I. CHAPTER. BVT ONLY ONE TRVE RELIGION. The need full Means afforded by God to come to the knovv legde of it.

THAT God is to be adored, it's the voice of Nature, pronounced by all Nations: Reason proues it; for were you yourself the chiefest in Power, the highest in Dignity, the Richest and most adorned in virtues, in the Common wealth; you would expect an Homage, and it could not be denied vnto you by your Inferiors. Confess then, that a far greater is due from you to God; whose Power is supereminent; his Wis­dom transcendent; his Goodness vnlimi­ted, [Page] [...] [Page 1] [...] [Page 2]his Perfections innumerable. But it is not arbitrary to Man, to adore God with what manner of Worship his fancy sug­gests vnto him; or his priuat spirit inclins him vnto. God, as he requires a Worship at our hands, so he has himself reuealed, what manner of Worship he requires. Perdiscamus (sayes S. Chrysost. hom. 51. in Mat.) Christum ex sua voluntate honorare; nam qui honoratur, eo maxime honore laetatur, quem ipse vult, non quem nos optamus. What sacri­fices, Rites, and Ceremonies, God would be adored with in the old law, he declared it to his People by Moyses Leuit. from the first, to the 7. chap. and declared that he would not be otherwise worshipped Le­uit. 10. In the law of Grace, his son Incar­nated, abolished that Ceremonial law; and reuealed to Mankind a new manner of diuine worship, a new Sacrifice, Sacra­ments, Rites and Ceremonies; by which he will be worshipped, and by no other: in so much that by S. Paul Gal. 1.9. he com­mands, that if an Angel from heauen should recommend vnto vs an other man­ner of diuine worship, wee should not heed him.

This worship of God, reuealed by him to Man, is true Religion; worship him euer [Page 3]so much, if you do not adore him, as he has reuealed he would be worshipped, you haue not true Religion. That there is a true Religion extant, it's doubtless, both for that wee pretend each of vs, his own Religion to be the true one; and that God has laid a command vpon vs, and wee are obliged to worship him in spirit and Truth (this is Religion) which command and obligation supposes the Existence of a Re­ligion. That among all those Religions, wherwith the world abounds, there is but one true Religion, (whateuer, and wher­euer it be) its also manifest; for true Reli­gion is that manner of diuine worship, which God has reuealed; but God has not reuealed those seueral manners of diuine worship, which do oppose and contradict one another: if it be he that reuealed wee should worship him by denying the Mes­sias, as the Iewdoes; certainly it must not be he that reuealed wee must worship him by belieuing in the Messias as the Christians 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 its not he that comman­ded, [Page 4]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 M^r 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. [Page 5]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, [Page 6]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 [Page 7]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, [Page 8](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 M^r Sall saies as to this particular: he was once of opi­nion that Scripture alone was not the [Page 9]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 this or that vvas not don in the gouernment of the vvorld, vvhich seemeth to vs good to be don; the Modesty of the Propo­nent added such vveight to this aduertisment that it touched me to the quick, and reflecting on this point in my solitudes, I savv saies he, vvee might as vvell say that it belongeth to the goodness of God, not to permit that his holy lavves should be transgressed by vile crea­tures; nor that the Pastors of souls, especially the Pope, should scandalize their flock and [Page 10]as vvee do not iudge it a failure in his goodness to permit sins; so vvee ought not vvauer in our opinion of his goodness and VVisdom, if he has not appointed a visible Iudge for our direction, hauing giuen us the holy Scriptures, vvhich a bound vvith all light and heauenly doctrin, to such as are not vvillfully obstinat.

Briefly, S^r, heere are three different opi­nions of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, Catholik, Lutheran, and Protestant: of the three quite opposit one to the other, God has reuealed but one as I for merly dis­coursed; and obliges me vnder pain of damnation to belieue that sence and no other; I say under pain of damnation, for said he, if you vvill not eate the flesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud, you shall not haue lyfe in you. Io. 6. must I not expect of Gods goodness that he will afford vnto me what is absolutly need full to acquit this obligation? he absolutly requires of me to belieue that sence, and no other of those three which he reuealed: must I not then expect of his goodness some means to ascertain me which of those three dif­ferent opinion is that which he reuealed? would it be consistent with his goodness to oblige me vnder pain of damnation to flye to the Moon, and afford me no wings [Page 11](which wee suppose are indispensably need full) for to acquit that obligation? The Assent which he requires at my hands, is not a probable and dubious one; but an Assent which renders me assured, in the highest degree of certainty, of the Truth I profess; such and no other is diuine Faith: such an Assent is impossible if there be not an infallible Authority on which it is grounded; which you Protestants can­not deny, for its therefore you reiect Tradition, and will admit no other Test of Faith but the written word of God, be­cause Faith must be grounded vpon an in­fallible Authority, you say, and Tradition is fallible and nothing infallible but Gods written word. if Scripture were not writ­ten by the Apostles, could not you say wi­thout any iniury to God, that it became his wisdom to afford you some other in­fallible Authority, wheras without such an authority it's impossible to haue the As­sent of Faith which he requires? and was it not therfore that he gaue to his Apostles who preached to the primitiue Christians, the credit of infallible Oracles, because then there was no Scripture written nor any other Authority wherupon to bottom their Faith, but the testimony of the Apo­stles? [Page 12]Since therfore wee do manifestly proue that Scripture alone is not sufficient to determin Controuersies, and instruct vs what wee are bound to belieue, let not your instructors Modesty take it ill that wee say it becomes the goodness of God to appoint a liuing infallible Iudge on who­se testimony and authority wee may rely and ground our Faith. Vvee say with St Augustin l. de vtil. cred. ad Honorat. Si Prouidentia Dei non praesidet rebus humanis, ni­hil est de religione satagendum. Si autem prae­sidet non est desperandum ab eodem ipso Deo, authoritatem aliquam constitutam esse qua ve­lut gradu certo attolamur ad Deum. If Gods Prouidence gouerns not the vvorld, vvee need not be sollicitous of Religion; but if Prouidence rules all, it cannot be doubted but that God has appointed an authority, by vvhich, as by a cer­tain assured vvay vvee may be lead to God. Vvee must therefore grant such an Au­thority (which is not Scripture as wee will proue) or deny Prouidence.

Your instance is very weake, and vn be­coming so great a diuine as you profess to be; Gods goodness cannot be questio­ned for permitting sins and the scandals of Popes; nay it's becoming his goodness to permit them; for hauing created Man [Page 13]with perfect liberty for to work well or ill, it becomes his goodness to giue him all that is needfull for the exercyse of that liberty; and Man could not exercyse it (if wee did not pretend to some extraor­dinary miraculous Prouidence for which wee haue no ground in Scripture nor rea­son, and to which his goodness cannot oblige him) if he did not permit him to sin: and to question God why his good­ness doth permit sin, is to ask why he crea­ted Man with perfect liberty? which if you do, I answer; because he gaue him liberty that he might vse it well; and if he vses it ill; its his own fault.

VVee ought not, say you, to vvauer in our opinion of Gods goodness for not appointing a Liuing infallible Iudge, vvheras he has af­forded us the Scriptures vvhich abound vvith all heauenly light to them, that are not vvill­fully obstinat: and this you proue 2. Tim. 3.16. Holy Scriptures are able to make us vvyse vnto saluation, that the man of God may be per­fect, throughly furnished unto all good vvorks. But I infer to the contrary: wheras the Scriptures, though replenished they be with heauenly light, are not sufficient for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to be­lieue; wee might wauer in our opinion [Page 14]of Gods goodness, if he did not appoint an infallible liuing Iudge for to instruct vs: and that the Scriptures are not sufficient for the instruction of them that are not vvillfully blind. M^r Sall himself proues it; for pag. 17. he tells vs that doubting of the Tenets of our Religion, his wit not con­tent with an ipse dixit lyke Pythagoras his scholler, demanded Reason for what he be­lieued: he betooke himself to the frequent reading of Scripture: but, S^r, if you be not content with an ipse dixit, you are as vnfit for Christ's schoole, as for that of Pythago­ras, and if your wit demands reason for what you belieue, Scripture is no place to seeke for it, which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit. After reading the Scriptu­res, he was so far from being sufficiently instructed, that he confesses they made him doubt: whence it appears, that Scripture alone is not sufficient euen to those that are not vvillfully blind, he was no such, for he did read with a real desire of being instructed.

The text of S. Paul sayes that Scripture is able to make us vvyse to salvation; but does noy say, that Scripture alone is able: if you will haue text to be for your purpose, you must follow the example of Luther, who [Page 15]to proue his error of iustification by Faith only, corrupted the text of S. Paul Rom. 2.8. vvee account a man to be iustified by Faith, vvithout the vvorks of the lavv: and foisted in the word Faith alone. 2. S. Paul in that text speaks only of the Scripture wherin Timothie was versed, and which he had perused from his Youth, which was only the Old Testament: so that if the text proues the sufficiency of the Scripture for our instruction, it proues the sufficiency of the Old Testament only. 3. S. Paul in that vers ch. v. 14. sayes to Timothie, thou continue in those things thou hast learned, and are committed to thee knovving from vvhom thou hast learned them. Whence its apparent that he remitted Timothie for instruction, to the Scripture and also to the doctrin de­liuered to him by a liuing Oracle, which was the Apostle himself. Lastly the whole Canon of Scripture was not compleated when S. Paul writ that text, nor in many years after; and you can not pretend that euer wee had the sufficient means for our instruction in any part, but in the whole and entyre Canon; therefore you cannot pretend that that text doth proue the suffi­ciency of Scripture.

II. CHAPT. SCRIPTVRE ALONE, NOT THE Means for to instruct vs in Faith.

IF Scripture alone, were the means ap­pointed by God for to declare vnto vs what wee ought to belieue; is it not stran­ge, that Christ should not himself haue left vs a Written word to walk by, when he laid vpon vs the obligation of embra­cing true Religion; or that he should not, at least, haue laid a Command vpon his Apostles of deliuering vs a written word? reade the whole Canon, and you shall find no such command: but he left Apostles and Pastors, and a command vpon them, to teach and preach vnto vs; and vpon vs of belieuing and obeying them; which argues that the means which he designed for our instruction in Religion, was not a written word, but a liuing Church. Ne­cessity is laid upon me, yea vvo is vnto me if I preach not the Ghospel. 1. Cor. 9.16. He feared no vvo for not vvriting, but for not prea­ching the Ghospel; because he would de­priue the flock of the means which God [Page 17]appointed for their instruction. And the Channel by which Faith is conueyed vnto vs being our Eares, fides ex auditu, and not our Eyes, it seems apparent, that the means which he appointed is a liuing Oracle who speaks, and not a volum which wee reade.

But let vs suppose that the Apostles did by special command of Christ write the Ghospel: this is manifest, that since the ve­ry beginning of the Church, Christians did doubt, which was the true Scripture written by the Apostles and which not: there is not one part of all Scripture but was que­stioned and denied by some Christians to be Canonical: Cerdon the Valentinians, and Manichaeans denyed the Old Testa­ment to be Scripture. Epiph. Haer. 41. The Ebionits reiected the four great Prophets, the Books of Salamon and Psalms of Da­uid. Epiph. Haer. 30. Marcionits reiected all the Ghospels except that of S. Luke. idem Haer. 4.2. and Irer. l. 1. c. 6. the Ebionits did own only that of S. Mathew. They also reiected the Epistles of S. Paul Epiph. Haer. 30. And the Disciples of Cerdon would not belieue the Acts of the Apostles Tert. de Praescrip. c. 51. The Lutherans this day blot out of the Canon the Epistle of S. Paul to [Page 18]the Hebrews, as also that of Iude, the se­cond of S. Peter and second and Third of S. Iohn, all which the Caluinists belieue. The Church of England will not admit the Books of Machabees, Esther Iudith and others, which the Chatolik Church admits: nor did the Ancient Fathers of the Church proue against the Marcionists and other He­reticks those Books to be Scripture by the Scripture itself, but by the Church as S. Au­gustin l. cont. Episc. Man. c. 5. Euangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae commoueret Authori­tas: I vvould not belieue the Ghospel to be the Ghospel, if the authoriiy of the Church did not moue me to it.

Now I argue thus: you say true Religion is knowen by Scripture alone; that's to say, wee haue no assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth but by Scripture alone. Therfore wee can haue no more assurance of a Truths being a reuealed Truth, than wee haue of the Scriptur's (which con­tains that Truth) being true Scripture: if therefore you be not innfallibly ascertai­ned that this is true Scripture, you cannot be infallibly ascertained that the Truths which it contains are reuealed Truths: But Scripture alone giues no assurance that it is true Scripture; that it is not corrupted [Page 19]either by the malice or ignorance of the translators, or inaduertency of the Printer; for there is not a text in all Scripture that mentions it: therfore the Scripture alone cannot ascertain vs of the Truth of Reli­gion. And it cannot be imagined but that, since the true sence of Scripture is doubt­full, God has prouided vs of some means to know which is the true sence; so al­so since that wee are obliged to belieue with diuine Faith, that this Booke is Scri­pture; it cannot be doubted I say, but that God has afforded some means for to ascertain vs which is true Scripture, and to confound those that deny the Scripture to be Scripture. But Scripture it­self alone can neuer assure vs of its being Scripture.

For to say that Scripture doth manifest itself to be Gods word by certain Criteria, or signs found in Scripture itself, as a diuine beam of light, a Maiesty of style, an energy of vvords, wherby it does manifest it self to the humble and well intentioned harts to be Gods word; these are but fond imaginations: for all the Ancient Fathers of the first 402. years of the Church, doubt­less were as humble, and as well inten­tioned as wee, and all that tyme the Epistle [Page 20]of S. Paul to the Hebrews, Iude and S. Peeters second Epistle, and second and Third of S. Iohn were not belieued, as an article of Faith to be Scripture; nay were absolutly denyed to be such, by Tert. Cypr. Lactan. and others; and yet they had the same Majesty of style, and energy of words, as now they haue: and whateuer you may iudge of vs Catholiks, Luther, you will say, was humble and well intentioned, and could see no such Criteria or signs in those Epistles, which Caluin belieues to be Ca­nonical, and 'tis but a fond imagination to conceit any such lustre or Majesty in those Books, which you belieue, more than in the Books of Tobias, Esther and others which you deny. Consider, I pray, if a Pagan desirous of his saluation, were placed in a vast Library, could he distin­guish the Scripture from other Books, and know it to be the word of God, only by reading it: and if you did euer reade, of any Kingdom couerted to Christianity by reading the Bible only, without Apostoli­cal men to expound the Christian Doctrin, and by that you may gness, which were the means appointed by God for our instruc­tion, if Scripture alone, or a liuing Church.

And allowed wee be assured this Book [Page 21]and an other is the word of God: of the Scripture wee 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 [Page 22]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 [Page 23]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 [Page 24]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. M^r 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 [Page 25]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 [Page 26]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, 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 [Page 27]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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29]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, [Page 30]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 [Page 31]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 its 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 [Page 32]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; its 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 fundamental Truth reuealed by God, is to diminish of the word of God; by which you deserue to be blotted out of the Book of life; Apoc. 22. If it be not a fun­damental point; it is a damnable error to say it is; for that would be to add to the word of God; which also deserues to be blotted out of the Book of life: conse­quently in this our contest, wee are indis­pensably obliged to belieue, either that it is, or that it is not: nor can wee suspend our Iudgment, but must resolue absolutly on ei­ther side▪ but no text or texts of Scripture do declare, if it be, or be not a fundamental article of Faith, if not expounded by some infallible interpreter: therefore Scriptu­re alone is not sufficient, for to assure vs what wee are obliged to belieue.

III. CHAPT. THE SAME ASSERTION proued.

LOoke back to the Infancy of the Church, for the first eight or tenn years; there was not a word of the New Testament written; and the last part, (what­euer that part was, wherin the Doctors do not agree) was not written in 40. years af­ter Christ his Ascension: part of the Scri­pture, after it was written did perish; for example an Epistle of S. Paul to the Co­rinthians mentioned 1. Cor. 5.9. by which wee vnderstand that he writ three epistles to them, whereof two only are extant: also part of the old Testament was lost, as appears Chron. 9.12. and 29. Nay this very Scrip [...]ure that now is extant, and owned by vs all to be Canonical, for the first 402. was not (a good part of it) ow­ned to be such; for the Fathers of the Church disputed, and many denyed S. Pauls epistle to the Hebr. Iudes epist. second of saint Peter, second and Third of saint Iohn to be Canonical; consequently they could [Page 34]not be the Test of Faith; because they were not belieued to be Scripture▪ all this tyme, as there was an obligation vpon Christians to belieue, so they had the sufficient means, for to know what they were obliged to belieue; which was not Scripture, becau­se either it was not written, or if written, it was not all, (as now it is) belieued to be Scripture: therefore God must haue ap­pointed some other means besids Scriptu­re, for to instruct vs in Religion.

And if you insist, that the Scripture, as now it is extant, is the needfull and suffi­cient means for our instruction, I infer; therefore wee had not the needfull and sufficient means, vntill all this Scripture now extant was written; consequently the Church, was for many years without the sufficient means for instruction: I infer again; therefore vntill the last text of Scri­pture was written, wee had not the suf­ficient means; and wheras you are bound to proue by a cleer text, that Scripture a­lone is the sufficient means, it must be with the last text of all scripture you must proue it; for then, and no sooner, was the scri­pture the sufficient means, when the who­le Canon was completed, and the last text was written; and this is impossible to be [Page 35]proued▪ also it follows, that you must not pretend to proue the sufficiency of scrip­ture by any text of the new or old Testa­ment, written before the last text; wheras the whole Canon was not completed, when those texts were written; and con­sequently they could not proue the suffi­ciency of scripture which in your ackno­wledgment did not begin to be the suffi­cient means, vntill the Canon was finisht. Moreouer if the scripture, as now it is extant, be the needfull and sufficient me­ans; then the Lutherans, whom you re­ceiue to your Communion, and embrace as Brethren, haue not the sufficient means for diuine Faith, (and consequently nor Faith itself) wheras they deny many parts of Scripture to be Canonical, which you belieue.

But what most cleerly proues that Scrip­ture, as now it is extant, is not the suffi­cient and needfull means, is this discour­se; first its not the needfull means, for if a very considerable part of this Scripture did perish, wee would still haue the sufficient means, in what would remain of Scriptu­re, to instruct vs in what wee are bound to belieue; for what wee are bound to belieue vnder pain of damnation, are only the [Page 36]essential and fundamental points of Reli­gion; whoeuer belieues them, though he denies other points not fundamental, and inferior Truths, in the doctrin of Prote­stants, belieues what is sufficient for his saluation; but there are many chapters, or at least half chapters, or at least many ver­ses of Scripture, which do not in the least mention any essential and fundamental point of Religion; therefore all those chapters and verses are not needfull for to know what wee are bound to belieue; and if they did all perish, wee would in what remained, haue the sufficient means. Now that Scripture as now it is extant, is not the sufficient means, I proue it: for if any part of Scripture be the sufficient means, it must be that part, which contains the fundamental and essential articles of Religion; and wheras you do not know, nor could any of your Doctors euer yet (though often desired by vs) giue a Cata­logue of those, which you call fundamen­tal points, which they be, and how are they distinguisht from not fundamental points; its impossible that you can tell which part of Scripture is that, which con­tains the the fundamental points of Religi­on, and consequently you cannot tell which [Page 37]part of scripture in the sufficient for our in­struction.

That the Church was the means appoin­ted by God for our instruction, before the scripture was written, the Protestant do not, nor cannot deny: and if they will not wauer in their Principles, they must con­fess it continued so, vntill the whole Ca­non was finisht; (which was not vntill many years after Christ his Ascension:) But, say they, scripture being written, which doubteless God gaue vnto vs, for no other end, than to be our guide and rule of Faith, the Church surceased from that office, and is not to be regarded further, than as she agrees with that written word: so that af­ter scripture was receiued for Gods writ­ten Oracle, the Church was casheered out of those glorious offices, which formerly she enioyed: because (as our Aduersaries pretend) there was no need of any other infallible Oracle, but the scripture, which in the iudgment of all is such. If this dis­course be good; it proues also, that the Apostles ceased to be our instructors, and infallible Oracles after the scripture was written; and that the Church ceased to be infallible in fundamental points, because the scripture is an infallible oracle, contains [Page 38]all points, and one infallible Oracle is suffi­cient: yet our Aduersaries confess that the Apostles remained still infallible; and the Church in fundamental points.

And, wheras all scripture was not writ­ten at once, but successiuly by parts; the Church was not deuested of teaching vs, but by degrees, as the parts of scripture were written; which paradox, though ri­diculous, follows out of the former dis­course. But what if part, or all the scrip­ture did perish; which is not impossible, both because that some part of it has pe­risht already, and that there is nor in all scripture, any promiss of its perpetuity, as there is of the perpetuity of the Church: then, I hope the scripture would return to her ancient prerogatiue of being the need­full means appointed for our instruction: this extrauagant position you are bound to affirm, and you can shew no scripture for it, and yet you can belieue nothing but what is in scripture.

I should think this a good discourse: the Church was once our guide, and means appointed to ascertain vs of the truths when the scripture that now is extant, was not written: But the scripture now owned for such, does not say, the Church was [Page 39]deuested of that Prerogatiue; therefore I am still obliged to belieue she enioyeth it: for the obligation that once was, and it not proued to be abolished remains still in for­ce: there was an obligation of belieuing the Church to be Gods infallible Oracle; nothing appears, that taketh away that obli­gation: therefore its still in force.

To conclude, the Necessity of an inter­preter besides Scripture, for to instruct vs what wee are to belieue, is proued, not on­ly, because Christ did place Apostles, Euan­gelist, Doctors and Pastors in his Church, Eph. 4.11. for this end, as the Apostle di­stinctly faies, for to keep vs in Vnity of Faith, to instruct vs, that vvee may be no more Children vvauering to and fro and carried avvay vvith euery vvind of doctrin. but also by the practice of the Catholik and Prote­stant Churchs, who giue such vast reuenews to Ecclesiastical persons for teaching the flock, and expounding the Mysteries of Faith; if scripture were so cleer in the ne­cessary points, what needed any more, but to giue each one a Bible, and imploy the Rents of the Clergy in some other vse? what needed so many authentick Christian doctrins published by both Churchs for to declare the Mysteries of Religion? what [Page 40]needed so many Volums and Commenta­rîes of the Fathers vpon the scripture, if it alone is cleer, full, and plain in what wee are bound to belieue?

IV. CHAPTER. A TRVE CHVRCH ESTABLISHED by Christ to decide Controuersies, and deliuer the true Doctrin vvhich vvee are bound to belieue.

NO Protestant, at least of our tymes, will deny the existence of a true Church, it being an article of the Apostles Creed, I belieue the holy Catholik Church. The true Notion of it, wee haue from S. Paul Rom. 12.4. by a comparison of it with a Natural Body: as this hath seueral mem­bers, each one wherof hath its proper function; so wee all, as so many different members, which exercise diverse func­tions, concurr to constitute one Body in Christ. In the natural Body, there is a head, which is the seat of the Iudgment which gouerns; there are eyes to see, ears to heare, a mouth to speake: hands to work and feet to walk: thus in the Church, [Page 41]Christ's mystical Body; there must be a head to gouern, which is the suprem Pa­stor; there must be eyes to pry, and examin the truth; and these are the Doctors; there must be hands to deliuer the word of God, and a mouth to speake; and these are the Preachers, Pastors and Curats, there must be eares to heare and feet to walk which are the flock. Hence wee gather the true Notion of the Church of God to be a vi­sible society of true belieuers, under one suprem Pastor, where the Faith of Christ is taught and belieued.

The Church therefore is constituted of two parts, the One whose obligation is to teach and rule the flock: the other whose obligation is to obey and belieue what the Church by her Pastors and Doctors does teach and command; and wheras the Church was still extant (or the article of our Creed was some tyme false) it follows, there were still extant Pastors, and Doc­tors, who did teach the true Faith of Christ, and a flock that belieued it. As to the obli­gation of the Church to instruct and gouern vs, these texts of scripture euince it: Ne­cessity is laid vpon me for to preach, and vvo be to me if I preach not. 1. Cor. 9.16. Attend to yourselues and to the vvhole flock, vvherin [Page 42]the H. G. has placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God. Act. 20.23. Which obliga­tion was layd an the Apostles and their suc­cessors, when Christ commanded them to teach all Nations, to preach the Ghospel vnto all creatures: which obligation S. Paul doth in seueral places of his Epistles declare, but particularly Eph. 4.11. He placed in his Church, som Apostles, and som Prophets, others som Euangelists, others som Pastors, and Doc­tors, and declares to what end did Christ prouide his Church of them: for the consum­mation of Saints into the vvork of the Mini­stery; that vvee may meet in the vnity of Faith, that vvee be no more children vvauering to and fro, and carried avvay vvith euery vvind of Doctrin. Whence two consequences follow; the first that if you be tossed in your mind, and doubtfull what to belieue; if tvvo Sacraments or seauen; if real Presence or figuratiue; you are not to be carried a­way with euery wind of Doctrin; but go the Church, which God has furnished with Doctors Apstoles, and Pastors for to in­struct you: the second consequence; that Christ Faith being but One, and wee obli­ged to liue in the Vnity of that Faith, the Apostle tells vs in this text, that the means which he has appointed for to keepe vs in [Page 43] Vnity of Faith, are the Apostles, Euangelists, Doctors and Pastors of the Church, that the Church by them may lead vs to the profes­siion of one Faith.

The other part which cōstitutes the Chur­ch, is the flock, whose obligation is to obey and belieue what she by her Doctors and Pastors does teach and command vs: this o­bligation is manifestly proued Mat. 23.2. all, that they, vvho sit on the chayr of Moyses, vvill say vnto you, that obserue and do. Lu. 10.16. Christ commands, that he who will not heare the Church, is to be esteemed a Hea­then and a Publican, and adds that he vvho despeiseth her, despeiseth him; that is to say he that despeiseth her Doctrin, which S. Paul expounds 1. Thes. 4.8. when after giuing them instructions, he saies. He that despeiseth these things, despeiseth not man, but God: and 2. Thes. 3.14. he that obeyeth not our vvord, do not acompagny him, that he may be confoun­ded. These cleer and manifest texts proue the obligation of the flock to belieue, and obey the Doctrin, and commands, which the Church by her Pastors and Doctors layeth vpon them. Whence it appears that the Church is the Oracle, and Mistress, which Christ has appointed on earth for to instruct and gouern vs.

This discourse that the Church is consti­tuted of two parts, the one whose obliga­tion is to teach and gouern, the otherwhose obligation is to learn, belieue and obey, is cleerly shewen in the 1. Cor. 3. where the A­postle compares the Pastors and Prelats to Husband men, who soweth the seed, and to Masterbuilders that make a house; and compares the flock to a field that receiues the seed and improuments, and to an edifi­ce. But, saies he, He that planteh, and he that vvatereth are one, and euery man shall receiue his ovvn revvard according his ovvn vvorks; vvee are labourers together vvith God, ye are Gods Husbandry, ye are Gods building. All is but one body, one common wealth but with this distinction, that some in this Body and commonweath, are labourers, some whose charge it is to plant, and sovv the seed, which are the Apostles, and their succes­sors: others are the Husbandry, the field which is vvatered, and receiues the seed, whichs the flock.

Out of these Premisses I discourse thus: as it is impossible that God, laying an obliga­tion vpon vs of belieuing reuealed Truths, should not haue afforded vs the necessary means to know what Truths he has reuea­led; so it is a madness in me to expect to [Page 45]come to that knowledge by any other way or means, than by that which God has ap­pointed for our conduct▪ it's an vnquestio­nable truth, that God might haue establi­shed an other manner of Prouidence for the saluation of man whitout Scripture Sa­craments or Church; but if God has de­creed in this his present gouernment, not to saue Man but vpon certain conditions, will you be so peremptory as to expect by special priuiledge, as a person particularly fauored, to walk a path by yourself, and be exempted from those conditions which are generally required fromall? God might do so, there is no doubt of it; but it's a madness in you to expect it.

You are to enquire what worship God requires from Man; what truths he has reuealed; which is the true sence of Scri­pture: I do not doubt, but God might, if he were pleased, vse other means for your instruction, without Church, Scripture, Pastors or Doctors, snatching you to the Third Heauen as hedid S. Paul 2. Cor. 11.4. or by sending an Angel to resolue your doubts; or by inward illustrations and diuine lights: but since that in this his pre­sent Prouidence he has established a Church, furnished as wee mentioned [Page 46]with Doctors, Pastors, Apostles, and Euan­gelists; and layd an obligation vpon her to teach you, and vpon you to belieue and obey her; will you as a person particular­ly priuiledg'd, expect to haue the know­ledge of what you ought to belieue, and to yet the true sence of Scripture by any other means; than by and from that Ora­cle, which God has appointed for the instruction of all? I pitty some deluded souls who ery out, God knovvs if I did knovv the true Religion, and the true sence of Scriptu­re, I vvould embrace it. But, friend, do you expect a reuelation from Heauen, or an inward light for to ascertain you? God has afforded means for to instruct vs and com­mands vs all (he excepts none) to heare and oby her, which is the Church: make vse of the means which he has appointed, and you will be instructed: think not that your ignorance will excuse your incredu­lity of what you ought to belieue; when God has giuen you means wherby to be in­structed, and you will not make vse of tho­se means; and if you say you do not know, which Church is that, which God has ap­pointed for your instruction; both by what I haue already discoursed, and what shall be said in the ensuing chapters, it will [Page 47]manifestly appeare, that it is the Roman Catholik Church.

But, say you, I search the Scripture, as Christ commanded, 10.5.39. and what I meet not there, I do not belieue; because I am persuaded it's it that God has left vnto vs for to instruct vs; and that it contains ex­presly and cleerly, what wee are bound to belieue. But wee haue proued in the two former chapters, that Scripture does not contain all articles which wee are bound to belieue; and that euen the fundamental points of Religion, are not sufficiently proued by Scripture alone without an in­faillible interpreter: for there is not any text hardly of Scripture but may be inter­preted in different sences, and Scripture alone does not ascertain vs, which is the true sence: And if an Heretick did aryse, and say, that it is not lawfull to keepe sun­day for a Holy day, but saturday; because God commanded this should be kept, and the Apostles could not alter it against the express command of God, Ex. 20. if he should say, that it is lawfull for vs to kee­pe but one Holy day and no more in the weeke, and that wee are obliged to work the other six dayes according that text, six dayes thou shalt vvork, but the seaueth is [Page 48]the Sabaoth of they Lord, Ex. 20. can his er­rour be eleerly proued by Scripture alone? if he should say, that it is not conformable to the instruction of Christ, to giue the Communion to Women, because wee do not read that Christ should haue giuen it to any; by what Scripture will you con­uince him of an error? If he should say, that you cannot in conscience defend your right against one who commences a suit in law against you, or that is an vniust vsurper of your goods; he will giue you plain Scripture for it: To him that vvill contest vvith you in Lavv, and take your Coat from you, giue him also your Cloak: Mat. 5.40. and by what text will you conuince him, that he misvnderstands that text? if he should say with the Luciferians, that a Priest who would apostatise from his Reli­gion, ought not to be receiued again to the Communion of the Church, though he did repent, grounded vpon the words of Christ, Mat. 5. if the salt (that's to say the Doctors and Pastors of the Church) hath lost its Sauour, vvher vvith shall it be salted? it is therfore good for nothing but to be cast out, and trod vnder foot of men. This is a damnable error, the doore is still open M^r ▪ Sall, if you will but knock with repen­tance: [Page 49]yet no text of Scripture doth cleer­ly conuince that errour; finally there was neuer yet any Heresy, no neuer will be, but will hit vpon some text of Scripture to proue its error: and if it be lawfull for euery man to interpret he Scripture in the sence that seems best to him, they will ne­uer be conuinced by Scripture alone.

Hence it follows, that since the texts of Scripture admit different sences; either of two things must happen; or that God has left it arbitrary to Mankind, to belieue that sence, which each one bonafide thinks in his own iudgment to be the best; and has not obliged him to submit his iudg­ment to the sence giuen by any other; and if so, Arriants, Protestants, Catholiks and all are of a good Religion; for each of vs belieues that sence of Scripture which wee think the truest, which is all that God re­quires. Or if God has obliged vs all, to be­lieue one sence of Scripture, though that sence may not seem the best to this, or that particular man; and will haue vs sub­mit our iudgments and belieue that sence, which he obliges vs all to belieue; if so, then God must haue appointed some suprem Autority to declare vnto vs, what sence is that, which he will haue vs all [Page 50]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 its 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 [Page 51]of Scripture, is the Church establisht by Christ, its 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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]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 [Page 54]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 [Page 55]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, S^r Dudley Carleton, represen­ted to the States that the only means for to allay those disputes was a National Sy­nod, to whom 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 [Page 56]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 [Page 57]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 [Page 58]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 [Page 59]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 [Page 60]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 M^r 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 [Page 61]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 M^r 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 M^r Sall what means did he vse to vnderstand the true sence of Scripture; to satisfy his doubts in Religion, and to know what he ought to belieue; and wee will find he did not vse the means [Page 62]which Christ appointed for our instruction, pag. 17. you tell vs, M^r Sall, that you dis­couered the Roman Church to be guilty of idolatry, couelty and impiety; your wit, say you, demanded you a reason for what you belieued; and if it demanded and eui­dently co [...]cluding reason, it ourlasht, wheras the Mysteries of Religion are of things not appearing, as S. Paul saies, surpassing reason: you frequently, perused the Scripture the Councils Fathers, and Histories, and all made you doubt of the Truth of our Tenets; the consequence therefore is vndenyable that Scripture a­lone, is so far from being cleer, and easy in points of Religion, that it alone nor with the assistance of Historyes, Councils and Fathers, is not sufficient, euen to so great a wit as you pretend to be, in no wayes obstinat vvillfully, but desirous to know and embrace the truth, is not I say sufficient to assure you what is an errour or not; consequently somwhat else is wan­ting to know what wee ought to be­lieue.

Pag. 37. you tell vs that you vvent to the Church of England, vvhose Eminent Persons by vvord and vvritting did assert, (do not you see that besides the Scripture, wee [Page 63]want a liuing Church to inform ys what wee out to belieue?) that the fumme of our Faith, is the vvord of God contained in Canonical Scripture, and the plain vndubita­ble consequences out of it. But M^r Sall, you might haue belyed them all by your own experience, who read Scriptuse, assisted with your eminent with (forsooth) and knowleg in sciences, assisted by the Fa­thers Historyes and Councils, and yet, as you tell vs, all made you doubt (pag. 18.) but could not assure you of the truth or vn­truth of our errours: consequently som­thing else is requisit for to know assuredly what is Truth, and what not: But M^r Sall, before that the Cchurch of England, by her Eminent Persons, did tell you the Scriptu­re alone and its vndubitable consequences is the intyre summe of Faith, did you know that to be be true? did you vnderstand it to be true by the Scripture when you fre­quently read it, and by Councils and Fa­thers? if you did▪ to what purpose do you speake vnto vs of the Church of England? what need had you to go to her? You ought to haue sought and found the resolu­tion of your doubts in the Scripture alone and its vndubitable consequences: if you did not, then you belieue the Scripture [Page 64]and its indubitable consequences to be the summe of our Faith vpon the testimony of the Church of England and her Eminent Persons, which being fallible as you and she confess all your Faith is built on a fal­lible bottom.

Moreouer M^r Sall, the Church of En­gland informed, that the Scripture alone, and its indubitable consequences are the whole summe of diuine Faith: but did the Church of England tell you, who is he, that must draw those indubitable conse­quences? Must those consequences be dra­wen by a publick Authority establisht by Christ, or is it sufficient that the consequen­ces seem vndubitable to you or me, or any priuat person? If the second, then all sectaries in the world haue a true rule of Faith, which is their own reason that dic­tats what they belieue, to be an vndenya­ble consequence of Scripture; and no­ne can blame them for they regulat their Faith by the rule that Christ has appointed, if the first, then the Church of England, should haue informed you, what suprem Authority is that, which must draw those consequences, and aproue or reproue tho­se which to priuat persons seem to be vn­deniably deduced out of Scripture: But [Page 65]this which your instructors omitted, has been shewen vnto you in this Chapter, not only by Scripture and reason, but by the practise of your Reformed Churchs represented in the Synod of Dordrecht; that when two Contestants draw contra­dictory consequences out of Scripture, each one pretending his own to be vndu­bitably deduc'd out of the Text, the Church wherof the Parties are Members, has the suprem Authority to resolue which is the true consequence; that the Parties are bound in conscience to submit to her iudg­ment; and to be held for Schismatiks if they do not: and wheras your first Refor­mers drew consequences which seemed to them to follow vndubitably from Scripture, and their Aduersaryes iudged the contrary to be vndubitable true; your Reformers were bound to submit to the Catholik Church wherof theyr were Mem­bers, and learne of her which were the true consequences, and were Schismatick for not doing so; and as their errour des­cended to you and your liuing Brethren; the obligation also of being instructed by the Catholik Church, and acquiescing to her iudgment descends vnto you. And thus M^r Sall you miserably mistooke the means [Page 66]which Christ appointed for to instruct vs in Religion.

V. CHAPTER. THE CHVRCH ESTABLISHED FOR our instruction, is infallible.

THough I reserue a chapter a part for M^r Salls arguments against this Te­net, yet I must heere toucth two of them, which shew that he is either ignorant, or malicious in mistaking our doctrin, by the answer to which I will declare, what wee belieue in this particular. He impugns our doctrin from the pag. 29. to 35. and from the pag. 39. to 44. pag. 39. he argues that Infallibility is an Attribut proper to Gods essence, which can no more be communi­cated to any Creature, than the Deyty it­self; its a Blasphemy, saies he, to attribute to any creature, that which is proper to God alone; consequenty the Church of Rome is guilty of Blasphemy in teaching the Pope or Council is infallible. I cannot belieue but that you are sufficienty sensi­ble of the weakness of this argument, which from the very beginning of your [Page 67]pretended Reformation is so common, that any Collier will answer it; especially that it, and all the arguments you bring in your whole discourse are exactly set down in Bellarmin, (whence you haue bor­rowed them) and most euidently answ­ered; and if you had any ingenuity you ought not to trouble your Auditory with such third bare tryfles, but tell them also, what wee answer; and retort it if you could. Can you that pretends to the credit of a Professor of Diuinity, ignore, that a man, who is by his own Nature Mortal, might by Gods Protection, (who promi­ses him, he shall neuer dye) be immortal? and why will you deny but that Man, who by Nature is subiect to errour, may by Gods special protection, (promising him that he shall neuer err) be kept from fal­ling into any errour or mistake? This is what wee belieue, that the Church, which is by Nature (as being a congregation of Men) fallible, may be mistaken, and though ignorance or malice teach an vntruth, but that God has promised to assist her con­tinually with his spirit, for to leade her into all Truth; and neuer to permit her to teach or belieue any errour: by virtue of wich promiss (iudge you if such a promiss [Page 68]be impossible) wee say the Church cannot err in her doctrin, which is to be infallible.

Dare you deny, but that the Prophets, the Apostles, and Euangelists were infalli­ble, in what they taught and writ? dare you deny but that the Church of God is infalli­ble in fundamental points of Religion? and are you therefore guilty of Blasphemy, or do you intrench on Gods prerogatiues, or giue his Attributs to creatures? God is infallible by Nature; by his own proper perfection, this is his Attribut; and this cannot be giuen to any creature: to be in­fallible by the protection of an other, who defends him from falling into any errour, is not Attribut of God, it were a Blasphe­my to say that he is infallible in that man­ner; but the Prophets, Apostles, Euange­lists, and the Church are thus infallible, by Gods special protection and the conduct of his spirit.

An other argument against our Tenet. pag. 30. is the disagreement of our Au­thors, in placing this infallibity: some will haue it to be in the Pope alone; others in him and a Council of Cardinals; others in the Pope and General Council alone. This dissention is to M^r Sall a concluding argu­ment that there is no such thing as Church [Page 69]infallibity: and thus he furnishes the Deists with a concluding argument, that there is no such thing as true Religion in the world; for, will the Deists say with him; the Au­thors that pretend to true Religion, do not agree where it is; some say its in the Iewish Church; others that it is in the Pro­testants, others in the Catholik Church; others in other Congregations; and will conclude in M^r Salls Dialect; that there is no such thing as true Religion extant, because the Pretenders to it, do not agree where to find it. But the poore Man, ignorantly or maliciously mistakes our doctrin: all Catho­liks do agree in the infallibility of the Pope and General Council ioyntly, this is the in­fallibility wee belieue as an article of Faith.

Its true, that the Catholik Authors do dispute if the Pope alone is infallible; so­me say he is, and will haue it to be an arti­cle of Faith that he is; others say that he is not, but with a Council of Cardinals and Diuines; others say, that neither this is an article of Faith; some say that a General Council legally assembled is infallible in their Decrees, though not confirmed by the Pope; others say not, if they be not confirmed by him. But all these are but sc­hool questions; the Church heares them, [Page 70]and permits them to dispute: and whateuer Bellarmin or any other saies, wee are not o­bliged to belieue it to be an article of faith whylst it is opposed by other Catholick Doctors and the Church does not deter­min the Controuersy: but what you are to obserue is; that those Doctors who defend the infalliblity of the Pope alone; and those that deny it; those that affirm the infalli­bility of the Council alone, and those that contradict it, they agree vnanimously in the infallibity of the Pope and Council toge­ther; because that with out any controuersy the Pope and Council ioyintly, represents the vniuersal Church; and the vniuersal Church is infallible: this is the article of Faith wee belieue. And if you tell vs, a Pope, or a General Council has err'd; you will tell vs nothing to the purpose, if you do not shew that a Pope and Council to­gether has err'd: for that's the Church, hauing by the answer of these two argu­ments, declared what infallibility the Chur­ch clayms, and where wee belieue this in­fallibility to be, let vs now proue our Tenet.

First, its a comfort to an vnacquainted Traueller to be guided by one whom he firmly belieues to be acquainted with the way: though really your guide were not [Page 71]acquainted with the way, if you certainly belieue he is, and that he cannot stray; though you do not know the way your­self, you will follow him with satisfac­tion, and without feare of being byass'd: but if you do not know the way, and you belieue your guide is not so well acquain­ted, but that he may stray; you will still trauell with feare of being byass'd. This is the different condition of a Catholik and a Protestant: the Catholick trauelling in the way to saluation, (which is Religion) is guided by a Church, which he, without the least doubt, belieues cannot be mistaken; whether she can or not, since he is abso­lutly perswaded she cannot, he trauells with satisfaction and without feare: the Protestant in this way, is guided by a Church, which he belieues, is not so well assured of the way, but that she may err; ought he not therefore to walk disatis­fyed, and with continual feare of being mislead?

You answer that the Protestant is not lead by the Church, but by the Scripture; which is an infallible guide. Its very sure, the Scripture is infallible, vnderstood in the true sence, but you can haue no assu­rance that you haue the true sence of Scri­pture; [Page 72]consequently you can haue no assurance, that you haue an infallible gui­de; this proposition is certain: The Scri­pture ill interpreted, does mislead: this pro­position is also certain, you, and your Church may err, in the interpretation of Scripture com­paring one text vvith an other. Since there­fore your guide in the road of Faith, is the Scripture interpreted by you, and your Church, comparing on text with an other. You are guided by a guide, that may err and mislead you; and as you haue no well grounded assurance, that you and your Church do not err in the interpretation of Scripture, cōparing one text with an other; you can haue no assurance but that you are mislead. But the Catholik belieuing his Church to be infallible in the interpreta­tion of Scripture, does rest his mind in the full assurance of the truth he professeth.

And ought not you to embrace that doc­trin, which giues you that satisfaction, and rest of mind; rather than the Protestant doctrin of fallibility, which leaues you doubtfull, if what you belieue be true or not? Particularly when in belieuing it, you hazard nothing: not your saluation; for all learned Protestants (which wee will proue against M^r Sall) do grant saluation [Page 73]in the express beliefe of articles of Pope­ry; you reply, its no solid comfort, that the Catholik amuses himself with, in be­lieuing his Church that guides him to be infallible, if really she be not so: for if it proues in effect to be otherwise, he will come short of his imaginary comfort, and will find that he and his Church is mista­ken. I answer, if wee consider the testi­monies of Scripture, the strength of rea­son, the consent of ages, the multitude of Vniuersityes Fathers and Doctors that de­fend this doctrin of infallibility; it is as lykely to be true as your doctrin of falli­bility; its as lykely that you are mistaken in belieuing fallibility, as I am in belieuing infallibility: you run therefore as great a hazard of being mistaken as I do: on the other syde, you cannot haue that satisfac­tion without feare of being mislead; that rest of mind, in the assurance of the truth (for you may err) by belieuing fallibility, as I haue by belieuing infallibility: my con­dition then is still better than yours, and my doctrin to be prefered before yours.

Your Church, as you confess may err in points of Religion, whence it manifestly follows that it is not the true sence of Scripture, that leads you in the road to [Page 74]Religion; for the true sence of Scripture is absolutly infallible: I ask you therefore, on what do you ground your Faith? You tell me, that vpon the Scripture as inter­preted by your Church, and comparing one text with an other; but it may happen that your Church may err in the interpre­tation; that you confess, for you say the true Church may err, now I argue thus: whoeuer may err, relying vpon a Princi­ple; can neuer be sure that he does not err, whylst he relyes only on that Princi­ple: this proposition is vndeniable; for if he can err relying on that Principle; its be­cause the Principle is fallible, and if the Principle be fallible, it alone without the help of some other, can neuer giue any assurance that you do not err: for exam­ple you belieue the King is in London be­cause an honest Man tells you so; that is a fallible ground, which you rely on, and you may err by relying on that ground, and as long as you rely only on that mans testimony, and haue no other; you will neuer be assured of the Kings being at London. You belieue the Church fallibi­lity: and on what ground do you rely? on Scripture as interpreted by the Church: you may err relying on this Principle as [Page 75]you confess; therefore as long as you rely on this Principle only, and haue no other, you can neuer be assured that you do not err: the Church of England has no other, nor will admit no other Principle to ground their Faith vpon, but the Scripture interpreted by her, and comparing one text with an other therefore she can ne­uer be assured of the doctrin she belieues; consequently cannot be assured of the fallibility of the true Church.

What will you say in this case: there is a Man accused of Murther before your tri­bunal, he does not only deny the fact, but many circumstances fauours his innocen­cy, and the very Person that accuses him saies, he is not sure, he is the Murtherer: surely you would not condemn this Man to death; it being against all the maxims of iustice to punish a man that is not conuic­ted criminal. This is the very matter in hand: the true Church is accused of falli­bility and falshood in her doctrin; the circumstances of hauing florished for so many ages, in the credit of an infallible Oracle, fauors her innocency, and her Ac­cuser, which is the Church of England, does confess that she may err in her accu­sation, and consequently must confess, as [Page 76]wee proued, that she cannot be sure, she does not err; for she grounds her accusa­tion on the Scripture interpreted by her, in which she may err; and whylst she has no other Principle but that, she can ne­uer be certain she does not err: will not you then acquit the Church, of whose cri­me her accuser is not sure, as you would that Man accused of Murther?

Add this discourse to the former: it is a Principle in all well gouerned Common­wealhs, that a preacable Possessor is not to be disturbd from his possession, vntill that by vnquestionable proofs he be conuicted an vniust vsurper or detainer; no coniec­tures, nor probable reasons will put him out of possession: he will still with a safe conscience maintain it; and the law will continue him in it, vntill that by euident proofs he be conuicted. The true Church was in all ages in peacable possession of this prerogatiue of infallibility, neuer de­nyed to her, but by some few condemned Heretiks: what euident vnquestionable proofs can you bring to conuince her an vniust vsurper or detainer of it? Reason affords you none, for to say that infallibili­ty is an Attribut proper to God, is imper­tinent; wheras she clayms no other infal­libility, [Page 77]but such as you grant to the Pro­phets, Apostles and Euangelists: but, say you, in a General Council, which is a mul­titude of Men, where a point of Religion is to be resolued by the maior part of Vo­tes: and where passion, and interest som­tymes may sway, it may happen, that an errour may haue more Abettors, and truth be out voted: This is to say that God has no Prouidence ouer his Church: since he has promised the conduct of his infallible spirit to her, for to lead her into all truth, and keep her vnspotted from all errours; let each particular of that multitude be euer so corrupt in himself: God, who can as easily gouern the harts of many, as of one; will not permit them to determin an errour, nor truth to be out voted. Was not the Council of the Apostles and An­cients at Ierusalem a multitude? Were not the first four General Concils multitudes, which the Protestants confess to haue been infallible, and guided by Gods spi­rit, which was as necessary to the Councils of succeeding ages, the emergent Contro­uersyes being no fewer in number, nor less in weight.

Neither does Scripture afford you any: match, if you can these texts: I am vvith [Page 78]you all the dayes, untill the consummation of the vvorld Math. 28.20. and if the Church did teach an vntruth, would Christ be with her then? He vvill give you an other Paraclet the Spirit of Truth, that vvill abyde vvith you for euer; vvho vvill leade you in­to all truth. Io. 14.16. vvhen the Paraclet vvill come, vvhom I vvill send from my Father, the Spirit of truth, he vvill giue te­stimony of me, and you vvill giue testimony: Io. 15.26. the Paraclet and the Chruch, are ioynt Witnesses of the truth.

Nor does experience fauor you: all that you can shew is that some Pope did err, or that some Council did err; but thats not to the purpose, if you do not shew (which you will neuer do) thal a Pope and Council together has erred. wheras therefore neither scripture, Reason, nor experience doth afford you any vnquestio­nable evident proofs, that the Chruch is an vnuist vsurper or detainer of that pre­rogatiue of infaillibility, which she has en ioyed in all ages, why will you pretend to disturb her peacable possession?

Let vs heare what the scripture suyes: Lu. 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me: Christ spoke to his Apostles and Disciples on whom he layd the charge of teaching [Page 79]and preaching, and who were the Church representatiue: whateuer therefore wee heare from the Chruch representatiue, wee heare it from Christ; whateuer the Chur­ch speaks, Christ speaks, otherwyse wee should not heare Christ speak, when wee heare the Church speake: the Church the­refore, is the Mouth by which Christ speaks: and as we cannot heare an vntruth from him, as he cannot speak any, so she can­not speake, nor be heard to speake an vntruth: this is de clared by S. Paul 1. Thes. 2.13. vvhen you receiued from vs the vvord of the hearing of God, you receiued it, not as the vvord of Man, but as indeed it is, the vvord of God. And therefore sayes he 1. Thes. 4. S. he that despeiseth these things, despeiseth not man, but God. Could a man speake more pertinently to signify that the doctrin of the Church is the doctrin of God; that when wee heare her, we heare him; and that her words are infaillible, wheras they are the words of God?

Observe that the Council of Apostles and Ancients at Ierusalem. Act. 15.28. de­ciding the Controuersy concerning Cir­cumcision, delivers their sentence thus; It seemeth good to ihe Holy Ghost and to vs. Signifying that the resolution proceeded [Page 80]ioyntly from both; from the Holy Ghost; by his inward inspiration and direction; from the Council, by its outward decla­ration: can wee doubt therefore, but that the resolution of Controuersyes by that Council was infallibly true; and not only of that, but also of all succeeding Coun­cils; wheras the Apostles pronounced their sentence in those words, grounded on the words of Christ, He that heareth you heareth me, grounded on the words of Christ Io. 15.26. vvhen the Paraclet vvi [...]l come, he shall giue testimony of me and you shall give testimony; in which words Christ did speak to his Church, which was the witness, which ioyntly with the Holy Ghost, was to giue testimony of him; and groun­ded on the Promiss of his Paraclet, which was made by Christ, not only to the Apost­les, but to his Church for euer, vntill the consummation of the vvorld.

This is yet more cleerly proved by the following discourse: Christ commands vs to heare the Church; that he that des­peiseth her despeiseth him Lu. 10.16. to obserue and do what those that sit on Moyses his chayre, bids vs do Mat. 23.2. commands them to be esteemed as Hea­thens and Publicans, that will not obey her. [Page 81]S. Paul commands vs (Heb. 13.17.) not to be carried away with various and strang Doctrins, but obey the Church, wherin sayes he, Eph. 4. God has pla­ced Apostles, Evangelists, Doctors and Pastors to teach vs: out of these and the lyke texts, (which are frequent in scriptu­re,) largue thus. He that does what Christ bids him do, and belieues what he bids him belieue; cannot do amiss, nor be­lieue an errour: but Christ bids vs be­lieue and do, what the Church commands vs to belieue and do, as appeares by the­se texts; therefore he that does what the Church commands him to do, and belieues what she commands vs to belieue; cannot do amiss nor belieue an errour: conse­quently what teuer the Church teachs is no errour.

To conclude. S. Io. 1. epis. 4.6. hauing warned vs to try our Spirits, if from God or Satan; he gives vs a rule wherby to try them; he that knovveth God heareth vs, he that knovveth not God, heareth vs not. In this vve knovv the Spirit of truth, and the Spirit of errour. This is the way pres­cribed by S. Iohn to ascertain vs of the nature of our Spirits: if our Spirit be conformable to the Spirit of the Church, [Page 82]its a Spirit of Truth; if it does not con­form itself to the Spirit of the Church; its a Spirit of errour: but if the Spirit of the Church de fallible, it can give me no assurance of my Spirit, whether it be of truth or of errour: for what assurance can you haue, that the Cloath which you measure is of a yard in length; if you be not assured, that the yard wherwith you measure, it is an exact yard? neither the­refore can you be assured that your Spi­rit is of truth by trying it with the Spirit of the Church; if you be not assured that the Spirit of the Church is of Truth.

But because our Aduersaries, will still reply that all this is to be vnderstood of the Apostles, who were infallible whylst they liued, and are now infallible in their written word: I haue already shewen that the written word is not sufficient to as­certain vs of the truth or vntruth of our Spirits, and will now proue in this.

VI. CHAPT. THAT NOT ONLY THE APOSTLES and Church in their dayes, but that the Church in all succeeding ages is infalli­ble.

THe Church of England confesses that the Apostles and Church in their tyme, nay and for some ages after (if you ask how many they do not agree) was infaillible; this is not consequent to their Principles that say only God is infallible; but howeuer, its their Doctrin, as appears in Mr Salls discourse pag. 18 professing to belieue, the Holy scripture the Apostles Creed, and S. Athanasius his Creed (paral­lelling this wth the other two) vvith the heauenly gift of faith; and if the Coun­cil of Nice, which deliuered vnto vs the doctrin contained in Athanasius his Creed, had not been directed by the Holy Ghost, as the Writers of the scripture were; it were à Blasphemy to belieue that Creed, and the doctrin of the Council with the same Faith, with which wee belieue the scripture. Now the Protestants all agree in [Page 84]this; that now, nor in these many ages, the Church is not infallible; for which assertion, you must expect no scripture from them, nor no reason, but their ba­re word.

But let vs see what reason they pretend: God, say they, having giuen vs an infalli­ble written word, sufficient to instruct vs, Church infallibility was for the future needless; what school boy but sees the weakness of this reason? first, after the scripture was written, the Church conti­nued infallible for some ages, M^r Sall must confess by what I haue now said; as generally all Protestants say; and as all, must say, otherwyse Arrius, and other He­resiarks, might have questioned the truth of their doctrin if they had been fallible; and could not be obliged in conscience to acquiesce to their iugdment, nor ought not tobe held for Hereticks nor excom­municated for not submitting to them, if they were fallible; as yon do not esteem yourself an Heretick for not submitting to the Catolick Church on te same account. S. Gregory l. 1. c. 24. sayes of the first four Councils I do embrace and reuerence the four General Councils, as the four Books of the Ghospell; which had been rashly and [Page 85]impiously said, if they had not been in­fallible. Secondly if Church infallibility was needbess because the scripture, which is infallible, was written; then it was also needless that the Church should be infal­lible in fundamental points of Religion; and yet Protestants do constantly auer, that the Church is still infallible in funda­mental points, thought he scripture be in­fallible also in them. Thirdly, the Apostles remayned still infallible after the Scripture was written; and why not the Church? fourthly, if infallibility is needless, because the Scripture is infallible, wee may say also that S Iohn is not infallible in is Ghos pell, at least, as to those points which were al ready mentioned in Ma­thew, Mark, and Luke; or that these three, lost their infallibility by the wri­ting of S. Iohns Ghos pell; because one infallible Ghos pell is sufficient, at least as to the points it contains.

These instances shew that reason to be very friuolous: and if it proued any thing, at most it can proue that the Church in­fallibility is not necessary for our instruction; but it might be-necessary for other ends of Gods prouidence; who might haue left still that gift of infallibility to his Church, [Page 86]for a mark of his loue to her. wee find he did promise the conduct of his infal­lible Spirit to his Church; wee de not find he should haue limited this grace to any tyme; nay to the contrary, wee find that he sayd, it should be for euer, all dayes, to the consummation of the vvorld, why should wee therfore limit that fauor vnto à ty­me; to conclude wee haue proued in the 2 and 3 chap. that Scripture is not suffi­cient to instruct vs, and consequently an infallible Church is still necessary.

An other reason no less silly, to proue that the Church after few ages became fallible: for the Popes. Prelats, and Peo­ple became very vicious; and from the debauchery of manners, they came, by Gods iust iugdment, to fall into errours in doctrin: which M^r Sall pretends to pro­ue by Scripture pag. 32. the promise made by Christ of the Paraclet, for to lead the Church into all truth, vvas a conditional promise as appears by Christ his vvord Io. 14.16. if you loue me, keep my commandmens, and I vvill ask my father, and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet, that he may abyde vvith you for euer; euen the Spirit of Truth, vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue. The Paraclet is pro­mised on condition they Keepe the com­mandments; [Page 87]and by the later words, vvhom the vvorld cannot receiue; the Paraclet is flatly denied to all those, the Scripture sty­les by the name of vvorld; that is to say, the, wicked and wordly men. Hence (sayes M^r Sall wee can be no more sure, that the Pope and his Council are infallible; than wee are that he liues in Gods loue, and obseruance of his commandments: and wheras it is manifest by our own Hi­storyes, that the Pope, Pastors and flock haue fallen into many crimes, it followes they haue forfeited the conduct of Gods infaillible Spirit.

If from the lewdness of manners, wee might conclude the Churches corruption in doctrin, what Ghospell could the world expect from Luther, and the other pre­tended Reformers, for whose wickdness there are as good Records as for the de­bauchery of Popes and Prelats: the sinns of Prelats did deface the Ghospell, and did the Apostasy of Luther and the Sodomy of Caluin restore it to its splendor? Christ did foresee that they, who should sit on the chayre of Moyses, would be wicked in their lyues; and yet commanded vs, to obey, and belieue their doctrin. The con­duct of Gods Spirit promised to them, for [Page 88]to leade them into all Truth, was not a personal gift giuen to them for their own sakes, but for the flock; for to keepe them in vnity of Faith: and therefore though God does permit them to fall into wicked­ness of lyfe, his Prouidence will not per­mit them to fall into errors of doctrin; that the flock, which it obliged to obey them, may not be mislead. To proue that the Promiss was only conditional, you cor­rupt the text: for as well your Bible, as ours, sayes thus: if you loue me, keepe my Commandments; and there puts a punctum. Then ads a distinct verse or section; And I vvill ask my Father, and he vvill giue you an other Paraclet &c. which makes an absolut sence, independent of the former. That this is the true interpretation of that text; it appears, for in seueral other texts, That assistance of as Mat. 28 20▪ behold I am vvith you all dayes, euen to the consummation of the vvorld. Mat. 16. the Gates of hell shall not preuayle agaiust her. Io. 16 13. vvhen the Paraclet shall come the Spirit of Truth, he shall teach you-all truth. And is it not strang M^r Sall should auerr, the Paraclet was pro­mised vpon condition of Gods loue, and obseruance of his Commandments; whe­ras the Church remayns still infallible in­fundamental [Page 89]points; notwithstanding that it has fayled in that condition, as M^r Sall and all Protestants do deknowledge. But what he will neuer answer is, that if that Promiss was conditional, it folloues wee cannot be sure the Ghospell is infallible, if wee be not sure that the Euangelists, when they wrote it, haue been in the loue of God, and obseruance of his Command­ments; for if they were not, they had not the Paraclet sayes M^r Sall; but no text of Scripture tells vs, that the Euangelists we­re in the state of Grace when they writ the Ghospell; nor nothing else giues vs assurance of it. Therefore wee are not assured the Ghospell written by the Euan­gelists is infallible: nay which is worse, in the common doctrin of Protestants, wee are assured it is not infaillible; for the com­mon doctrin in their Church is, that it is impossible to keepe Gods commandments; the Euangelists therefore, when they writ did not keep Gods Commandments; con­sequenly they could not haue the Paraclet to lead them into truth; consequenly the Ghospell is not infallible, and so M^r Sall ouerthrows all-Christian Religion.

Let vs consider what inducements had the primitiue Christians to belieue the A­postles [Page 90]infallible: was it not the testimony of the Apostles, confirming their doctrin with many Miracles? look into the Histo­ryes of all succeding ages, and you will find, that the Church, which affirmed her­self to be infallible, did confirm her doc­trin with many and great Miracle, as wee will euidence in the ensuing Chap. And on what do you ground your beliefe, when you say the Apostles were infallible? You say, that vpon the Scripture: but I defy you to shew any text of Scripture which declares the infallibility of the Apostles, that relates not to the Church in succee­ding ages, as well as to them; either there­fore they proue the Church to be infalli­ble in succeeding ages, or they do not proue the Apostles to be infallible.

For example wee proue the infallibility of the Apostles by the words of Christ: he that heareth you, heareth me. Lu. 10. whence followes, that the words of the Apostles were the words of Christ. But Christ him­self, Mat. 18. declares that text must be vn­derstood of his Church, whereuer it be: if he vvil not heare the Church, let him be to you as a Heathen and Publican. We proue it out of S. Iohn 14.18. He vvill giue you an other Paraclet, the spirit of truth, that vvill a [Page 91]byde vvith you for euer; but this text playn­ly declares that the Promiss was made also to the Church in succeeding ages, by the word for euer; for the Apostles were not to be for euer in their own persons, but in their successors; and to remoue all oc­casion of cauilling vpon the word for euer, saying that it signifyes only the tyme of the Apostles lyues, Christ declares himself in a cleerer expression, Mat. 28. I am vvith you all dayes to the consummation of the vvorld gi­uing vs to vnd erstand, that the Paraclet was not sent to his Apostles alone, but to their successors to the words end. Wee proue it by the text of S. Io. 16.26. vvhen the Pa­raclet vvill come, vvhom I vvill send from my Father the spirit of Truth, vvho proceedeth from the Father, he vvill giue testimony of me, and you vvill giue testimony. But there is no­thing more cleer, than that the whole Cha­pter speakes all a long of the Church; (reade, y pray, the text) consequently that text is to be vnderstood of the Church, as well as of the Apostles. Wee proue it, because the Apostles were the fundation (S. Paul Eph. 2.20.) whervpon the Church was built: But S. Paul calls the the Church also the Pillar and foundation of Truth 1. Tim. 3. Wee proue it because [Page 92]S. Paul commands vs in seueral places to belieue his doctrin, for that his vvord is not the vvord of Man, but indeed of God, and con­sequently infallible. 1. Thes. 2. bu [...] Christ also Mat. 23▪ commands vs to obey and belieue the Church in succeeding ages: on the chayr of Moyses haue sate the scribes and Pharisees, vvhateuer they bid you do, obserue and do, obliging vs to obey and belieue not only Moyses, but those that succeede in his chayr. Thus not a text shall you meet for the infallibility of the Apostles, but proues lykwise that of the Church.

Doubtless you will not deny, but that Christ his Command of teaching all Nations, preaching the Ghospell, that the Bishops should rule the Church, was layd not only on the Apostles, but on their successors for futu­re ages; other wyse the Prelats and Pastors of future, and this our age would not be obliged to teach preach, and rule vs. You will not deny also, but that Christ his command of hearing the Church vnder payn of being esteemed Heathens and Publicans, of obey­ing them that sit on Moyses his chayr, of being subiect to our Prelats, was layd on the flock of all succeeding ages, as well as on that of the Apostles dayes: it follows therefore that the Pastors of our age are [Page 93]as much obliged to teach vs, as the Apo­stles were to preach to them of their age; and that wee are as much obliged to obey and belieue the Church in our age, as the flock was in the Apostles tyme to belieue and obey them: who can doubt them but that as the Authority, iurisdiction, and obligation of teaching descended to suc­ceeding ages, the infallibility also giuen to the Apostles for to acquit that obligation, did descend; it being giuen by God, for the loue and gouernment of the flock, that they should not be mis lead. And heere enters the argument that I proposed in the former Chapter. Whoeuer does as Christ bids him do, and belieues as Christ bids him belieue, cannot do amiss, nor belieue an errour; but Christ bids vs do and belieue, as the Church in succeeding ages bids vs do and belieue; therefore wee cannot do amiss, nor belieue an er­rour, consequently they cannot mislead vs.

But saies our Aduersary, the Paraclet was to remayn with the Church vntill all truth was taught necessary for saluation; but it cannot be doubted but that the Pa­raclet taught the Apostles all truth, and they deliuered those Truths in their writ­ten word. Therefore after that word was [Page 94]deliuered to vs, the Paraclet was to re­mayne no longer. This obiection well vn­derstood, will giue light to our doctrin, and manifestly confirm its truth.

Christ saies Io. 15.15. that he taught his Apostles all whateuer he had heard from his Father: it's manifest therefore he taught them all truths necessary for saluation: this was before his Passion, and yet after his Resurrection, S. Luke c. 24. tells vs, that ie his iourny to Emaus with the two Disci­ples he interpreted the passages of Scripture to them, which signifyes, that through inad­uertency or forgetfullness wee may come to doubt, euen of what truths were already taught: nay he saies Io. 16.12. that he had as yet, things to deeclare to them; and that the Holy spirit, when he came, would teach them all truth. Behold how Christ, hauing sayd he taught all things, yet he sayes, that he had many things to open to them, which they could not then learne, vntill the Para­clet came. This might seeme a contradic­tion, but is none: for when he sayd that he taught them all he had heard from his Father, that is to be vnderstood, that he taught and deliuered to them the General Principles and Truths of Faith, wherin all truths of Religion were contained; and [Page 95]what he had yet to say to them, were the consequences, and particular Truths of Faith contained in those general Princi­ples, which the Paraclet would disclose to them, its therfore that the Holy Ghost is called by the Fathers, Basil. 5. cont. Eu­nom: and Mar. vict: 3. contra Arium, the Interpreter, and Voyce of the Son be­cause the interpreter sayes nothing of his own, but deliuers in expresser terms, what the Author has already sayd: and the text cleerly sayes, the Paraclet taught nothing of the new, but what he had heard. Non enim loquetur à semetipso, sed quaecun­que audierit loquetur: because he did but expound in particular, what Christ had taught in general Principles, and opened to the Apostles the consequences that we­re contained in them.

Now its manifest out of the text, that the Paraclet when he descended did not of a sudain open to the Apostles all the Truths and consequences included in tho­se General Principles deliuered by Christ; or if he did, that he did not so cleerly, as that they should haue vnderstood all; for after that descent, wee read Act. [...]0. that Peter doubted, if the Ghospell ougth to be preached to the Gentiles, and he was in­structed [Page 96]by a heauenly vision, it ought: al­so Act. 15. it was doubted if besids Baptism, the Faith full were to be circumcided. But wee do freely grant that the Apostles had at length a full and perfect knowledge of all truths of our Faith, and all the conse­quences included in those general Princi­ples deliuered to them by Christ: conse­quently there is no Truth of Faith which now is belieued by us, or shall be belie­ued by future Ages, but the Apostles did distinctly and particularly know; for as Tertul. sayes, l. de praeser. c. 22. quis inte­grae mentis credcre potest, aliquid eos igno­rasse, quos Magistros Dominus dedit: vvhat man of a sound vvit, can belieue, that they vvere ignorant of any thing vvhom the Lord gaue vs for Masters: wee confess also, that the Apostles did teach and deliuer all tho­se truths to their disciples either by their written word; or by word of Mouth to be handed to Posterity by Tradition. whence S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. commands, hold the Traditions vvhich ye haue learned, ▪vvhe­ter by Epistles, or by vvord of Mouth:▪ some of these truths, in succeding ages either through forgetfullness, or through in­aduertency of their Disciples, and their successors (who minded chiefly those Ar­ticles [Page 97]that were opposed by 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 [Page 98]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 Tis 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; [Page 99]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 M^r 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 [Page 100]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 [Page 101]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, its 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 [Page 102]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 Miracles he wrought, Mat. [Page 103]11.3. The blind see, the lame vvalk, the Lea­pers are made cleane, the deafe heare, and the dead ryse again. S. Paul 2. Cor. 12.12. calls the Miracles which he wrought, the signs of his Apostle ship, and S. Mar. last ch. saies that the Apostles preaching euery where wrought Miracles in confirmation of their doctrin. Christ to proue against the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat. 9.6.) that he had po­wer of forgining sins, which they denied, cured the sick Man of the Palsie, That you may knovv that the son of Man hath povver of forgining sins, saith he to the sick of the Palsie, Aryse, take up thy bed, and go to thy house. Therefore if the Catholik Church does work Miracles in proof of the doc­trin she teaches, tis an vnquestionable truth, that she is the true Church (as Nico­demus concluded, Io. 3.2. No man could do those things if God vvere not vvith him.) and that no man can deny or doubt her doc­trin to be from God: wherefore Christ (Mat. 11.21. pronounced VVo against Coro­zain and Betsaida, because they did not beliue his doctrin to be diuine, which they did see confirmed with so many Miracles you say they were no true Miracles, but Sorceries and Enchantments, or that the Authors were mistaken in iudging them to [Page 104]be Miracles which were but Natural ef­fects of natural causes. But I answer that nothing can be said against those Miracles wrought by the Professors of our Reli­gion, and related by S. Augustin, S. Ber­nard and other Saints of the Church, which may not be also obiected against the Mi­racles of our B. Sauiour and Apostles. Could not the inhabitants of Corozain and Bethsaida say, that the Miracles which Christ alleadged, were but Sorceries, or effects of natural causes? did not the Scribs and Pharisees say it? to conclude, if thy were true Miracles, Tis euident the doc­trin in whose confirmation they were wrought, is diuine; and all things consi­dered, you will find, its rashness to deny that they were true Miracles, if you read carefully this Chap.

Now it is impossible that God, who is in­finitly True, and to whose infinit Veracity it is as repugnant to speake a smale vntruth as a great one, should confirm any vntruth, euerso smale, with a Miracle; consequent­ly a Church that would deliuer a mixt doctrin, of some great Truths, and some smale vntruths, it is impossible that God should work Miracles by that Church, in confirmation of her doctrin; for that would be to own that doctrin for his [Page 105]own, and owne smale vntruths to be re­uealed by him, wheras he giues his com­mission, and his seale and Marks of his au­thority for to teach them: And as it is not credible that the King of England should giue his commission vnder the broad seale of England to any man to induce his sub­iect into a Rebellion, so its less imagina­ble that God should giue his commission. with his broad seale, which are Miracles and supernatural signs, to teach an vn­truth euer so smale; his infinit veracity being so auerse to all vntruth. By no other means did he confirm the doctrin of the Trinity to be his doctrin, by no other signs did he moue men to belieue, than by wor­king Miracles by the Church that taught it; if therefore he works miracles by the Church that teachs Purgatory, real Presēce, and others, which you call inferiour points and smale errours, he confirms that doctrin to be his, and so approues and ownes smale vntruths to be reuealed by him. Therefore S. Paul when he preached as well great, as inferi­our Truths or articles, could cōfidently say, that his words were indeed the words of God, because God did cōfirm his doctrin by Miracles and supernatural signs: particular­ly M^r Sall auerring that the doctrin of Pur­gatory [Page 106]and real Presence are damnable er­rours, if ignorance doth not excuse the Professors, certainly God would not giue the Marks of his Commission (which are Miracles) to teach them. It remayns that wee proue, God has wroutght Miracles by the Roman Catholik Church, euen in those ages, wherin the Protestants affirm that she was plung'd in errours; and in confirmation of those Tenets, which they say are errors. Secondly that wee are bound to belieue them to haue been true Miracles; thirdly that the doctrin in whose confirmation they were wrought must be true reuealed doctrin.

As to the first, wee speake not of forged Miracles, which haue been▪ and are still con­demn'd by the Church, and their Authors punisht as impostors; wee speake of vn­controlled Miracles wrought in the pre­sence of the very Authors (and Authors of an vnspotted credit, Holyness and lear­ning, euen in the opinion of our Aduersa­ries) who relate them in their works left to Posterity. S. Augustin l. 22. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. relates, that in his own tyme, many miracles were wrought, and som in his own presence, by the Sacraments of the Church, by the intercession of Saints, and [Page 107]their Relicks, especially of saint Stephen, of saint Geruase and Protase, when (he being then in the towne) their Bodies were by a heauenly reuelation discouered to saint Ambroise at Milan: by the sign of the Holy Cross, by the sacrifice of Mass, and Earth of Christ's sepulcher; and mentions in particular (besids others) that a woman called Palladia was sudainly cured by pray­ing to S. Stephen, Ad sanctum Martyrem orare perrexerat, quae mox vt cancellos attigit sana surrexit. S. Bernard in saint Malachy's lyfe relates many Miracles wrought by this Saint; and that he himself, after the Saint expired, took his hand, and layd it vpon the withered and vseless hand of a boy then present, who was presently resto­red to perfect health. The Miracles wrought by S. Bernard himself in confirmation of the Catholick doctrin of Transubstantion and Inuocation of Saints, opposed in his tyme by the Henricians, and VValdenses, are recorded by God fred in vita S. Bern. l. 3. c. 5. and particularly, that stupendious Mi­racle of Sarlatum, a village neer Toulouse, when the Saint blessing som loaues of bread, he said to the multitude that were present. In this you shall knovv that these things, (meaning those Tenets opposed [Page 108]by thē foresaid Hereticks) are true, and those false, vvhich the Heretiks endeuour, to persvvade you that vvhosoeuer of your diseased persons, shall tast of these loaues, they shall be healed: and the Bishop of Chartres (his freind) then present, adding that the pro­mise was conditional, prouided they did eat of that bread with Faith, the Saint replyed; that he did speak vvithout any such restriction, that his meaning vvas, that vvhosoeuer did tast of them loaues should bo cured of his sick­ness. And effectualy, as many sick persons as did eat of the loaues, were cured; and this Miracle being publisht, such a multitu­de flockt to meet the Saint from all parts, that he was forct to decline the common road. No less authentick is that passage of S. Damascen, related by Iohn Hierosolymi­tanus in the lyfe of Damascenus, his own scholler and priuy to all his lyfe. Leo Isau­raus thar great persecutor of Images, vn­derstanding that Damascen was very actiue in defending their worship, and that he had writ learnedly in the defence of that Tenet; conterfeited a letter, as written by Damascen vnto him, inuiting him to sur­prise the Citty of Damasco, wherof he was Gouernor; this letter Leo Isaurus sent vnto Hisiam, Caliph, or King of the Saracens, [Page 109]whose subiect Damscen was; prouing then­ce the Treachery of Damascen, and his own sincerity and honesty in detesting so execrable an action of a subiect against so deseruing a Prince: Hisiam astonis [...]ht that Damascen should be capable of so base an action, consulted his Councellers, con­cluded him guilty, and condemn'd him to the forfeiture of his Means and Im­ployments, and that his right hand should be cut of, and nayld to a gibet in the Mar­ket place; which being executed, the saint retyred to his house, humbly beg'd of▪ Hisiam that his hand might be restored to him; this was granted; and the saint betaking himself to his Oratory, prostrated before the Picture of our B. Lady, earnestly prayed het, that that hand, which by the malice of Leo Isaurus he had lost for de­fending the honor of her and the saints Images might be restored to him; which. He promised he would continually im­ploy in defending that Doctrin against the Heresy of the I conoclasts: he fell asleep; and the Mother of God appearing to him, said; Theypetition is granted, and they hand resto­red; but remember to imploy it, according to they promise, in vvriting against the impie­ty of those vvho iniure vs by their vn vvorthy [Page 110]demeanor tovvards our Images: awaked out of his sleep he found his hand as perfectly vnited to his arm, as euer it hath been. This Miracle was diuulged; Damascen call'd by Hisiam; and after so supernatural a te­stimony of his Innocency, restored to his former dignities and Means; all which he renounced; gaue his Means to the Poore, and became a Priest, and a great Oppo­ser of the Iconoclasts. There is hardly any age of the Church but affords vs the lyke Miracles wrought by the Roman Catho­licks in confirmation of our Doctrin: it were tedions to rehearse more, especially when these now related are sufficient for the present subiect.

That these things happen'd (whither they were true Miracles or no, wee do not dispute now) but that such things as wee haue related, did really happen, no so­ber man can deny it; for certainly he would be held for an obstinat fool that would say, there was no such man as Cae­sar or Cicero in the world; that he neuer fought with Pompey; for which wee ha­ue no other warrant, but the testimony of Heathen Authors (for no Christian did euer see them) and none but a mad man will deny but S. Agustin, S. Bernard, Iohn-Hierosolimitanus [Page 111]and other saints and learned D. Doctors that writ the foremen­tioned passages, and others of the same kind in seueral other ages, are as much deseruing of credit, as the Heathens: and if you did meet in S. August. S. Bern. and other saints, that the figuratiue presence was belieued in their ages, and such as belieued Purgatory, were punisht, dout­less you would belieue them, and cry vic­tory against vs; it can not then be, but preiudice that will hinder you from be­lieuing those passages did happen, wheras they do in their writtings testify they hap­pen'd in their own presence▪ what cara­cter would he deserue, who would say, there was no such man as william the Con­queror in England; no such thing, as wars betwixt france an England in Ancient tyms; no such things a spanish fleet de­feated by the English, in Queen Elizabeths tyme and Philip the second of Spain. would not you iudge such à man to be mad: for all this wee haue no other war­rant but Histories; and the Authors were not, more honest, learned, wyse and ho­ly than S. Augustin, Bern: and other saints who relate Miracles wrought in all-ages-can he then deserue a better caracter, than [Page 112]of a mad man or fool that will deny them? moreouer either S. Augustin, S. Bern, and the other saints that relate those Miracles, did belieue the Tenets of Inuocation of saints, adoration of Images, and real Pre­sence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, or not? if they did, then you confess that the saints now raigning in heauen, and con­fessed by you to be saints, and none of the simple sort, but learned wyse men, did belieue and were saued in the belief of our Tenets: if they did not belieue them; what end or aduantage could they haue in feig­ning those Miracles: wee must therefore confess, those things did happen, in their own presence as they say. Lastly the Pro­testant Doctors do not deny but such things did happen; but they say they we­re no true Miracles: the Centurists, and Osiander in Epit. cent. 9.10.11. pag. 213. the Miracles vvhich superstitious Monks re­late, are either feigned Miracles, or vvrought by Satans enchantments to establish vvicked vvorship of Images, Inuocation of saints &c. not that I think S. Bernard vvas a Magician (saies Osiander Cent. 12. pag. 310.) but that I think it probable, Satan vvrought the Miracles, vvherby the saint himself, and others vvere deceiued.

Supposed then, that such things did real­ly happen, wee will proue they were, and wee are bonnd to belieue they were true Miracles: for this you cannot deny, but that S. August. S. Bern: Iohn Hierosol. and God fred. who were wyse learned, Holy D. Doctors did know what a Miracle was, as well as you: those saints, and the saints of other ages were ey wittness of what pass'd▪ they examined narrowly the passa­ges, and their circumstances; thy iudged them to be true Miracles; must not wee belieue them to haue been such, rather than your iugdment, who did not see the passages, nor was not born many hundred years after? and what is to be obserued, that when Damascens hand was restored, and S. Bernard cured the sick by the laoues he blessed; is it possible, if these had not been notorious miracles, but enchant­ments, that som Iconoclast, and som Hen­rician or vvaldenses, against whose Doctrin they were wrought, should not haue exami­ned and discouered the cheat? S. Bernard had many Enemyes infrance, all the Henri­cians, and Apostolici, vvaldenses; Damascen had the Emperor Leo for Enemy and all the Iconoclasts, and not only them but in the wery Citty of Damasco, all the Ambitious [Page 114]Courtiers; who enuyed his greatness, and pressed Hisiam to cut of his hand: and can it be imagined that none of all these should haue writ or published if that passage was a cheat and no knowen miracle? or by what means did the Centurists, Osiander, and Pro­testants in our age, come to discouer they were all but enchantments, which the ene­myes of those Saints, that then liued, could not discouer? Once that Luther in Germa­ny thought to cheat the world, and make men believe he could cast out Deuils, the cheat was discouered and many wri­ters of that tyme did relate it. Once that Caluin in Geneua thought to delude the world, and shew that he could rayse the dead, he 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 [Page 115]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 Scrib [...] 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 [Page 116] 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 [Page 117]without obstinacy deny them.

Now, that wee are obliged to belieue the doctrin in whose confirmation they wee wrought, its 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. [Page 118]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? [Page 119]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 [Page 120]for your obligation of honoring this par­ticular Man and woman, who are your Parents; its 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 these are your Parents; the­refore you are obliged to belieue that do­ctrin is true, in whose confirmation those Miracles were wrought.

You reply; this makes our Faith of that doctrin but fallible Faith; for if I haue no more assurance of the truth of those Te­nets, than I haue of the Miracles that we­re wrought in confirmation of them; of the truth of those Miracles, I only haue a moral assurance grounded vpon the testi­mony and iudgment of those saints which relate them; all which is but fallible; for it might happen they were deceiued; con­sequently all the certainty I haue of the [Page 121]truth of the Tenets, is but a moral and fallible certainty; and so our Faith is not infallibly true. I answer, the motiue of my Faith, and ground wher vpon it is bottom'd, is only the voyce of God pro­nounced by the Church, which deliuers that doctrin of God; which Motiue and ground is infallibily true. But because this Motiue is obscure, and does not ap­peare euidently and certainly to the vn­derstanding that it does exist, the vnders­tanding cannot assent vnto it, vntill it be made more knowen, and the way to make is more knowen, is not to make it euident that it exists; for the Motiue of Faith must be obscure, and it is against the essence and nature of Faith, to be euident, or the Motiue of it to be euidently proposed to the vnderstanding, as M^r Anderton does most solidly and learnedly demonstrat in his Treatise of a soueraign remedy against Atheism and Heresy: The way therefore of making it more knowen, is to make it eui­dently credible, and lykely in the iudgment of any rational man, that such a voyce of God speaking by the Church, is extant: and this is don by the Miracles and super­natural signs, which the Church works in confirmation of her Doctrin; which are [Page 122]vndeniable inducements to any man of reason to iudge it most credible and lyke­ly, that it is God who speaks by that Church: and our vnderstanding being thus confir­med by this iudgment of credibility then follows our obligation of belieuing the Doctrin; the credibility of the existence of Gods voyce by the Church, and our obli­gation of belieuing being thus proposed by our vnderstanding; The vnderstanding is still able to deny an assent to Gods voyce speaking, because nothing can force the vnderstanding to an essent, but the euiden­ce of the obiect; and its not euident to the vnderstanding, that God speakes, but euidently credible: therefore; the will must enter, which assisted with the preuious iudgment of the credibility of the doctrin, and a pious inclination from God, for to resolue, commands the vnderstanding to assent to Gods voyce speaking, in which command of the will determining the vn­dersting to Assent, the Merit of Faith doth consist. So that the whole and only Moti­ue of our assent of Faith, is Gods voyce speaking by the Church: the Miracles and other supernatural signs, are not the Motiues of our Faith, but of our Iudge­ment of credibility, and of our obligation [Page 123]of belieuing a Doctrin so credibly propo­sed: which Iudgment of credibility and obligation of belieuing, need not to be absolutly and Metaphisically euident, but morally euident in the highest degree of Moral euidence, as it is in this case, that true Miracles haue been wrought in many, or most ages by the Catholick Church in con­firmation of her Tenets. Reade the Resolu­tion of Faith in the 2. part of thise Treatise.

Your obligation of belieuing the Mira­cles of the Church being thus proued, your obligation of belieuing her infallible in all points of Doctrin, is most apparent: for God, whose veracity is infinit, cannot speake the least vntruth, nor deliuer it as his Doctrin, nor giue his commission to teach it; nor confirm it with the markes and scale of his Commission, for that would be to owne it te be his Doctrin reuealed by him; wheras therefore he has confir­med the Doctrin of the Catholick Church with so many Miracles, its impossible it should contain the least vntruth.

And when you would be so obstinat, as to doubt of all other Miracles, you can­not be so blind, as to doubt of the con­uersion of all Nations that euer were con­uerted to Christianity, by the Catolick [Page 124]Church; what Nation was there euer yet conuerted to Christianity by the Protestant Church? or in what History do you read that euer you sent Preachers to conuert Pagans? it was S. Austin, a Massing Priest sent by Pope Gregory the Great, that con­uerted England to Christianity; if you be­lieue the Chronicles of England: it was S. Xauerius a Iesuit, (to whom Sectaries haue no relation, if you will not make him Father of the Quakers) that conuerted the Indies; it was S. Patrick sent by Pope Ce­lestin, that conuerted Ireland; they were Priest and fryars and Monks that propaga­ted the Ghospell, in whom Protestants haue no Interest, but what their reuolt from the Church has giuen them in their Lands and estates▪ what Miracles, what conuer­sion of Nations to Christianity, what suc­cession of Pastors, since Christ his tyme, what General Councils that condemned Heresyes, can the Protestant Church shew? And is it possible, that God should haue giuen those glorious Marks of a true Church, to the Catholick Church, if it were not the true Church; and giue no visible Mark at all of a true Church to the Protestant, if it were the true one? both Churchs pretends to be the true, and sereual other [Page 125]Congregations pretends to the same: has God giuen no visible marks wherby to dis­tinguish his true Church from fals ones? otherwyse, why should wee be obliged to belieue This, to be the true Church, ra­ther than That other? and can it be imagi­ned, that he should haue giuen Miracles and supernatural signs to the Catholick Church, if it were the false one, and giue none to any other, if any other were the true Church.

Lastly I proue that the Roman Catolick Church, is infallibly true in her Doctrin Purgatory, real Presence, and any Doc­trin though smale and inferiour you call it. The Catholick Church as you confess, is infallible in fundamental points of Re­ligion, you say, (if you be a Protestant) that the Roman Church is still a true Chur­ch because it has not erred in the fundation or essential points of Faith. But if it did in any point whateuer, though smale you iudge it, it would etr in fundamental arti­cles of Religion: therefore it has not, nor cannot err in any whateuer: I proue the Minor. Its a fundamental article of Faith, that God is infinitly true, that he cannot tell an vntruth: but if the Doctrin of Pur­gatory were untrue, the Catholick Church [Page 126]would teach that God deliuers an vntruth; for the Church teacheth, that Purgatory is a Doctrin teuealed by God; if therefore Purgatory be an vntruth, she teachs that God deliuered an vntruth; and consequent­ly she errs in a fundamental article of Faith.

Now its tyme wee examin that impious Position of our new Minister, M^r Sall he follows much the tract of Luther his Grand Reformer, not in that he should haue dis­puted with the Deuil as Luther did, in points of Religion, for the Deuil is not so kind but to the grand Heresiarcks: thus far he imitats Luther that, in the beginning of his Apostacy, his chief drift was a separa­tion from the Catholick Church vpon any account whateuer; I say vvhateuer, for it is euident that the first Reformers had not fixed on any one settled Religion in opo­sition to the Catholick, wheras they were strugling and disputing for many years in seueral meetings, had to that purpose, to determin what ought to be belieued by all, and what articles of Popery ought to be denyed, and which not: which doth eui­dence, that their first drift was to separat from the Catholick, and their second en­deauour was to find out some other Reli­gion, [Page 127]wee haue the proof of this in the Chronocles of England, for their separa­tion from the Church of Rome began by the Schisme of Henry the Eight, which was quite different from the Religion his successor and Son Edwrad the 6. en­deauoured to establish; and this quite an other, from that which Queen Elizabeth introduced; for she would haue an Eccle­siastical Hierarchy, and other points de­nyed by the former: that which the Queen established, was fashioned to an other shape by King Iames and his successors. Nay to this day the Sectaries, who style them selues Reformed Religion, do not agree, what Tenets must be held in oposition to the Catholicks, but are sufficiently Refor­med by denying what the Catholick be­lieues. Thus doth M^r Sall proceed, for what he has proposed to himself was a separa­tion, howeuer it should be, from the Church of Rome, but you will find in his discourse that he is not yet throughly re­solued, what Religion to chuse and what to belieue; not only because that he has resolued to be of the Church of England which is an indiuiduum vagum ready to change with all gouernments, but that in his Declaration he professes to belieue the [Page 128]39. Articles of the Church of England, and pag. 39. he sayes, that the summe of his Faith is the written word of God and the plain vndubitable consequences out of it and it is manifest that the 39. Articles are not plain vndubitable consequences out of Gods written word: for, a plain vndu­bitable consequence, is that, which, the Pre­misses being granted, is iudged by all wise, learned, vnderstanding men, to follow out of the Premisses, and cannot be denyed be any wyse vnderstanding man; That in the Roman Catholick Church there are wyse, learned men, it were a madness to deny it; but a far greater madness to say that the Fa­thers and Doctors of all ages before those 39. Articles were coyned, were not wyse and learned men, that studied and vnderstood the Bible; and to all these the 39. Articles seems contrary to the word of God, so far they were, from iudging them plain, and vndeniable consequences out of it: And the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anabaptists and Huguenots of France, do not allow the 39. Articles of the Church of England, and consequently do not iudge them to be plain vndeniable consequences out of Scripture. So that you must say, that either all are a company of knaues that speake against [Page 129]their consciences, or that those 39. Articles are not plain and vndeniable consequen­ces out of Scripture; consequently M^r Salls some tymes belieues only Scripture, and its plain consequences; sometyms more.

But what proues that he is not yet throughly a Protestant (and so wee know not what he is, but a Not Catholick) is, his blasphemous Position, that there is not sal­uation in the Roman Catholick Religion; for it is the constant doctrin of the Church of England that the Catholick Religion is a sauing Religion: first, because this has been euer yet their complaint against vs, that wee are vncharitable in denying salua­tion in their Church, and they extol their own charity for granting that in the pro­fession of Popery (prouided, he has no other sin) a man may be saued. Secondly because they confess, there was a true Church extant, the age that Luther began the Reformation, and all the precedent ages, for its an Article of our Creed, the constant Existence of Gods Church, I be­lieue the Catholick Church; and that there was no other Church then extant, but the Roman Catholick Church, they also con­fess it, and must grant it; for the essence of [Page 130]the true Church consisting as they say, in the due administration of the Sacraments, and preaching of the word of God; and no other Church being extant in Luthers age, and the precedent, that administred Sacraments or preached the Ghospell but the Roman Church; doubtless it must haue been the true Church; for in what King­dom, Prouince, Citty, Village, Church or Chappell in the world was these things, or any of them, don by Protestants? its therefore the constant doctrin of Protes­tants, that Roman Catholick Church was then the true Church, and is now a true Church, for its the same now that then it was. Now, that a man may be saued in the true Church of God, prouided his lyfe be good, it were a blasphemy to deny it; consequently its a blasphemy to say, that in the Roman Church a man may not be saued; and it were to say that all our An­cestors, for so many ages, all the Fathers Doctors and saints confessed by the Pro­testants shem selues to be saints, were all damned.

Neither can M^r Sall excuse his Blas­phemy, and cure the wound with that plaister of Ignorance which he applyes, saying that Papists (pag. 116.) may be excu­sed [Page 131]by ignorance; and this smale comfort, he will not grant but to the simple sort, and not at all to the learned men. So that none of our Ancestors were saued for the space of so many hundred years, no saints that are confessed by both Parties to be such, if they were not fooles and ignorant peo­ple of the simple sort; wherby all the wy­se and learned Fathers and Doctors of the precedent ages, and of this age are absolut­ly damned. Nay and Thomas Aquinas, which he him self styles a saint, and none of the simple sort▪ but a learned Doctor, who confessedly was a Papist is also damn'd. Its impossible that his Auditors, if they were of the Church of England, could heare him with patience, to cast all their Ancestors to hell; a Blasphemy so oppo­sit to the Doctrin of their Church; whe­rein doth the Charity of the Protestant Church consist, and they do vaunt that they exceed the Catholicks? is it in saying that by ignorance a Papist maybe saued in his Religion, prouided his lyfe be good? this is no excess of Charity, for wee grant also (as wee will declare in the ensueing Chap.) that Protestants, and not only they, but Heathens and Iews may be saued in their Religion, if they be igno­rant, [Page 132]and liue well. wee are but little be­holding to the Protestant charity, if they grant no greater capacity of saluation in the Roman Catholick Religion, then in Paganism and Iudaism. No S^r since you are resolued to be a Protestant let me teach you their Doctrin; its thus: they say wee are guilty of errours, that their Tenets of figuratiue Presence, No Purgatory &c. are vn­deniable plain consequences out of Scri­pture, and therefore wee err in denying them: and that wee do err blamably and willfully, because they are plain vndubita­ble consequences out of Scripture; (as you say also M^r Sall (and wheras wee haue the scripture, and belieue it to be the word of God, and haue wits to vnderstand, and sufficient instruction, wee cannot but be willfully ignorant, which ignorance is not sufficient to excuse vs from blame for not belieuing: but they say, that our denying of them articles, though wee be obstinat in our denyal, will not damn vs, (if wee haue no other sin) because they are not fundamental Articles of Faith; our errours do not shock the essential parts of religion, though it were better and more safe to belieue them, yet their belief is not absolutly requisit for saluation. This is the [Page 133]Doctrin of the Church of England; they grant vs saluation, not for any ignoran­ce, but because wee hold the substance and all essential points of Faith.

Its therefore that Bramhal, Bishop of Armagh, called the Articles wherin the Protestant dissent from the Catholick Church, Pious opinions, and concluded that both Churchs had true Faith, its the­refore that Doctor Stillingfleet compares both Churchs, the Catholick to a Leaky ship, wherin a man may be saued, but with great danger and difficulty; and the Protestant to a sound ship, wherin one may be saued without hazard. Its therfore that King I ames in the meeting of the Protes­tant Clergy at Southampton pronounced this sentence; vvee detest in this point the cruelty of the Puritans, and iudge them de­seruing of fire, vvho affirm that in the Po­pish religion a man may not be saued: reade the Doctors of your Church; Luther c. 6. and c. 4. in Gen. Osiander in epitom: p. 2. pag. 1073. Melancthon in Conf. Aug. art. 21. printed at Geneua, an: 1554. zuinglius in epis. dedicat: of his Confession of Faith to francis the first, king of france. Doctor field l. 3. de Eccl. c. 9. Bunnie in tract. de pacif: sect. 18. whitaker q. 5. c. 3. Hooker l. [Page 134]de Pol. Eccl. but it were tedious to name all; not any of the Church of England, nor of the Lutherans but confess that the Catholick Church, is a sauing Church be­cause it has not erred in any fundamental points; that wee are of one and the same Faith, as to the substance.

Its true the Rigid Puritans, and the Hu­gonots of france do say, that the Catho­lick Church did err in fundamental points of Faith necessary for saluation; and that therefore there is no saluation in her Com­nunion: and the Hugonots are of this sen­timent, but since about the yeare 1634. for before, they constantly belieued with the Church of England, that the Catholick Faith was a sauing Faith; witness the answer of the Hugonot Diuins to Henry the fourth of france, who asking if a man could be saued in the Roman Religion, they answered yea; wher vpon he pru­dently choosed that Religion, which in the iudgment of all Parties was a sauing Re­ligion Spondanus ad an 1593. But M^r Sall does not Profess to be a Puritan, nor Hu­gonot; and how come he to vtter such an impious expression?

But I will proue against him and his Associats Puritans, and Hugonots, that [Page 135]there is saluation in our Religion, euen in their own Principles: for either the true Church can err in fundamental points, de­structiue of saluation, or not; if not, then the Roman Church, which in the confession of you all, was the true Church, before, and in Luthers age, did not err in any point of doctrin repugnant to saluation; if it can, then your Church, though it should be, as you pretend, the true Church can err also in fundamental points: and you consequently, cannot know if you be in the way of saluation. Secondly you con­fess that the Lutherans and Protestants are in a true way of saluation; but if the er­rours of the Catholik Church were funda­mental and damnable; They could not be in a sure way of saluation; for it is as dam­nable an errour, to say that a man may be saued in the profession of damnable er­rours; as to profess them: for example its as damnable an errour to say, that a man may be saued denying Iesus-Christ, as it is to deny him; vae qui dicitis bonum ma­lum; if the Catholicks therefore be in a damnable state for professing those, which you call errours; the Protestants and Lu­therans; who vnanimously say, they can be saued in the actual profession of those [Page 136]errours, must be in a damnable state. You must then either absolue both, or con­demn both: besids, the Lutherans hold some Points with the Catholicks, which you condemn as damnable errors in our Religion, for example, the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist; yet you belieue the Lutherans may be saued in their Religion; therefore you must grant saluation to the Catholicks.

And now let vs draw M^r Sall by the skirt, and mind him of what he sayes pag. 24. The Arch. B. of Cashel his instructor, discoursed with him, and his modesty (pag. 28▪) added great vveight to his reasons; Poore soul; how simply you were foo­led out of your Religion, as appears by this passage: His Lordship acknow-led­ged the Catholick Church vvas a part of the true Church: (but not the vvhole) and M^r Sall fancyed to perceiue such an admi­rable charity and real desire of vnion among Christians, in this noble acknovv-ledgment of his Grace, in granting vs that Honorable Title, that he presently yielded all respect and submission to his reasons. Open your eyes, Poore Man, you are charm'd by your ins­tructors modesty, and cheated of your Re­ligion by fayre words. Honorable title? [Page 137]wherin doth the Honor of that Title of Catholick consist, if it does not signify a Profession leading to saluation? is it be­cause that wee belieue many articles of Christianity, though wee deny some? then the Title of Arrian and Pelagians is Hono­rable; which Professions belieued diuers Tenets of Christianity. Is it because that by ignorance wee may be excused and be saued? but you say, that only the simple sort can haue that ignorance; and besids, Iews and Pagans may be saued in their respe­ctiue Professions, if they can claym igno­rance. Thus that Honorable title, which sounded so plea sant to your ears is but an empty voyce.

His Instructor granted the Church of Rome to be a part of the Catholick Church, but not the whole; and M^r Sall did see such a vein of Charity and zeale to run through these vvords that he was rauish'd: was euer, Poore soule so deluded. why did not you ask, what his Lordp meant by Roman Church, if he meant the Dioces of Rome; that indeed is a part of the Catholick Church, but that is not the Church wee speake of; that wee say, is infallible; and wherof vvee are Members, (for wee are no Mem­bers of that Church) wherin wee say, man [Page 138]must be saued if in any: but if his Lordp did speake to the purpose, and to what wee belieue; by the Roman Catholick Church, as I declared 5. ch. and in the en­trance to this chap. wee vnderstand all Christians throughout the world vnited in Faith and Communion with the Church of Rome; which is the chiefe and Mother Church: if he sayes, This is but a part of the Church of God; where is the other part? I say where was it when Luther began his pretended Reformation? for then there was no visible Congregation of Christians (at least No Protestants nor any thing lyke them) that did administer Sacraments and preach the word of God, but was vnited in Faith and Communion with the Roman Church; only such as were then held by Luther, and now by vs schismatick as you are: which then, was the other part of Christ's true Church? but this is not all; how could he say, and you belieue, that the Roman Church, (take it either for the Dioces of Rome, or as wee vnderstand it,) is a part of the Catholick Church, if it be guilty of damnable errors? can that be the true Church, or any part of it, that pro­fesses damnable errors against Faith? S. Athanasius his Creed sayes, no: for it: requi­res [Page 139]to haue an entyre and inuiolable Faith: and you that is a Professor of Diuinity, will say, that a particular Person who holds damnable errors against the doctrin of the Church and obstinatly adheres to them, is an heretick, and no member of hers: conse­quently you must say, (and your Instructor deluded you in saying the contrary) that the Roman Church can be not part of the true Church, if in her there was no sal­uationthrough damnable errors in doctrin.

You see M^r Sall that against the doc­trin of the Church of England, against your own and your Instructors concessions, you haue engaged in that blasphemous assertion of not saluation in the Catholick Church, to vse your own expression, pag. 75. to spight the Catholick you ran beyond all measure, euen of your ovvn principles; as to spight the Ievv, and seem a good Christian, one vvould eat more Pork, than his stomak can beare. And to get the credit of a sound and zealous Pro­testant among your new Brethren, you haue exceeded them in decrying the Church.

But the Reader will vnderstand by what I haue discoursed in this Chapter, that the Catholick Church is the true Church; that she cannot err in any point whateuer of Re­ligion, [Page 140]and consequently, that saluation is to be sought in her.

VIII. CHAPT. THAT THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it: That they cannot vvithout blasphemy alleadge Scripture for their Tenets: That they haue not one, and the same Faith vvith Catholicks: that out of the Catholick Church there is no saluation. Hovv far can ignorance excuse Protestants.

IT is the constant doctrin of the Prote­stant Church (for I call not the Puritans and Hugonots of France, Protestants, whose error in this point I haue she wen in the former chap.) that the Catholick Church has not erred in fundamental points of Religion; because the true Church, (such as the Catholick was before Luther confessedly, and now is, in their acknow­ledgment) cannot err in essential and fun­damental articles, consequently they dis­course, that the Protestant and Catholick Church, differ only in points not funda­mental, and inferior truths, which, say [Page 141]they, are pernicious errors, but break not Vnity of Faith, nor destroyes not saluation. That the true Church can err, and is falli­ble in points not fundamental and inferior truths. This is faithfully the doctrin of the Protestant Church, as you will find in the Authors I quoted in the former Chapt. in Stilling fleet in his book miscalled a Ratio­nal Account and in seueral others cited in the Protestant Apology, tr. 1. c. 6. and tract. 2. c. 2.

Now wee must consider, what is the Protestant Church properly; it belieues many Articles (and as they say all funda­mental Articles) that the Catholick belie­ues: so far they are not Properly Protestants, but their proper Notion is to be taken from those Tenets, wherin they differ: so that Protestancy properly, and as it is con­distinct from Catholecism, or Popery, as you say; is the doctrin wherin the Protestant Church differs from the Catholick. Now I proue that the Protestant Church, as it is properly the Protestant Church, condistinct from the Catholick, is not the Church of Christ; because it does not teach the doc­trin of Christ; and no Church can be called of Christ further that it teacheth his doc­trin; and doubteless if wee did ask the [Page 412]Protestants and first Reformers, why they did separate from the Catholick Church, they would say. To belieue and practise the Doctrin of Christ, vvhich the Catholick denyed. But I will proue that their doctrin, for which they separated from vs, and wherin they differ from vs, is not the Doctrin of Christ.

The argument is in Ferio, thus: No fallible doctrin is the doctrin of Christ. For who would be so blasphemous, as to say, that what Christ has taught is fallible Doctrin: But Pro­testancy (thats to say all the Doctrin wherin Protestants differr from Catholicks and for which they separated from vs) is altogether fallible Doctrin; therefore Protestancy, as it is properly the Doctrin of the Protestant Church, is not the Doctrin of Christ: That Protestancy, or the Doctrin wherin wee differ, is all falli­ble Doctrin, its manifest; for Protestancy, or Doctrin wherin wee differ, is altogether of points not fundamental; wee all agree in the fundamental Articles, as they vnani­mously confess; wee only differ in inferiour Truths, wherin the Catholick Church has erred. But the doctrin of points not funda­mental and inferior truths is fallible Doctrin; for its their constant Doctrin also, that the true Church, be it the Catholick or Prote­stant, [Page 143]can err and is fallible in articles not fundamental, and inferiour truths: therefore all your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin; therefore its not the doctrin of Christ. I confess ingenuously, I think this argument cannot be solidly answered.

For is it not certain, that you differ from vs, as you say, only in not fundamental arti­cles? is it not also your doctrin, that the true Church is fallible in articles not fun­damental; how can it then be denyed, but; that you differ from vs only in fallible doc­trin; the doctrin wherin you differ from vs is Protestancy, and nothing els is properly Protestācy, but that for which you departed from vs: therfore your Protestancy is but fallible doctrin, and consequently not the doctrin of Christ.

Hence I infer that you cannot without Blasphemy looke for your doctrin in Scri­pture; no text or word of God can be al­leadged for Protestancy; nor any other warrant but your meer fancy: for your pro­testancy is but a parcell of fallible doctrin, and no fallible doctrin can without Blasphe­my be sought for in Scripture, which con­tains nothing but Gods infallible word. Ob­serue how vainly the Protestants do boast their Religion, and differēce from vs to be [Page 144]bottom'd on the word of God; that their fi­guratiue Presence, is cleer in the Scripture that they will proue the pretended errors for which they forsook vs, by Scripture: they amuse the poore People with the specious pretext of Scripture; no Rule of Faith but Scripture; no Iudge of Controuersy, but Scripture; no warrant for Diuin wor­ship, but Scripture, and after all, its ma­nifest by my former discourse, that no Article of Protestancy, as it is a particular Doctrin distinct from Catholecism▪ can wi­thout sacrilege be sought for in Scripture.

If the Protestant Church be not The Church of Christ, it can be no part of it, for the same reason which, but now, I proposed, for that no Article of Prote­stancy is the Doctrin of Christ, being all but fallible Doctrin; if they will not pre­tend to be a part of the Church because they belieue the chief and fundamental Ar­ticles, wherin they agree with vs; and thats ridiculous, because, in so much they are not Protestants; its not for them Ar­ticles that they departed from vs, and set vp a distinct Church, this is to be a part of the Church in as much as they can pretend to be of the Roman Catholick Church: and if they might be called a part of the Church [Page 145]for that reason; Pelagians, Eutychians, and other Heretick Congregations may be called so also, and thus the Church of Christ insteed of being the House of Peace and vnion, be a house of confusion.

Out of this discourse also wee may vn­derstand, how vain is the pretence of Pro­testants and seueral other sects, to vnity of Faith with the Roman Catholicks; for when wee vrge them with this argument; There is but One Faith, as there is but one God S. Paul Eph. 4. without that one Faith, its impossible to please God; the Catholick Church has that Faith, for you ackowledg its a true and a sauing Faith, that holds all Articles necessary for saluation; if therefore there be but one sauing Faith no other will saue but the Roman Catholick Faith: they are so grauel'd with this discourse that they are glad to claim kinred with vs, and say that wee all, Catholicks, Lutherans Pres­biterians and Protestants, haue but one and the same Faith, as to the substance and Es­sentials of Faith; because wee all belieue the Prime and chief Articles of Chlistiani­ty, Christs Incarnation, Passion, &c. which with a good moral lyfe is sufficient for sal­uation; nor is it possible that God will con­demn a man that belieues those Articles, [Page 146]and liues a good lyfe, for denying Purgato­ry, a tryfle nothing material if there be any or not. This Omnifidian Doctrin of the Lati­tudinarians is now in great vogue, and cryed vp for a charitable Doctrin that ex­cludes none from saluation, but lycenceth you to change Religions as your Interest or conuemency requires.

Out of this Principle follows, that if they haue not the same Faith with the Ro­man Catholicks, they haue not a sauing Faith; otherwise there would be two sauing Faiths: But they are not of the sa­me Faith, nay they are of a far different; for its not enough for vnity of Faith with the Catholicks, to belieue the Prime fun­damental Articles; but all and euery par­ticular Article, though inconsiderable it may seeme to you, which the Catholick Church proposes to be a reuealed truth: any one Article that you deny, though smale it be, for example Purgatory, breaks vnity of Faith with the Roman Catholick Church.

The Church belieues the Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and belieues the Lawfullness of Marriage; and the lawfullness of eating any victuals. You cannot iustly say, that one of these Arti­cles is more. Fundamental than the other: [Page 147]why should the Lawfullness of Marriage be a Fundamental point of Religion, more than the real Presence? by your sence of Fundamental and not fundamental Articles, they are of a seyse. And what think you? would he that agreeth in all other Articles and deny only the Lawfullness of Marria­ge, would he, I say, haue vnity of Faith with the Catholick Church? by your rule he would, because he agrees in all funda­mental, and Prime points; he only differs in an inferior truth, a smale matter. Yet S. Paul expresly sayes that he would not: 1. Tim. 4.3. in the lather dayes certain vvill depart from the Faith (obserue the word depart) attending to the Spirit of errors and Doctrin of Deuils, for bidding to Marry and abstain from meats. Doth not this proue that the denyal of smale Articles breaks vnity of Faith? you cannot therefore pre­tend to haue the same Faith with the Ro­man Catholicks, that deny many Articles of their Faith.

Secondly the resurrection of the flesh is indeed a fundamental Article, contai­ned in the Apostles Creed; but if it be to come at the end of the world, or already past, to such as are dead; each soule after mans death reassuming again his body in [Page 148]a short tyme, as Hymenaeus and Philetus said, its no fundamental Article, as you Protestants vnderstand fundamentals, for the chief and prime Articles: yet S. Paul sayes of these two 2. Tim. 2.18. their speech spreadeth lyke Canker, of vvhom is Hyme­naeus and Philetus vvho haue erred from the truth, saying that the Resurrection is past, and haue subuerted the Faith of some. Behold the denyal of smale and inferiour truths, is called by S. Paul, a spreading canker, an erring from the truth, a subuersion of the Faith; it breaks therefore vnity of Faith; and hence conclude, that you haue not vnity of Faith with the Roman Church, though you belieue with her the Trinity, Incarnation and other chief Articles, be­cause you deny many others, vnder the pretence of being smale and inferour Truths▪ and deceiue not your self with that distinction of fundamental and not fundamental Articles, wher with your Lea­ders do amuse you. No article whateuer is man obliged to belieue, if it be not suffi­ciently proposed to him that God has re­uealed it: and any article whateuer, which is sufficiently proposed vnto vs, to haue been reuealed by God; wee are obliged vnder pain of damnation to belieue: it [Page 149]so that as to our obligation of belieuing, all Articles are equally fundamental, if they be sufficiently proposed. Its true som Mysteries of Faith are of their own Natu­re more requisit, and needfull, and on that account may be called fundamental, as the Mystery of the Trinity, and Christ his Incarnation; but that is nothing to our purpose, what obliges me to belieue them, is not that they are so absolutly or greatly needfull, for no such absolut nor great necessity of Christ his death can be proued, he could haue redeemed vs with one tear he shed; yet it is a fundamental Article, because it is sufficiently proposed to me, to be a truth reuealed: so that in order to my obligation of belieuing, all Articles suf­ficiently proposed, as reuealed truths, are equally fundamental: And since that wee own our obligation of belieuing the Scri­pture to be Scripture, Trinity and Incar­nation, vpon the testimony of the Church which sayes they are reuealed Truths, since the same Church declares that Purgatory also is a reuealed Truth, I am as much obliged to belieue it, as the Trinity and Incarnation, though the Mysteries in them selues, be of an infinit inequality.

By this its proued that without the en­tyre [Page 150]belief of all and euery Article belieued by the Church of Rome, you haue not one and the same Faith with her; if you haue not her Faith, you haue not the true sauing Faith; for hers is such, and there is, but One: if you haue not a true sauing Faith, you cannot be saued: therefore out of the Church of Rome there is no saluation. Blame me not for this Assertion; blame S. Paul who saies there is no saluation wi­thout Faith, and saies there is but one Faith, which wee haue proued, and you confess to be our Faith: blame S. Augustin epist. 152. VVhoeuer is, or shall be separated from the Ca­tholick Church, although he thinks himself to liue most laudibly, for this one vvickedness, that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ, shall haue no lyfe, but the vvrath of God remayns on him; blame the Fathers of all ages, who vnanimously agree in this; that out of the true Church there is no saluation. By what I haue discoursed in the first chap. it is eui­dent there is but one Church: by what I haue discoursed in the progress of this Treatise and especially in these two last chap. I proued that this one true Church is the Roman Catholick Church. Its conse­quent therefore that out of her Faith and communion is no saluation.

Neither can wee be iustly accused of want of charity for holding this Tenet: by your acknowledgment (I mean the Prote­stants and Lutherans) the Catholick Reli­gion is a sauing Religion: but no Religion is a sauing Religion, that is not charitable, witness S. Paul 1. Cor. 13.2. If I should haue Faith, so as to moue mountains, and haue no Charity, I am nothing. Therefore you can­not say, but our Faith is a charitable Faith.

Answer me to this argument; God has commanded vnder the dreadfull punish­ment of being blotted out of the book of lyfe, to add nothing to, or diminish any thing from his word: Reuel 22.19. and Deut. 4.2. Either wee Catholicks do add to the substance and essentials of the Faith of Christ, by belieuing real Presence, and Pur­gatory to be fundamental points of Religion reuealed by God, or you Protestants do diminish from the substance and essence of his Faith by denying those points, and saying they are not substantial and essential points of Religion: either then, wee Ca­tholicks must be blotted out of the Book of lyfe, because wee belieue too much, and impose vpon the flock a larger belief than Christ has; or you Protestants must be blot­ted [Page 152]out of that book, because you take away some fundamental points which Christ has reuealed: it is therefore im­possible that in both Religions a man be saued. Either wee are not a sauing Reli­gion, because wee add fundamental points; or you are not, because you take them away, But by your acknowledgment, and by what wee haue proued wee are in a sa­uing Religion; therefore you must confess that you are not.

Now wee must examin if ignorance can excuse the Protestants, they pretend that they do not know they are in an error; ad heer wee will answer to what M^r Sall auers, that all Catholick Doctors confess, that a Protestant baptized, belieuing the Common Principles of Christianity, not conuinced of error against Faith, but con­ceiuing he follows the truth; is not an He­retick, but a member, of the Catholick Church; and so liuing a good lyfe may be saued; for which he cites our Catholick Diuins.

It is the constant Doctrin of our schools, that an inuincible ignorance of the Truth excuseth from the profession of it: and saying that it is the constant Doctrin, I need not cite Authors for it. An inuinci­ble [Page 153]ignorance, is when you haue no means, nor cannot get, after a diligent enquiry, any means, for to ouercome it, and be informed of the Truth. The second po­sition assented also vnto by our schools, that a vincible, supin, or gross ignorance doth not excuse you, from professing the Truth: and this kind of ignorance you are in, when you haue means afforded to you, for to instruct you, and through careles­ness or some other motiue, you do not make vse of those means: or if you haue not those means at hand; you may, if you enqui­re for them get them and be instructed; and in so weighty a matter as Christian Faith wherof depends your saluation; did you know that in Constantinople you could find them, you ought, setting all other consi­derations asyde, to go thither to seek them. Now wee all grant, that a Protestant who is inuincibly ignorant, that has no way, nor after due enquiry, can get no means to ouercom his ignorance, and be suffi­ciently informed of the truth of the Ca­tholick Tenet; such a man Baptized, be­lieuing the common Principles of Chri­stianity; and liuing a good lyfe will be sa­ued: but this is smale comfort, for of the Iews and Pagans wee must say the lyke. [Page 154]Secondly a Protestant (and there are I fea­re, many of this sort) that would amuse himself with the perswasion of being in an inuincible ignorance, and that his Te­nets will not condemn him, because, if in effect they should be false he is igno­rant of that, and his ignorance, which he perswads himself to be inuincible, will ex­cuse him, and will not be curious to en­quire any more; this man, I auerr is in sta­te of damnation; for its a damnable sin to expose himself to a manifest danger of professing a damnable error, but this man who perswades himself that he is inuincibly ignorant, and sooths himself with that perswasion, and so resteth content, ex­poseth himself manifestly to the danger of holding a damnable error: for what he has to secure him, is only an inuincible ignoran­ce, and what if that ignorance be not tru­ly inuincible? what if he be not certain, that his ignorance is inuincible? then it cannot excuse him: therefore wheras he does not certainly know that his ignorance is inuincible, he exposes himself to manifest danger of professing a damnable error.

But howeuer the Principle taken in itself is true; that if a Protestant be inuincibly ignorant, it excuses him. And wheras no [Page 155]man can certainly know that the ignoran­ce of a Protestant it not inuincible;, (only God can know that) certainly it is rash­ness in any man to say; this man that dyed in the Protestant Religion is damned. For in­uincible ignorance is a matter of fact; it de­pends, of, that the truth was not sufficiently proposed; that the means apointed by God for our instruction were not had, or could not be had; and how can you know certain­ly, that all Protestants haue the truth suffi­ciently proposed to them or that they ha­ue, or can haue the sufficient means to be instructed in the truth; nay or to doubt in the least of their own Profession: for exam­ple a 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 [Page 156]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 [Page 157]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, [Page 158]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 [Page 159]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 [Page 160]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 of it, has none; can any reasonable man desire a more pregnant proof of the truth of the Catholick Church, and falshood of the Reformation? reade the Historyes, and Fathers of all ages, you shall find the Mi­racles wrought by her, as I related in the former Chapter; you say you find them re­lated, but you do not belieue them: this I call, and cannot be called otherwyse than obstinacy; to deny what the whole Torrent of Antiquity affirms, as it would be obstinacy to deny there was a Iulius Cae­sar in the world, for which wee haue but the testimony of Historyes written by Pa­gans, for no Christian did see him. You say the Authors that relate those Miracles were Papists and therefore their testimony to be suspected. I answer the Authors who write those Miracles had no pike against Protestants, nor did not write out [Page 162]of any design against you, for you were not in the world, and therefore, you ought not to pretend any exception against them: and if but one or two did relate them, your reflexion could be pardonable; but to say that all the Fathers and Historians of Antiquity, were knaues that spoke a­gainst their consciences (many relating them to haue been wrought in their own presence) or fools that did not vnderstand what miracles were, is an intolerable im­pudence.

Add to the Miracles wrought by this Church in all ages, the conuersion of Na­tions to Christianity, (and none by the Re­formation) the succession of her Bishops without interruption for so many ages; (no such in the Reformation) Her Eminent Saints, (none in the Reformation) her vnion in Doctrin of Faith; (none in the Reforma­tion) the voluntary pouerty of her Profes­sors, exchanging plentifull estates for the powerty of a religious lyfe (a practise re­commended by Christ, and thought mad­ness by the Reformation) the multitude of Churchs built by her, and demolished by the Reformation. Does not all this proue our Church to be the true Church of Christ, that he has qualified with such [Page 163]glorious Marks. These makes our Church so glorious, and shyne lyke the Citty on the Mountain, lyke the candle in the cand­lestick, that it is hardly possible that any man can haue on inuincible ignorance of her being the true Church; and VVo be to the man, that relying on the perswasion of the inuincibility of his ignorance (which in effect is but obstinacy) will liue out of her.

I conclude with that Paper, that M^r Sall speakes of, wherin he deliuered that a Pro­testant, belieuing the common Principles of Christianity, and lieuing acording the rules of his profession, being inuincibly ignorant might be saued; for which doc­trin he complains to haue been censured; and cryes Victory, because that none of our Clergy did answer, though they did cen­sure him. He misinforms his Readers; it was not that doctrin which was censured, and if his Paper did contain no more than it; it required no answer; it was his indis­cretion was censured: and I will be iudged by you, Reader, if he was not indiscreet in this point: for if a Preacher were sent to conuert Pagans to Christianity, would it be discretion in him to teach them, Srs the Christian Religion is the best, but you may be [Page 164]very vvell saued in that vvhich you hold, if you be inuincibly ignorant. The doctrin is very true, but a man that goes to conuert them, to Christianity from a Religion that he knows is in itself false, ought not to en­courage them to remayn in that Religion, with the hopes of being sauedin it: his obli­gation is to beat them out of their igno­rance, and not to propose it vnto them, as a Medium of saluation: would not they answer him well; if wee can be saued through our ignorance in the Religion wee haue; why do you disturb vs with any other, and creat scruples in our minds? This is M^r Salls case that was sent to Ire­land to conuert Protestants who thought themselues perhaps to be inuincibly igno­rant: iudge you was it discretion to propo­se vnto them their inuincible ignorance as an encouragement to remayn in their errors. Its not allwayes discretion to decla­re the truth itself (when there is no obli­gation of declaring it, as in this there could be none: for the Nobility, which, he sayes, proposed him that question, were they Catholiks or Protestants? if Catholicks its manifest, they needed not to be instructed in that truth; its no fundamental point of Religion. If Protestants, they were not [Page 165]obliged to know it, for the same reason▪ and, that the answer was an encourag­ment to them to remayn as they were, and seek no instruction; and wheras they made that question it seems they doubted if in­uincible ignorance was sufficient; and if that answer had not been giuen; lykely the would secure their saluation by seeking instruction. This is the indiscretion, for which he was censured. Now wee will descend to the errors which he fixs on the Church of Rome.