other Religion wee haue the proof of this in the Chronocles of England for their separation from the Church of Rome began by the Schisme of Henry the Eight which was quite different from the Religion his successor and Son Edwrad the 6. endeauoured to establish and this quite an other from that which Queen Elizabeth introduced for she would haue an Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and other points denyed by the former that which the Queen established was fashioned to an other shape by King Iames and his successors Nay to this day the Sectaries who style them selues Reformed Religion do not agree what Tenets must be held in oposition to the Catholicks but are sufficiently Reformed by denying what the Catholick belieues Thus doth Mr Sall proceed for what he has proposed to himself was a separation howeuer it should be from the Church of Rome but you will find in his discourse that he is not yet throughly resolued what Religion to chuse and what to belieue not only because that he has resolued to be of the Church of England which is an indiuiduum vagum ready to change with all gouernments but that in his Declaration he professes to belieue the 39. Articles of the Church of England and pag. 39. he sayes that the summe of his Faith is the written word of God and the plain vndubitable consequences out of it and it is manifest that the 39. Articles are not plain vndubitable consequences out of Gods written word for a plain vndubitable consequence is that which the Premisses being granted is iudged by all wise learned vnderstanding men to follow out of the Premisses and cannot be denyed be any wyse vnderstanding man That in the Roman Catholick Church there are wyse learned men it were a madness to deny it but a far greater madness to say that the Fathers and Doctors of all ages before those 39. Articles were coyned were not wyse and learned men that studied and vnderstood the Bible and to all these the 39. Articles seems contrary to the word of God so far they were from iudging them plain and vndeniable consequences out of it And the Lutherans Presbyterians Anabaptists and Huguenots of France do not allow the 39. Articles of the Church of England and consequently do not iudge them to be plain vndeniable consequences out of Scripture So that you must say that either all are a company of knaues that speake against their consciences or that those 39. Articles are not plain and vndeniable consequences out of Scripture consequently Mr Salls some tymes belieues only Scripture and its plain consequences sometyms more But what proues that he is not yet throughly a Protestant and so wee know not what he is but a Not Catholick is his blasphemous Position that there is not saluation in the Roman Catholick Religion for it is the constant doctrin of the Church of England that the Catholick Religion is a sauing Religion first because this has been euer yet their complaint against vs that wee are vncharitable in denying saluation in their Church and they extol their own charity for granting that in the profession of Popery prouided he has no other sin a man may be saued Secondly because they confess there was a true Church extant the age that Luther began the Reformation and all the precedent ages for its an Article of our Creed the constant Existence of Gods Church I belieue the Catholick Church and that there was no other Church then extant but the Roman Catholick Church they also confess it and must grant it for the essence of the true Church consisting as they say in the due administration of the Sacraments and preaching of the word of God and no other Church being extant in Luthers age and the precedent that administred Sacraments or preached the Ghospell but the Roman Church doubtless it must haue been the true Church for in what Kingdom Prouince Citty Village Church or Chappell in the world was these things or any of them don by Protestants its therefore the constant doctrin of Protestants that Roman Catholick Church was then the true Church and is now a true Church for its the same now that then it was Now that a man may be saued in the true Church of God prouided his lyfe be good it were a blasphemy to deny it consequently its a blasphemy to say that in the Roman Church a man may not be saued and it were to say that all our Ancestors for so many ages all the Fathers Doctors and saints confessed by the Protestants shem selues to be saints were all damned Neither can Mr Sall excuse his Blasphemy and cure the wound with that plaister of Ignorance which he applyes saying that Papists pag. 116. may be excused by ignorance and this smale comfort he will not grant but to the simple sort and not at all to the learned men So that none of our Ancestors were saued for the space of so many hundred years no saints that are confessed by both Parties to be such if they were not fooles and ignorant people of the simple sort wherby all the wyse and learned Fathers and Doctors of the precedent ages and of this age are absolutly damned Nay and Thomas Aquinas which he him self styles a saint and none of the simple sort but a learned Doctor who confessedly was a Papist is also damn'd It s impossible that his Auditors if they were of the Church of England could heare him with patience to cast all their Ancestors to hell a Blasphemy so opposit to the Doctrin of their Church wherein doth the Charity of the Protestant Church consist and they do vaunt that they exceed the Catholicks is it in saying that by ignorance a Papist maybe saued in his Religion prouided his lyfe be good this is no excess of Charity for wee grant also as wee will declare in the ensueing Chap. that Protestants and not only they but Heathens and Iews may be saued in their Religion if they be ignorant and liue well wee are but little beholding to the Protestant charity if they grant no greater capacity of saluation in the Roman Catholick Religion then in Paganism and Iudaism No Sr since you are resolued to be a Protestant let me teach
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
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