wheras the senses perceiue the Accidents which are naturally inseparable from that substance if there were not a higher Authority that affirms the substance is not there to whose testimony Reason is bound to yield against the euidence of the senses as when the Angel appeared to Tobias to acompany him in his voyage Tobias at his first appearance ch 5. prudently iudged him to be a Man wheras the senses did perceiue all the Accidents proper to human Nature and nothing affirmed him to be an Angel there Reason prudently concluded vpon the testimony of the senses but when in the 12. ch the Angel discouered him self to be an Angel then Tobias his reason was reclaymed and against the euidence of his senses which did see nothing but Accidents of Human Nature belieued it a Spirit vpon the testimony of an Angel The lyke passage wee read to haue happened to Abraham Gen. 18. whence wee vnderstand that God may separat the Accidents from the substance to which they are proper and also that when the testimony of our senses clashs with a higher Authority Reason must yield to the higher Authority against the euidence of our senses This is the present case our senses say its bread what wee see after the consecration the word of God sayes its his Body if the word of God did not oueraw the senses reason ought prudently to conclude its bread but the word of God being of a more infallible authority than the senses Reason must yield to the word of God and say its Christs Body against the euidence of the senses that saye its bread But replyed he God will not haue Reason go against the euidence of our senses but yeld to them euen in matters of Faith for after his Resurrection he proued it to his Apostles by the euidence of their senses saying Lu. 24.36 feele and see for a Spirit hath no flesh nor boans as you see me to haue I answer they did not belieue his Resurrection only vpon the testimony of their senses but also of his word and asseueration that said he was reuiued God will haue vs as I said formerly yield to the euidence of our senses when there is no higher authority that thwarts their euidence as heere there was none but the higher autority did rather assert what the senses did testifie but in the Mystery of the Eucharist it is not so Gods word does contradict the senses and therefore Reason must yield to it against our sensations Pag. 21. Mr Sall argues that no necessity vrges vs to belieue Christs real presence in the Sacrament neither for the effects that he promises by it not for the verifying of his words seeing our sauiour said in the same tenor I am the true vine without any alteration in the vine or his person not for the effects of the Sacrament Christ being able to conferr what spiritual graces he pleases with the worthy receiuing of bread and wyne without any substantial alteration in the Elements as in the water of Baptism he affordeth the soueraign grace of spiritual regeneration in the substance of water I answer its necessary for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament for let the words Body and flesh vine Rock c. be equiuocal as he will haue them to be indifferent to beare two sences figuratiue and real This is euident that when a word bearing an equiuocal signification is put in a Proposition it is determined to signify that of which only and of no other the Predicat can be verifyed as this word Man may signify a true or painted man in this proposition Man is a rational liuing creature it is determined to signify a true Man because the Predicat rational liuing creature can be verifyed only of him and not of a painted man So the word Body that may signify a true or figuratiue one in the institution of the Sacrament This is my body vvhich is giuen for you it s determined to signify Christ his true body because of it only and not of a figure it can be verifyed vvhich is giuen for you If you obserue this Principle you will cleerly answer any text that may be alleadged against this Mystery As to the instance of vine and such lyke mystical expressions spoken of Christ put them in a proposition with the word Christ and they will be determined to a figuratiue or mystical signification because that Christ that dyed for vs cannot be said of a vine or Rock in their proper signification Now to the second part of his argument that God might had he been pleased haue redeemed vs with out any real Incarnation of the second Person or real Passion of Christ vpon the Cross it s out of controuersy for his infinit wysdom and Power wanted not other means for to redeem vs is it therefore wee must say with the Heretick Marcion that the text And the vvord vvas made flesh must be vnderstood figuratiuly and deny any real Incarnation of Christ or Passion on the Cross but only a figuratiue one by your argument wee might because God might had he been pleased conuey vnto vs by a figuratiue body and Passion all the effects and grace that he conueyed vnto vs by a real Incarnation and Passion the spiritual regeneration conferred on vs in Baptism by water he might haue conferred it on vs by wine or Rose water is it therefore wee must say that true natural water is not necessary for Baptism but say you the text does distinctly express vvater yea and the text in the institution of the Eucharist does distinctly express Body and as the text does not add true and real Body so it does not add true and natural water by what rule must vvater in the text sygnify natural water and the word Body must not sygnify a real body Thus farr wee agree that Christ might were he pleased haue giuen vs the effects of the Sacramēt by a figuratiue Presence only also that he might haue conferred them vpon vs by the real presence of his Body for there is no impossibility in that he should haue giuenvs his real Body vnder the Accidents of bread the question is what is it that he has effectually don and which of the two has he giuen the figure of his Body or his real Body I say that his real Body for that is requisit for the verifying of his words in the institution of the Sacrament But why does S. Paul call it Bread so often euen after the consecration as 1. Cor. 11.13 as often as you eat this bread vvhoeuer shall eat this bread he took bread in his hands he brake it and said this is my Body vvhich is broken for you These expressions denote that it remayns still bread No Mr Sall it retains the name of bread because it retains the appearance of bread and because that when a thing is changed into an other it still retains the name of what it was as in the Scripture wee read
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
it belonged to iudge which of the Doctrins controuerted was the most conformable to the word of God and if both could be toletated in the Church and therefore demanded a Synod Zeland and the other Prouinces demanded the same as also the Protestant Princes of Germany the Commonwealth of Geneua and generally all the Reformed Churchs All this passage is faithfully extracted ex Act. Synodi Dordrectani Typis Isaaci Ioannis Canicy printed at Dordtecht an Dom. 1620. Heervpon the States General issued their circular letters to all the Prouinces requiring that each should send six of their best Diuines to Dordrecht were the Synod was open'd the 13. December an 1618. The King of England the Electors of Palatin Branderbourg and Lansgraue of Hesse the Valons the Cantons of Surich Berne Basle and Schaffouse the Commonwealths of Geneua Breme and Embidem sent their Diuins of most credit and learning to this Synod so that wee may call it more than a National Synod and a Representatiue of all the Reformed Churchs And though the Ministers of France were not permitted to go thither they sent their iudgment of the question debated in writing The Arminians protested against the Synod as being a Partie concerned and consequently not a competent Iudge being composed of Persons confessedly of the doctrin of the Gomarists was it not thus that the Reformers protested against the Council of Trent The deputies of te extern Churches deliuered in writing their opinions of this protestation Those of England that it was against the practice of the primitiue Church of the Councils of Nice Constantinople Chalcedo and Ephese whose members were confessedly of the Catholick Church opposed by Arius Nestorius Macedonius and Eutyches that not withstanding they were competent iudges against whom no protestation was admitted but all Parties were obliged to submit The Diuins of Palatin that to determin a controuersy in Religion the Parties must not go to the Turks or Pagans or to indifferent Persons that profess no Religion but must be said by the Pastors and Prelats of that Church wherof they are members and wherin the question is debated The Diuins of Geneua that both Parties were by the sentence of Christ bound to submit to the Synod or to be esteemed Heathens and Publicans All the rest of the Diuins concluded the same whervpon the Synod condemned that protestation and declared it self to be the lawfull and soueraign Iudge in that cause Vel abycere debent omnem protestationem aduersus Synodum subjicere sua dogmata illius judicio vel certe si manent in protestatione immoti eo ipso se declarant vnioni Ecclesiarum reformatarum renunciare Or they must set by all Protestations against the Synod and submit their doctrin to its iudgment or if they persist in their protestation therby they declare themselues to renounce the communion of reformed Churches Is not this to declare them Schismaticks that will not submit to the Church The Armeniens were then summoned to waue the Protestation and giue in writing their fiue articles which they did they were examined by the Synod and condemned as erroneous and contrary to the word of God and all those that would sustain them incapacitated for to beare any charge or exercise any Ecclesiasticall function Sess 138. The Armeniens did not submit to this iudgment alleadging the Synod as all others was fallible and did err in this point and therefore could not be obliged in conscience to submit and perhaps some Protestants will syde with them saying that a Councill can not oblige mens consciences and that their Decrees can reach no further than to what concerns the Politick gouernment of the flock but this Synod which indeed was more than a National one of the Reformed Churchs and assisted by the deputyes of the Church of England declares an obligation in conscience of acquiescing to its decisions not only by the words now alleaged but by the Sess 42. Si conscientiae suae quam debent oationem habent ad obtemperandum supremarum Potestatum mandatis hujusque Synodi ordini iudicio acquiescendum tenentur If they haue any regard for their Conscience behold their Decrees reach to the Consciences they are bound to obey the commands of the heigher Povvers and acquiesce to the iudgment of this Synod And immediatly after this Synod when the Arminiens insisted in their reason for not submitting because the Synod vvas fallible the States consulted their National Synod then assembled at Delpht what ought to be don This answered that notwithstanding the Synod was fallible they were obliged in conscience to belieue the sence of Scripture proposed by it and giues for reason that wheras many pious and learned Doctors from all Churchs did meet together in the feare of the Lord to declare by the word of God what ought to be belieued omnino credendum est it must be vndoubtedly belieued that Christ according his promiss was present to that meeting and gouern'd it by the Holy Ghost Iudic. Syn. Desph Sess 26. Syn. Dord And if the Decrees of Councils reach not to oblige Consciences then Arrius must not be iudged an Heretick though condemned by the Council of Nice nor can Mr Sall belieue S. Athanasius his Creed with the heauenly gift of Faith wherwhith he belieues the Scripture as he acknowledges pag. 18. Now whateuer any particular Doctor or Doctors of the Church of England say what Pagan would enquire into the Mysteries of Christian Religion with a desire of being instructed would reade this Synod of Dordrecht and Delpht and also the Councils of Nice and all other General Councils of the Catholick Church and would not vnderstanding that it is the Doctrin and practice of both Church the Reformed and Catholick that the Councils haue the suprem Authority of deciding Controuersies and deliuering the true sence of Scripture that none can protest against the authority of Councils legally assembled and that both Parties contesting about any point of Religion is to be said by the Church wherof they are Members and whoeuer will not submit renounces the vnion of the Church and becoms schismatick Hence it follows Mr Sall that wheras there was no Christian Church visible when your first Reformers opposed the Catholick Tenets but the Roman Catholick Church They were obliged to be iudged by her andsubmit their doctrin to her iudgment they being Members of that Church that in declining her Authority in the Council of Trent and protesting against her as being a Partie and fallible they became Schismaticks And if the Reformation in its of spring was schismatical doubtless in their continuation it must be so for tyme giues no prescription to an errour nor haue you more right to continue in that separation from vs than your first Reformers had to begin it And as the Arrians are still Hereticks though separated from vs these 1300 years and still obliged to teturn so are you Now let vs heare Mr Sall what means did he vse to vnderstand
do consequently both those Religions of Iudaism and Christianity must not be true Religions If it be he that commanded wee should worship him by belieuing the real Presence of Christ his Body in the Eucharist certainly it s not he that commanded wee should worship him by denying the real presence for that would be to contradict himself therefore of all those Religions which clash one with an other only one must be the true Religion This is further proued No Religion wherin God is duely worshipped and a man may be saued can iustly be called an accursed heretical and damnable Religion this Position is euident consequently it appears how vniustly Protestants call the Catholik Religion Idolatrous and superistitious it being by their own acknowledgment as wee will proue against Mr Sall a religion wherin wee may be saued and consequently wherin God is duely worshipped But S. Paul in express tearms does anathematise accurse and condemn all and each Religion euen those that are Christian Religions besids that one which he and his fellow Apostles did teach if vvee Gal. 1.9 or an Angel from Heauen should Euangelize vnto you othervvyse than as vvee haue don let him be accursed pursuant to which doctrin Hymenaeus Philetus and others declining som what the doctrin of the Apostles in the Article of the Resurrection of the Body not absolutly denying it but saying it was already past 1. Tim. 1.20 and 2. Tim. 2.18 they still remayned within the verge of Christianity but because by their error in that Article only they were of a different Religion from that of S. Paul he delivers them to Satan calls them creeping Cankers and subuertors of the Faith which would haue been a manifest iniustice in him if they stiil remayned in a true Religion where God was duely worshipped it follows therfore that no other euen Christian Religion is a true Religion but that one which S. Paul professed and from which they departed And if any Christian Religion with a good Moral lyfe were sufficient for saluation the Prelats and Pastors of the Church in all ages are to be laught at for their continual care of keeping their flock in vnity of Faith and doctrin wheras any Religion was sufficient with a good Moral lyfe the General Councils were most rash and impious in condemming Arrius Nestorius and other heretiks wheras they still remained Christians and the lyues of many of them were most iust and vpright as S. Augustin testifies of the Pelagians Let the Libertins then of our age be vndeceiued who to secure their interest and ambition are ready to embrace any Religion that is the most preualent in the state for all though Christians Religions but that one which S. Paul professed all but that whose vnity the Prelats and Concils did endeauor to preserue are accursed heretical and impious Now since of all Religions that only is the true which God has revealed vnto vs and that no other worship will please him doubtless he has afforded vs the needfull and sufficient means to know what Religion it is and to distinguish it from other pretended Religions which he has not reuealed Without Faith and Religion it is impossible to be saued God therfore who desires our saluation and commands vs vnder pain of damnation to haue true Faith must haue prouided vs of the means necessary to attain to true Faith Let vs examin what Faith is It 's an Assent giuen to an object for the testimony of him that proposes it it is therefore grounded on the Authority of the Proponent and can haue no more assurance of the Truth than the testimony on which it is grounded as for example Human Faith wherwith I belieue what a Man of credit and knowen honesty tells me can haue no more certainty than the credit and honesty of that Man has and wheras Men let them be few or many in Number vsing only natural means may deceiue or be deceiued either in the testimony they giue or in the grounds of their Assertion be it the euidence of their senses which are subiect to fallacy or the euidence of their Natural reason for som times reasons that seeme to vs euident are but sophistries it is manifest that human Faith which relyes only on the testimony of men is fallible for though it may happen that de facto it is true and that there may be moral certainty of its being true yet absolutly it might be otherwyse and so the Faith grounded vpon it is still fallible But diuine Faith That Assent which Gods requires of vs to reuealed Truths must be an infallible Faith which not only is true but cannot be otherwise than true it must be a firm Assent in the highest degree of certainty excluding all doubts and feare of being mistaken and wheras Faith has no other assurance of the Truth than the Authority of the Proponent it follows that diuine Faith must rely vpon a most infallible vndoubted Authority which can not deceiue or be deceiued Hence it follows that no euidence of senses for our sensations are deceitfull can be a sufficient ground for diuine Faith nor no natural reason for if it be probable or only morally euident it may be false or falsified if absolutly euident it can be no ground of Faith because Faith being an argument of things not appearing as S. Paul saies it surpasses natural reason and because that if it be euident it forces the vnderstanding to an Assent and so leaues no place for the merit of Faith which consists in belieuing what the vnderstanding may deny because of the difficultie it finds in assenting to an obscure obiect which the vvill assisted with the pious inclination ouercomes and thereby merits No Histories nor doctrin of Fathers no testimony or authority of any fallible Church or congregation is sufficient because diuine Faith being infallibly certain must be grounded vpon an infallible Authority Lastly it follows that only the infallible written word of God or the authority of an infallible Church must be it which proposes vnto vs the reuealed Truths and on which wee must bottom our Faith Let vs heare what Mr Sall saies as to this particular he was once of opinion that Scripture alone was not the means appointed by God for proposing vnto vs the reuealed Truths their sence not being obuious euen to learned men and consequently not the means suitable to vulgar capacityes who being as well as the learned obliged to belieue the means for attaining to the knowledge of Religion must be suitable to their capacity as well as to that of the learned and Scripture through the difficulty of it surpasses both therefore it became the Goodness and Wisdom of God to appoint a visible Iudge assisted with his infallible spirit that in case of doubt should determin our controuersies and declare vnto vs what we ought to belieue But saies he pag. 27. the Archbishop of Cashell obiecting that vve ought to be very vvary in censuring the VVisdom of God if
that text signifies no such Vnity of Nature and Trinity of Persons and in your own confession Christ is One suppositum or Hypostasis his Vnity is not in Nature for he has Tvvo Natures one Human and the other Diuine but in Person why may not wee also say that the father son and spirit are One and that their vnity is not in Nature but in Person whither will the Protestant go now to proue against the Pagan this great and fundamental article He will quote out of saint Iohn an other text for to expound the former My father and I are one Io. 10.20 where it is expressed that the Father and son who are tvvo different Persons are but One in Nature But replieth the Pagan neither does that text say more but that they are One and does not express either that they are tvvo distinct Persons or one Nature And sayes the Pagan bring you as many texts as you please you will neuer bring any which expresly declares the Vnity to be in Nature and Trinity in Persons and I must not renounce reason so far as to belieue a Mistery which no human reason can vnsterstand particularly when you require of me to belieue only what the word of God expressy declares and the word of God which you alleadge does not expresly declare that Mistery nor doeth the word of God oblige me to belieue your interpretation of those texts I heare the Arrians and Sabellians who are Christians as well as you and they with their Abettors who are not fewer in number nor inferiour in learning to you say those texts which you alleadge do not at all import any Vnity in Nature or Trinity in Persons for the Sabellians say the word One in those texts signifies Vnity in Person as well as in Nature and the word Three signifies not Three distinct Persons but one and the same Person called by three different names for three seueral Offices which he does exercise Father because he is the Author of all things Son because he was born to redeem vs and Holy Ghost because he sanctifies vs euen as say they these three seueral names Immense Omnipotent and Eternal signify One and the same God who includes the perfections signified by those names Arrius and his partizans vnderstand those texts in a far different sence from you Protestant the word Three saies Arrius signifies three different Natures which Arrius proues with a text far more pertinent in appearence than that which you Protestants alleadge to proue the Vnity of Nature S. Io. 14.28 My father is greater than I which text deliuered without any restriction saies Arrius proues the son to be of a different and inferior Nature to the Father The word One saies he does not signify the Vnity of Three Persons in Nature but their Vnity by perfect conformity of VVill and Charity which exposition he proues by S. Io. 17.11 where Christ praying for his Elect asketh his Father they may be one as vvee are One but certainly the Elect cannot be One in Nature nor did he ask any such Vnity for them but that they should be One by perfect Charity and conformity of vvill therefore the Father and the Son are not otherwise One Thus the Pagan to the Protestants and adds I belieue the Scripture to be the word of God because he has reuealed it vnto me I am resolued to be a Christian but I know not which party to embrace the Protestant or the Arrian you will haue me belieue Gods Vnity in Nature and Trinity in Persons and though that Mistery surpasses human reason I am content to submit vnto it if I did find it expresly in Scripture but those texts either singlely or all together do not expresly declare it as I iudge and as the Arrians and Sabellians who are Christians as well as you iudge and on the other side you do not require of me to belieue but what is expresly contained in Scripture what shall I do in this case You say it is expresly contained in those texts but am I bound to belieue it is contained in them because you think it is the Scripture does not tell me that I am bound to belieue what you think rather than what the Arrians think is contained in it if I syde with the Arrians you say I am damned if I syde with you the Arrians say I am damned and why to syde with one rather than the other I know not for you are of equal authority as to me both learned pious wise people and well versed in Scripture You tell me the Arrians are condemned by General Councils Arrians and Sabellians also tell me you are condemned by seueral Councils in the points you hold in opposition to the Catholicks you say the Councils and Ancient Fathers who condemned you did err and were mistaken in the sence of Scripture the Arrians and Sabellians also say the Councils which condemned them did err you say the Mistery of the Trinity is vnanimously belieued by Protestants and Roman Catholiks but I ask what credit hath the Roman and Protestant Church haue you the credit of infallible Oracles by which God speakes or haue you only the credit of wise learned pious men if the first that indeed is somewhat and ends all Controuersy if only the second the Arrians Sabellians Heathen and Pagan Philosophers are as numerous as you as learned wise and as to moral honesty as good as you and they all deny that Mystery Can any man of reason say this Pagan in this occasion is obliged to side with the Protestants rather than with the Arrians they both haue Scripture they are all Christians they reade and study it they are both fallible in the interpretation of it and that either of both is effectually mistaken in this case its manifest and which of them it is this Man has no imaginable means to be assured of Now if God has appointed a liuing infallible Iudge to interpret and deliuer the true sence of Scripture this Pagan could not but be obliged to acquiesce to his interpretation whence it s is manifest that Scripture alone is not sufficient for to ascertain vs of the true sence of Scripture euen in fundamental points An other instance to proue this truth there is a point of Faith which we are obliged to belieue vnder pain of damnation which is not expressed in any text or texts compared of Scripture alone whitout an infallible interpreter I do not meane the Necessity of Infants Baptism nor the Validity of Heretiks Baptism belieued by both Churches and for which saies S. Augustin l. 1. cont cresc c. 32. there can be no example brought out holy of Scripture I proue it thus Wee Catholiks and you Protestants dispute if Purgatory be a fundamental point of Religion or not If it be it s a damnable error to say it is not both for that errors against fundamental points are damnable as you confess and for that to deny for fundamental that which is a
must haue appointed some suprem Autority to declare vnto vs what sence is that which he will haue vs all belieue to which all dissenting Parties must assent and submit their iudgment for it were vnbecoming the goodness of God to oblige man vnder pain of damnation to belieue one sence and no other of all the different sences the letter of Scripture admits and not to afford som assured means and publick Authority for no priuat authority will suffice to propose vnto vs what sence it that Nor will it be possible to keep vs in Vnity of Faith without this suprem Authority for it s not possible to haue Vnity of Faith if wee do not all hold one and the same senee of Scripture nor it is possible that wee all hold the same sence if there be not a publick Authority for to propose vnto vs what sence is it that wee must hold to whose iudgment wee must be all bound to acquiesce for if it be lawfull for euery man to reiect that Authority and hold that sence of Scripture which he iudges the best it will be lawfull for euery man to liue in a different Religion from that of others and so there will neuer be any Vnity of Faith and Religion Now that the suprem Authority appointed by Christ for to decide our Controuersies and deliuer vnto vs the true sence of Scripture is the Church establisht by Christ it s proued by the texts of Scripture alleadged in the beginning of this Chap. its proued also by the practise of all ages for when in the Apostles dayes there arose a controuersy about the Circumcision of the Gentils som affirmed they ought not only be baptised but also circumcised others denyed the Necessity of Circumcision both Parties alleadged Scripture but neither was appayed and how was the controuersy decided and the true sence of Scripture alleadged by both proposed by the Church conuened in a Council at Ierusalem Act. 15. the one Party was condemned for Hereticks if they did not submit and acquiesce to the Doctrin proposed by the Church About the yeare 324. arose a dispute betwit Arrius that was a member of the Catholick Church and others also Catholicks concerning the Diuinity of Christ each of the disputants alleadged seueral texts of Scripture and pretended his own to be the true sence who decided this Controuersy was it the Scripture alone without a publick authority to propose the sence of it No but the Church gathered in the Nicen Council to whose decisions all Christians were bound to acquiesce and condemned as Hereticks that would not About the yeare 378. arose a dispute between Macedonius and other Catholicks concerning the Diuity of the H. G. which he denied both Parties cited many texts of Scripture but the dispute was not ended vntill the Church gathered in a Council at Constantinople examined that question and texts produced by both Contestants and concluded against Macedonius after which Decision it was not lawfull to doubt of the Diuinity of the H. G. To be brief look into all ages that euer any question arose concerning Religion the final decision was alluayes deuolued to the Church who deliuered the true sence of Scripture quoted by the Disputants and esteemed an Heretick that did not submit This shews that the world did euer yet belieue the suprem authority of deciding controuersies and deliuering the true sense of Scripture was still in the Church But the wery Protestants themiselues who decry the Church and will haue no other Iugde of Controuersies but Scripture do confess that betwixt two Parties prouing their differents Assertions of Religion out of Scripture the Church hath the suprem authority of deciding and deliuering the true sence of Scripture to which both Parties are obliged in conscience to acquiesce read Doctor Porter in his Treatise of Char. Mist pag. 195. and Chilling-worth in his Book of the Protestant Religion a safe vvay of saluation pag. 206. and B. Lawd cited by Doctor Porter they teach that the Decrees of General Council bind all Persons oblige in conscience til euideuce of Scripture or a demonstration maks their error appeare that they are not to be controlled by priuat spirits nor cannot de renuersed but by an equal authority of an other General Council But because Protestants easily contradict one an other and others will say these are but opinions of priuat Doctors and not the Doctrin of the Protestant Church I will proue that what euer their Doctrin be their practice proues that they belieue the supreme authority of deciding Controuersies betwitxt two Parties disputing out of Scripture to be only in the Church the proof Arminius a Minister of Amsterdam and Professor of Diuinity at Leyden broached new Doctrin touching points of Predestination Grace and Liberty quite contrary to the Doctrin of Caluin receiued in the Churchs of Holland By his wit and credit he got many Proselyts that in a short tyme his Doctrin made great progress throughout all the States Gomarus nothing inferior to him in wit and reputation an ancient Professor of Diuinity at Groeningue opposed this nouelty and with all the ancient Ministers stood for the Doctrin of Caluin Printed Pamphlets were publisht Texts of Scripture quoted but neither did yield to the other each drew Abettors to their opinions and the Prouinces were deuided into two factions of Armenians and Gomarists The Churchs of Hollands petitioned to the States General for a National Synod to determin the Controuersy but Armenius strengthned with the protection of Barneuelt A duocat General of the States obtained that in lieu of a Synod the matter should be discussed in a conference of Diuins the States deputed som persons of quality for to heare the Disptutans Arminius presented himself with four Diuines and Gomarus with as many Arminius his fiue articles were scan'd texts of Scripture searched for and carefully examined reasons proposed by both Parties with all ardor nothing omitted that wit or industruy could giue and after a tedious and eager dispute the question remained vndecided the Parties receded each proclaming the victory Armenius dyed soon after but his schollers took vp the cudgle and gain'd so much ground vpon the Gomarists that all the three Prouinces of Holland Vtrecht and Ouerissel embraced their fiue Articles and pretended a petition to the States General for a toleration in the profession of that Doctrin which they offered to defend with the pure word of God adding it did not appertain to a National Synod but to the Diuins of each particular Prouince to take cognisance of the affairs of Religion in that Prouince and therefore they protested against any National Synod The Gomarists on the other syde cryed out for a Synod the controuersy did not only trouble the peace of the Prouinces but made a great Ecco in the neigh bouring Reformed Churchs The King of England by his Embassador Sr Dudley Carleton represented to the States that the only means for to allay those disputes was a National Synod to whom
Hereticks and laboured in declaring them and neglected the others came to be only confusedly knowen and not so exactly as they were deliuered by the Apostles and this occasions and has in all ages occasioned disputes in Religion When therefore the Church in Ceneral Councils declares an Article of Faith it does not as our Aduersaryes calumny vs coyn a new Article it ads nothing to what the Apostles deliuered but it declares to the Disputants in Religion what was antiently taught and belieued by the Apostles and was forgotten or misvnderstood by others Doubts in Religion are but Doubts of what the Apostles did teach some say onething others an other what wee pretend is that wheras these doubts haue been in all ages and euer will be there has been and euer will be an infallible Church to ascertain vs which is the true Doctrin for though the Apostles knew all Truths and taught them either by vvord of Mouth or in vvriting what Doctrin they deliuered verbally or by vvord of Mouth is doubted of by Posterity if This or That be of Apostolicall Tradition alsoe the vvritten vvord is questioned if This or That Part of Scripture be truely Canonical what wee pretend is that as though Christ taught all Truths to his Apostles yet he sent an infallible interpreter the Paraclet after his Ascension to assist and direct them in case of any Doubts arising of those Truths to declare vnto them the true sence of the Truths which he taught them That as though the Paraclet taught all Truths to the Apostles yet he still remayned with them to direct them if any doubts should occurr against those Truths and as though the Apostles taught to their Disciples all those Truths yet the Protestants themselues confess it was needfull they should haue left an infallible vvritten vvord to inform and ascertain vs what Doctrin the Apostles did teach so wee pretend that though the Apostles haue taught verbally and by their vvritten vvord all Truths of Religion yet since that wee see T is douted what the Apostles did teach verbally and which is their vvritten Doctrin it was absolutly needfull there should be left to vs after their departure an infallible Guide and Instructor for to ascertain vs which is the Doctrin and vvritten vvord of the Apostles and the true sence of that vvritten vvord which infallible Guide and instructor wee say is the Church constantly assisted by Gods infallible Spirit So long therefore shall the Church be assisted with that Spirit to direct vs as there shall be doubts against Religion which will be for euer VII CHAPTER THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLICK Church is the true Church appointed to teach vs Infallible in all Points of Religion BY the Roman Catholick Church wee do not vndestand the Dioces of Rome as Mr Sall willfully mistakes but the whole Congregation of Faith full spred troughhout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Pope as their Head and because he resides in Rome this Congregation takes the de nomination of Roman as though an Army be quartered twenty myles round the Camp takes its denomination from the head-quarter where the General lodges This Church wee say is the Church which Christ established to teach vs what Truths he reuealed for that Church established by Christ which florished in the Apostles tyme is it now extant or not if not wee all labour in vayn in prouing each of vs that his won Church is the true and Primitiue Church if it be it must be infallible as that was but no other Church but the Roman Church pretends to be infallible nay they lowdly disclaym infallibility therefore no other is the true Church but the Roman Catholick Yow say the True Church is infallible in Fundamental Points that Your Church is so far infallible and no other Church can iustly claym to any more consequently that yours is the true Church But I reply the Scripture sayes the Church is infallible and you now in some measure do consess it the Scripture does not limit that infallibility to points fundamental nay sayes the Paraclet shall leade her to all Truth by what Authority do you make that restriction the Apostles and Church in their tyme was infallible in all Points Fundamental and not Fundamental they taught as well the chiefe and prime Articles of Faith as the inferiour Truths they writ the new Testament which contains both kind of Articles Fundamental and not Fundamental and which is infallibly true in whateuer it contains and they were no less infallible in what they taught verbally then in what they vvrit wheras S. Paul commands vs to hold fast the Traditions receiued from them whether by vvritten Epistles or by speech 2. Thes 2. Now I ask were the Apostles infallible in the Points not fundamental and inferiour Truths that they taught or not if not Scripture is not infallible in those points nor could S. Paul say when he preached points not fundamental that their vvord vvas indeed the vvord not of men but of God for the word that is not infallibly true is not Gods word If they were infallible then the Church in the Apostles tyme was infallible in all points fundamental and not either that Church therefore is not now extant and so wee labour in vayn in pretending it is or there is a Church now extant infallible in all doctrin of Religion fundamental and not which can be ne other but the Roman Church wheras Protestants and all other sectaryes-owns themselues to be fallible You answer again it s the same Church as to the substance and essence of a Church which requires only to be infallible in fundamental points as yours is but I will proue that it is as repugnant to the essence of the true Church to be fallible or fals in smale articles of Faith as in great ones I say in smale articles of Faith for to teach a doctrin to be an article of Faith is to teach it is reuealed by God but it is impossible the true Church should teach any doctrin smale or great to be a reuealed Truth which is an vntruth and not really reuealed by God because the Church is commissioned by God to teach vs his doctrin what he has reuealed and for that purpose has giuen her the Mark and Seale of his Commission which are Miracles wherby to confirm their doctrin by which God moues men to embrace and belieue the Church which teacheth No proof more certain and strong of the true Faith Church and Religion than Miracles wrought in confirmation of it when Moyses Ex. 4.1 said They vvill not belieue me nor heare my voyce God gaue him the gift of Miracles as a mark and sign that he was sent by him When Elias raysed the dead Child to lyfe 3. Reg. 17.24 the Mother cryed out novv in this I haue knovven thou art a man of God and the vvord of our Lord in they mouth is true Christ being asked if he was the Messias proued himself to be such by the
bryb'd a man to feign himself dead that he might be thought to rayse him to lyfe but the man was found dead in good earnest and the fourberie published by many writers And those Miracles related by Saints and Ecclesiastical Histories had they been Sorceries and enchantments is it possible that the Hereticks against whose Doctrin they were wrought or som one then liuing should not haue discouered it This you cannot deny but that Herod and many Iews who neuer did see our Sauiour work any Miracles nor hear him preach were bound to belieue and obstinat for not belieuing our Sauiors Miracles and Doctrin only vpon this account that they were credibly informed by those who were ey witness of his Miracles and doctrin notwithstanding that the Scribâ— and Pharisees said they were wrought by the Deuil wheras therefore S. Augustin S. Bernard and the Saints of other ages are as credible Witnesses as those Iews were that related the Miracles of Christs and could iudge and know what a miracle was as well as those Iews do inform you that those true miracles were wrought in those ages in confirmation of our Catholik Tenets and that in their presence you are bound to belieue they were true miracles and obstinat in not belieuing them To say as the Centurists and Osiander that these miraculous works were Sorceries and enchantments is a most desperat assertion first it is to make the Saints and Fathers of antiquity who relates them as wrought in their owne presence examined by them and iudged to be true miracles meer fools that were deceiued and knew not to distinguish betwixt a true miracle and a Sorcery Secondly what rule or way hath Osiander and the Centurists got to know those passages to be enchantments and not true miracles which S. Augustin S. Bernard and other Saints had not Thirdly Christ appayed the hungar of a multitude with few loaues which he blessed S. Bernard cured the diseases of a multitude by the loaues which he blest let vs abstract from the Authors of these two actions let the actions be considered by a learned Pagan Philosopher who belieues not in Christ will not he iudge them both to be equally miraculous or both to be but enchantments I conclude what all wyse learned holy men and especially euen the aduersaries also of the Author do iudge after an exact examin of all circumstances to be a true miracle it is willfull obstinacy to deny it be such but the fore named Saints and they of all other ages as will appeare if you read the Ecclesiastical Histories haue iudged miracles to be truly wrought in each age som haue been eywitnesses of miracles other haue examined and enquired what they were and their circumstances and iudged them to be such S. Iohn Damascen and S. Bernards enemyes against whom they preached and writ did not deny them to be such Therefore wee cannot without obstinacy deny them Now that wee are obliged to belieue the doctrin in whose confirmation they wee wrought it s proued by what is said and that if wee be not obliged to belieue Catholecisme its most apparent wee are not obliged to belieue Christianity for by the self same arguments by which you proue against a Pagan the Christian Religion to be true wee also proue the Catholick to be true consequently either the Catholick must be true or the Christian is not by what were the Iews and Gentiles perswaded that Christianity was reuealed by God because it was preached by Holy men of great sanctity of lyfe of great austerity of no attache to the world or wordly things of admirable virtue and who confirmed their doctrin with supernatural signs and Miracles but S. Bernard who preached the Inuocation of Saints Transubstantiation and veneration of Relicks against the Henricians was a great Saint witness VVhitaker de Eccl. pag. 369. I do realy belieue S. Bernard vvas a true Saint Osiander Cent. 12. Saint Bernard Abot of Clareual vvas a very pious man Gomarus in speculo Eccl. pag. 23. One pious man your Church had in many years Bernard a Saint Pasquils return into Engl. pag. 8. he vvas one of the lamps of Gods Church S. Augustin was confessedly a great saint S. Iohn Damascen that writ seueral learned Treatises against the Iconoclasts for the worship of Images S. Malachias S. Thomas Aquinas and S. Francis Xauerius who conuerted so many Kingdoms in the Indies to the Catholick Religion at that very tyme that Luther reuolted from the Church all these and many more great Saints preached the Catholick Religion and confirmed it with many Miracles as wee haue related and the Histories do manifest therefore wee haue as strong motiues to persuade the truth of Catholick Religion as you haue to proue the truth of Christian Religion both therefore must be belieued or neither Can any man iudge it consistent with the goodness of God to permit Transubstantiation and the worship of Saints and Images if they were false doctrin to be proposed to men by great and Holy Saints and confirmed by so many miracles when by the very self same means and motiues of credibility he proposes to vs Christianity wherby men must find themselues equally obliged to belieue both or neither nor will it be an euasion to say that the Miracles wrought in fauor of Christianity were true miracles and those which were wrought for Popery were but enchantments and sorceries for abstracting from Faith which obliges vs to belieue that the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were true miracles our senses and Natural reason cannot but iudge the restitution of Damascens hand the healing of the sick by the loaues blest by S. Bernard to be as true miracles as any that was wrought by the Apostles and therefore they were iudged by all wyse men of those ages to be such and abstracting from Faith as I said what reason can be alleadged for to say the one were true miracles and the others not I conclude with this discourse as Children are obliged in conscience to honor their Parents its Gods commandment so you are obliged in conscience to belieue that Doctrin to be true which is confirmed by true Miracles for as wee formerly discoursed its impossible that God should confirm false Doctrin with true Miracles that being repugnant to his infinit veracity to confirm a lye with the seal and marks of his Commission to teach it but for your obligation of honoring this particular Man and woman who are your Parents it s not requisit you haue euidence and infallible assurance that they are your Parents its sufficient for your obligation that you are morally certain they are yours and this moral assurance which you haue is grounded only vppon the testimony of honest people that informs you of it the lyke you haue that true Miracles haue been wrought in many ages in confirmation of those Tenets of ours which you call erroneous the testimony of great saints as honest men as those who tell you that
yong Lad that neuer left his Fathers house neuer heard of Catholick Religion but all to desaduantage has no Catholick to confer with or if any not such as can giue him satisfaction he is through sickness or other impediments vnable to go in search of Priests or learned men he liues in his own Profession well can you be sure that this Lads ignorance was not inuincible for my part I iudge there are som though but few I feare that haue an inuincible ignorance I say but few for the reason I will produce soon But of learned men and men vers'd in the transactions of ages wee may haue moral assurance that their ignorance cannot be inuincible and of them we may say that if God has not giuen them som inward light in the last gasp and an act of contrition which yet to vs is vn knowen but that they dyed in the belief of their Tenets they are damn'd The reason why I say that but few Protestants can haue an inuincible ignorance of our Catholick Doctrin is All men are perswaded that there is a true Church and there is nothing more euident to any man of common sense than that all those Congregations and each of them which wee see among vs of Quakers Presbyterians Anabaptists Protestants Catholiks are not the true Church this I say is apparent to any man of common sense because each of vs condemns not only the external gouernement but the Tenets of the other and though all the rest ioyns to oppose the Catholick yet take them seperatly they are as apposit against one an other as they are against vs. In this confusion there is a very easy way to find out which of all is the true Church for what is more easy for a man that reflects seriously vpon the concerns of Religion which euery man is obliged in conscience to do than to learn by the Chronicles of England and by the seueral Historyes that are written when did these that wee call Reformations begin on what occasion and where in the world was there any such thing as Protestant Church Presbyterian Church c. two hundred and four years agon There is not a child in the Parish hardly but knows that Luther and Caluin began the Reformation which now is called Protestant Presbyterian c. in opposition to Popery which was as they pretended full of errors then Mass was banished Bishops Monks and Priests were exiled and their Lands forfeited the Churches were taken from vs and the Reformation introduced I know the Protestant will reply thath his Religion is Apostolical that it was the very Religion which Christ established and the Apostles preached but this consideration is too heigh for men of common vnderstanding this point cannot be soon cleered therefore I will not now engage in it because I pretend to shew to men of common vnderstanding an easy way to find out if this or that be a true Church whether your Religion was in the Apostles tyme or no you cannot deny but that which you call the Reformation is but of less than two hundred years date The ruins of the Churchs and Abbyes the Church Lands the Crosses placed in the heigh way and seueral other marks yet extant of Popery do testify it was the Catholick Religion that was the Religion of the Land your Chronicles beare witness it was it that florished for so many ages before in it your Ancestors did liue and dye This no man but knows This supposed there is no man of common sense if he reflects on the affairs of his saluation which reflexion wee are all obliged to make but is obliged to doubt of this Reformation or any branch of it be the true Religion you say men of common sense and of good vnderstanding do not doubt of it notwithstanding all what wee haue premissed but I say that they are obliged in conscience to doubt of it if they do not its through a supin and gross negligence of their saluation which is culpable and damnable I say they are bound in conscience to doubt of it first because common sense if not byass'd by som preiudice does dictat to any man that nouelties and innouations in matters of Religion are to be suspected and this pretended Reformation is such that was vn knowen to the world the day that Luther began it and to all the precedent ages for neuer was there any such thing as Protestancy spoken of Secondly because common sense dictats to a man that an ancient Religion which florished and which and noe other was established in all Christiandom ought not to be reuersed by a priuat Man as Luther was without sheuving by Miracles and supernatural signs that he was commissioned by God for so great a work and wheras Luther did shew no such no Protestant dare say that euer he did the truth of his Reformation ought to be doubted of Thirdly that very Catholick Church which he opposed was in former ages often opposed by others and she still remayned victorious and her opposers condemned for Hereticks which to any rational man is a sufficient ground for to doubt that Luther also might be such as the other opposers were And if you say that you ought not to doubt because your Ancestors haue sufficiently examined the causes of that Reformation and found them to be iust and that you receiue the Faith you profess from them and that you rely on their word I answer for one Ancestor of yours who approued the Reformation a hundred of your Ancestors approued the old Catholick Religion without any such Reformation And were there no other cause for any man of common sense for to doubt of the truth of the Reformation than that the very Reformers and their respectiue successors are deuided among themselues some of them approuing in the Catholick Church for good Doctrin what others condemn for an error this very dissention ought to make the Reformation suspected For Caluin and his Disciple which are the Church of England in so much condemns the Real Presence of Christ his Body in the Euchartst Luther and his Disciples do firmly belieue the Real Presence Luther condemns the Catholick Church for belieuing S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrevvs and some other parts of Scripture to be Canonical Caluin with the Church of England says the Catholicks do well and they also belieue them to be Canonical Seueral other examples wee could bring of Doctrins that some of the Reformers condemn for errors in the Catholick Church and other Reformers say they are no such ought not this to make vs doubt of the truth of this Reformation Now that it is apparent that any man man of common sense who reflects on Religion ought to doubt of this Reformation the way to satisfy his doubt is very easy For if he finds that the Catholick Church does in this age and in Luthers and each of the precedent ages work Miracles in confirmation of her Doctrin and that the Reformation nor any branch
the blind see the lame vvalk though they see they are called blind because they were blind and are restored to their sight And S. Io. 2.9 sayes vvhen the Ruler of the feast had tasted the vvater that vvas made vvine The liquor that the Ruler of the feast tasted was true wine yet the text calls it vvater because from water it was conuerted into wine So the bread which by the words of the consecration is conuerted into Christ his Body retains the name of bread because it was once bread because it has still the appearance of bread and because wee should vnderstand that true bread and wyne and nothing but bread and wyne is requisit for the due administration of that Sacrament as for the Baptism true natural water is necessary And that you may not be startled at S. Pauls calling it so often bread obserue you the rule I haue giuen and you will easily perceiue that the word bread so often vsed after the consecration signifyes not true and real bread but beares only a mystical or figuratiue signification for you will find that the Predicats that are said of that bread after its consecration cannot in any wyse be verified of true substantial bread and consequently that the word bread after the consecration cannot signify real but figuratiue bread for example Christ sayes of that bread that S. Paul speakes of the bread that I shall giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld what was giuen for the lyfe of the world was not true bread but true flesh consequently when that flesh is called bread the word bread must not signify real bread Christ sayes of that bread this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you This Predicat vvhich is giuen for you cannot be verified of bread in its true and proper signification consequently the word bread after the consecration signifyes but figuratiue bread the appearance of bread But sayes Mr Sall wee all agree in calling the Eucharist a Sacrament a Sacrament is but a sign of a sacred thing why should not wee agree also in calling the Sacrament of Christ his body the sign of Christ his Body and heere he brings a rapsody of texts of S. Augustin S. Denis and others to proue that it is but a type a Symbol a figure and remembrance of Christ his Body which labor he might haue well spared for wee do freely grant that the Eurachist is a sign type remembrance and Symbol of Christ his body offered for vs on the Cross the Eucharist is a commemoration and representation of that bloody sacrifice but it is also Christ his true Body the vnbloody oblation of his Body in the Eucharist is a figure and representation of the bloody oblation of the same body on the Cross as a King that would act a Part in a tragedy of his own victoryes he would be the thing represented and the representation He alleadges the words of some Fathers of the Church that expresly say the Symbols in the Sacrament are not changed in their Nature but do abyde in their proper substance figure and form nay more distinctly they say that the Nature and substance of bread and vvyne remaine after the consecration thus speaks Saint Chrysost if you belieue Mr Sall in an epistle he writ ad Caesarium but if you belieue Bellarmin S. Chrysost neuer writ any such epistle also Gelasius a Pope sayes Mr Sall though Bellarmin sayes he was no Pope but som Monk and Theodoret dial 2. c. 24. And is it not a pretty thing that the Protestants would perswade vs that these Fathers and others did belieue only a figuratiue Presence and yet from the very first begining of their pretended Reformation they constantly auerr that all the Fathers fell into the errours of Purgatory real Presence Adoration of Saints c. whoeuer will read those Fathers will find the real Presence most cleerly asserted in seueral places of their works especially in S. Chrysost and for one or two obscure passages or expressions that our Aduersaryes meet with they must be for a figuratiue Presence Bellarmin and our Catholick Authors giue a Catholick sence to those words the Protestants giue an other the Fathers do not liue to speake for themselues and declare what sense they intended is it not necessary therefore that wee should haue an infallible liuing iudge who may deliuer vnto vs what wee must belieue in this Mystery This aduertisment I must giue my Reader that the Fathers in all ages of the Church some spoke nothing at all of the Mysteryes now controuerted and belieued by vs others spoke of them but briefly and obscurely others wrote in some places of their works plainly and distinctly but in other places in expressions subiect to misconstruction The reason was that the Fathers of each age professedly writ or altogether or for the most part of their works of those points of doctrin which were opposed by the Hereticks of those tymes and those they deliuered in their proper Notions expresly and carefully shunning any dubious words but of other Mysteryes and Articles of Faith that were vnanimously belieued no contradiction of Hereticks requiring an exact discussion of them either they omitted to speake of them or writing of them they were not so carefull in speaking with cleer expressions because they had no occasion of fearing a misconstruction of their words particularly when in other places of their works they had deliuered themselues in plain terms Hence it is that wee must not be startled if wee do not find any mention of Indulgences Purgatory or real Presence in some Fathers or if wee meet some words in some Fathers which may be wrested against our Tenets as in this of the real Presence which vntill about the yeare 800. had not any opposition among Christians then it was apposed by Iohn Scotus not the Franciscan fryer and by the Arch Bishop of Sens in France but this storm was soon and easily calm'd about the yeare 1100. Berengarius raysed much dust against this Mystery and drew many Abettors to his faction then the Catholick writters did declare the Mystery and defend it and Berengarius was condemned by fiue Councils successiuly assembled against him and his Partizans the Fathers who writ since that tyme speake so manifestly in fauor of the real Presence that you will hardly find any expression in their works wherat your vnderstanding may stumble It s most false what Mr Sall imputes to Scotus Ocham and other more modern Catholicks that the doctrin of Transubstantiation it not contained in the Canon nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council they expresly teach especialy Scotus in 4. dist 11. q 3. that the doctrin was belieued before the Council continually in the Church but more explicitly declared by the Council who for that end introduced the word Transubstantiation which expresses better the doctrin belieued as the Council of Nice introduced the word Consubstantial to signify the equality of the son with the Father
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
hand and that he would be mindfull of them after his departure from lyfe and help them to be mindfull of his Doctrin Can it then be doubted but that wee may prudently and ought to pray to them by whose means the Scripture assures vs that others did receiue Gods blessings either directing our prayers immediatly to God praying that for his B. Mothers sake for S. Peters sake for Dauids sake this prayer is often made by the ancient Prophets in Scripture Propter Dauid seruum tuum non auertas faciem Christi tui Psal 131. Memento Domine Dauid omnis mansuetudinis eius ps 131. he would haue compassion of vs or directing our prayers immediatly to the saints and Angels beseeching them to help vs and pray for vs as Iacob Gen. 48. prayed that God in whose sight he walked and the Angel who deliuered him from euils should bless his children This is it that 's vnderstood in that Article of our Creed The communion of saints that the saints of the Triumphant Church in heauen of the Militant on earth and the Patient in Purgatory haue a Communication of prayers and merits betwixt them that those of heauen pray for vs and wee by our prayers and suffrages do help them in Purgatory Mr Sall thinks it extrauagancy that wee call the B. virgen our Sauioress and Redeemer and if he be impartial he must call the Prophet Dauid extrauagant also when he sayes speaking of the saints Psal 81. I haue said ye are Gods and the sons of the highest all And perhaps he will not stick to blame God himself who sayes to Moyses Ex. 7.1 behold I haue made thee a God to Pharaoh wee call the B. V. so because those names may be giuen in an improper sence to the chief Instrument of our Redemption as she was being the Mother of him who is truely our Redeemer wee build more Churches sayes Mr Sall and say more prayers to som saints than to God wee answear that all the honor we exhibit to saints is giuen to God for whose sake we honor them To them we build Churchs for his sake because they are his great seruants He assures vs in the Ghospel that what wee do to one of his little ones wee do it to him much more wee may be assured wee do to him and for him what wee do to and for his saints in heauen wheras himself tells vs Io. 12 26. if any vvill serue me my Father vvill honor him Much more ought they to be honored by vs. Purgatory and Indulgences Mr Sall rallyes about the situation of Purgatory and the nature of the torments that there are suffered if cold heat rain or tempest c all which is to no purpose for what is controuerted betwixt Protestants and Catholicks is not what place is Purgatory in or what are the payns inflicted there but if there be any such thing as Purgatory the Protestants deny any third receptacle of souls departed but must go either to heauen or Hell for vvhere the tree falls there it remayns The orthodox Doctrin is that there is a Purgatory where souls departed with venial sins only or that after the remission of their mortal sins in this lyfe by the Sacrament of Confession or by an act of Contrition haue not don sufficient pennance in this lyfe for their transgressions must suffer vntill they satisfy Gods iustice to the last farthing This is an Article of Faith but the Church has not determined in what place is Purgatory that is a schoole question as for the Nature of the torments there inflicted it s an Article of Faith that they are tormented with the priuation or banishment from Gods sight also it s of Faith that they are tormented by fyre but the Church has not determined what kind of fyre is that or how it torments and though Diuins and Fathers speake of other torments yet it s no Article of Faith that they suffer this or that of Cold snow or tempest To proue our Catholick Tenet I will first proue that there is some other receptacle of Souls departed besids Heauen and Hell of the Damned secondly I will proue that there is a Purgatory The first is proued by the Article of our Creed he descended into hell which cannot be vnderstood to be the Hell of the damned for all Christians abhorr the blasphemy of Caluin that sayes Christ his soule suffered the payns of the damned the Protestants giue a most obscure interpretation to that cleer text by the word Hell say they is vnderstood the Graue and the sense of the Article is that Christ his Body descended into the graue This is most absurd for in the next word before this Article the descent of his Body to the Graue is expresly declared He vvas crucified dead and buried to be buried what elss is it but his Body to descend into the Graue and after telling vs in the word buried that his Body was put in the graue would they again repeat the same in a distinct Atticle when they pretended ro giue vs a brief abridgment of the article of Faith S. Peter expounds that Article 1. ep 3.19 Being dead in flesh he descended in Spirit to the Spirits that vvere detained in prison to preach to them that vvere incredulous in the dayes of Noe. Behold the Article of our Creed expounded his Spirit descended after his death surely it did not descend into the graue to the Spirits that vvere detained in prison there was a prison therefore where Spirits were detained and preached to them certainly he did not preach to them that were in the prison of the damned therefore there was some other prison besids that of the damned where spirits were detained Wee find Gen. 37.35 that Iacob perswaded by his children that his son Ioseph was killed and deuoured by a Beast lamented and said I vvill descend mourning vnto my sonne to Hell Certainly he did not intend to descend vnto him to the graue for he was persuaded he had none but was deuoured by a Beast neither can it be imagined that he intended to descend vnto him to the Hell of the damned or belieued that his son descended thither Iacob therefore belieued that there was an other Hell where his son descended and he expected to goe after his death This shocks the whole fabrick of the Protestant dostrin of no Purgatory grounded chiefly on the perswasion of no other receptacle of souls but Heauen and Hell of the damned Now that there is a Purgatory I proue it the Protestants deny it because that if the sin be forgiuen in this lyfe then all the punishment due of man for that sin is also forgiuen and so there is no Purgatory if the sin was not forgiuen then it carries the soul to Hell for in the other world no sin is forgiuen But I proue that though the sin be forgiuen by the Sacrament or Contrition yet some temporal punishment is due of the sinner to God to satisfy his iustice
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
in themselues good because they are abused but the Abusers must be punished And this good consideration Mr Sall will not perswade you to admit the vse of Images wee grant Mr Sall that principle to be good that things in themselues commendable must not be probited because they are abused when the vse of then is absoluty needfull or conuenient and the abuses are not very frequent and pernicious as in this case of reading the Bible it s not needfull nor can it be proued to be very profitable for the common people on the other syde the abuses are most apparent frequent and pernicious for thence comes all these sects and heresies therefore it ought to be prohibited but Mr Sall you must mind what I aduertised you in my discourse of Prayers in an vnknowēn language that it is not you or I nor any other but the Church that must iudge of the conueniency or inconueniency the aduantage or desaduantage of reading of Scripture she must declare that and acording what she iudges who is constantly directed by Gods infallible Spirit in the gouernment of the flock must permit or prohibit it This your Church will not say that the vulgar people are bound in conscience to read the Scripture for many cannot reade any thing others do not read all Scripture nor do they think that they sin by not reading others do neuer read any thing of it what you can iustly pretend is that it is conuenient and profitable and therefore ought to be permitted and heere returns what I discoursed of Praying in an vnknowen tongue Let any vnpreiudic'd man iudge if it does not belong to the Church to determin what is conuenient or most conuenient since that God has giuen a Church to gouern vs Let any man iudge if a particular man that against the establisht authority vnder which he liues and is bound to obey should rise against that authority and make himself iudge of what is conuenient or inconuenient for the gouernment and vnder pretence of a greater conueniency that appears to him should alter the established practices of the Commonwealth should not such a man I say be esteemed a seditious Reuolter and be punished what therefore shall wee say of Luther he liued vnder the authority of the Catholick Church he was a priuat person he found the vse of the Bible prohibited and publik seruice in Latin he did not pretend that it was absolutly necessary for saluation to pray in knowen languages nor to reade the Bible but iudged it to be most conuenient and therefore condemned the Church for prohibiting it is not this man to be esteemed a schismatick that opposes himself to the publick authority and makes himself iudge of the practices established by it and must not wee rang you with him that persists in the same rebellion Priests and fryers haue abused Scripture it s very true but for one that has thousands haue not and for one of the vulgar that has not many haue besids priests and fryers being the Pastors of the Church are obliged to reade and when a Priest or fryer abuses the Scripture its easy to punish him but when a multitude of popular people abuses it the remedy is not so neer at hand He quotes vpon Mr Stillingfleets word a Council of Bishops at Bononia that prohibited the Scripture giuing for reason that it discouers the corruptious of the Catholick Doctrin but this Council must be of the same coyn of the 92 Canon of the Council of Lateran which wee mentioned aboue no such Canon of Lateran or Council of Bononia is or was extant but in Mr Stillingfleet and Salls imagination I conclude with these two Assertions first its needfull that the Pastors Prelats and Doctors of the Church do reade the Scripture and that the flock receiue from them the sence of it and the Doctrin contained in it It s for this end that God placed in his Church some Prophet some Apostles some Euangelists Doctors and Pastors to keepe vs in Vnity of Faith by teaching what wee ought to belieue S. Paul Eph. 4. Act. 20.18 he commands the Pastors to watch ouer the flock in which the H. G. hath placed them to gouern the Church It s therefore Christ laid his command on the Apostles and their successors to teach all Nations to preach the Ghospell and therefore sayes S. Basil q. 25. Superiorum est ista scire c. it s the obligation of the Superiors to say the Pastors to knovv and learn these thing vvhich they may teach to others but of the others not to konovv more than behoueth them to knovv And Leo Pope writing to the Patriarck of Alexandria epist 62. and epist 82. ad Iul. You must haue care that none vvho is not a Priest of the Lord may presume to vsurp the authority of teaching or preaching vvhether he be a Monk or a layman though a learned man And S. Aug. l. 1. de moribus Eccl. c. 1. vvhat man of iudgment doth not vnderstand that the exposition of Scripture is to be asked of them vvho by their profession are their Doctors And if to proceed wysely wee must consult the Lawyers for the true meaning of the Law and that each Commonwealth hath men whose profession it is to study it and deliuer the true sence of it to those that are not Lawyers by Profession how much more it is needfull that there be Doctors in the Church whose obligation is to study the Scripture and find out by the Fathers and Interpreters the true sence of it and teach it to the people This and no more doth the authorities of Fathers produced by Mr Sall proue the reading of Scripture is recommended vnto vs sayes he by S. Basil S. Chrysost and S. Augustin it s very true but to whom to the learned men of the Church whose obligation it is to teach the Doctrin it contains and to the Layty no further than to hold that sence of them which the Pastors deliuer to be the sence of the Church The second Assertion that it is not conuenient nor lawfull for the Layty to reade them further than with a total submission of their Iudgment to the sence giuen to them by the Church This is manifestly proued by the multitude of sects wherin to the world is deuided through the liberty assumed of reading the Scriptures and vnderstanding them as the Readers think best Secondly by the obscurity of Scripture which wee haue demonstrated in the 2 and 3. ch S. Peter sayes Mr Sall 2. Epist 1.19 exhorts vs to read vvee haue also a sure vvord of of Prophecy vvherunto ye do vvell to take heed c. but S. Peter by that sure vvord of Prophecy means not only the written word of God but also the vnwritten word which is the Tradition by which the Church deliuers to vs the true sense of the written vvord which he bids vs to take heed of S. Paul recommends vnto vs the reading of Scripture Rom. 15. and 2.