THE VNERRING AND VNERRABLE CHURCH OR An answer to a Sermon preached by Mr Andrew sal, formerly a jesuit, and now a Minister of the Protestant Church.  
Written by I. S. and DEDICATED TO HIS EXCELLENCY The most honourable Arthur Earl of Essex Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.  
Anno 1675.   

TO HIS EXCELLENCY, THE MOST HONOURABLE ARTHUR EARL OF ESSEX, VISCOUNT MALDEN, Baron Capel of Hadham, Lord Lieutenant General, and General Governor of his Majesty's Kingdom of Ireland, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Hertford, and one of the Lords of his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council.  
MY LORD;  
I present unto your Exllency a vindication of both Churches, which a viper has endeavoured to bite, that the Catholic has bred in her bosom; to follow the Truth (if we believe him) he forsook all that was Dear unto him, he might have used that phrase of S. Peter since that what he had to forsake, was but Netlyke; but justly may we think he expected from Your Excellency, as S. Peter had from Christ, a return of a Seat; not such as Peter obtained, but as the children of Zebedee did pretend. But your Excellency, whose Decrees are living Echoes of the Royal sentiments, will adjudge him rather a Chalice to drink, than a Seat to exalt him; a Chalice, I say, such as the Royal Piety of King james prescribed to those of his blasphemous opinion, in the meeting of his Clergy at Southampton: We detest in this point the cruelty of the Puritans, and judge them worthy of fire, who affirm, that in the Popish Religion a man may not be saved.  
My Lord, all sober men of both Religions desire the execution of this sentence, against this impious assertion, pronounced in your Excellencies hearing, and given unto you in print (to profane both your ears, and eyes with a repeated blasphemy) by a late Revolted from our Church, and that, not only for a revenge of the injury done to your Excellency in particular, in adjudging your Noble Ancestors (who almost all died in that Profession) unto Hell; nor for condemning his own to the like misery, (if, for being of the simple sort, he will not plead for their salvation) but for the injury done to Christian Piety, to which that Position is contrary in the judgement of all learned Protestants.  
But what makes this execrable Position unpardonable in our Adversary, is that his own words accuse him to speak against his conscience: pag. 116. he says, Their Tenets are inconsistent with salvation, though ignorance may haply excuse many of the simple sort, but not such as know, or with due care and enquiry, may know their error. By this he exclues all Wise men of our Profession from salvation, and affords it only to the simple sort, or those who have an invincible ignorance. That heerin he speaks against his conscience, its most apparent; for in his discourse he often styles Thomas Aquinas a Saint; the first Reformers, and Passionate Sectaries degraded the Saints of their Canonization, but Mr sal, as yet, retains the respect due to their glorious memory. Whatever he might say of others, he knows well that S. Thomas Aquinas was of the Roman Religion, a friar of S. Dominicks Orders; None of the simple sort, or that could be invincibly ignorant, being well versed in Scripture and an Eminent Master in most sciences; He believed, professed, and taught our Tenets of Real Presence, Purgatory, etc. He was then in Mr Sall's judgement a Saint reigning in Heaven, and at the same time is condemned by him to hell, because he believed and professed Tenets inconsistents with salvation: is not this to speak against his conscience?  
He had wit, My Lord, to understand, he could not justify his separation from our Church, if in our Church there was not somewhat, inconsistent with salvation: for to separat from the true Church, under pretence of her being guilty of some errors, and of reforming her, by purging her from those errors, if the errors be not quite damnable, and inconsistent with salvation, is so far from being lawful, that such Reformers cannot be excused from Schism: All things should be endured (says S. Denis of Alexan. apud Euseb. Hist. Eecl. l. 6. c. 25.) rather, than to consent to the division of the Church of God; and says Iren. l. 4. cont. Heret. c. 62. No so important Reformation can be made, as the Evil of Schism is pernicious, for if those Errors be consistent with salvation, than they are no necessary cause obliging to a separation; the separation from the true Church is Schismatical and damnable, when there is no need, or necessary cause for separating; consequently, to separat from the true Church for Errors which are consistent with salvation is a most damnable Schism. Mr sal felt, perhaps, the force of this consideration, and to justify his separation from the Church uttered that horrid blasphemy of errors in her inconsistent with salvation.  
May it please, Your Excellency to consider what an injury he does to your cause in seeking to justify it by an assertion so contrary to your Church, and so odious to your Excellency's Piety, That there is no salvation in the Catholic Church, That her errors are inconsistent with salvation. It's far from your Excellency's Piety to believe that S. Thomas Aquinas, admired by the Word for his learning and sanctity, was condemned to Hell, and yet he believed and taught the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament: it's therefore no error inconsistent with salvation. Your Excellency will not believe that S. Augustin is in Hell, who professed and taught the Tenet of Purgatory, as appears in his Ench. c. 119. lib. 9 Conf. c. 13. and lib. de Haeres. c. 53. where he condemns Aetius as an Heretic, for denying sacrifice should be offered for the dead. Purgatory therefore is no Error inconsistent with salvation: Your Excellency will not patiently hear any man to say that S. Hierom is eternally damned, and yet he thought the veneration and use of the sign of the Cross Epist. ad Dem. and the veneration of Relics of Saints lib. cont. Vigil. S. Chrysostom prayed and exhorted to pray to Saints Hom. 43. in Gen. Hom. 5. & 8. in Mat. and must we say that Chrysostom is damned to Hell? These are the Errors, which Mr sal affirms to be inconsistent with Salvation; These are the Tenets, in whose Profession he says, no Wise and Learned Man can be saved, impiously condemning to Hell the forementioned, Saints which the Christian World reveres for the Pillars of the Church, and not only them but all Wise men Seculars and Ecclesiastic of all precedent ages to Luther, if invincible ignorance did not excuse them, which they could not pretend, nor can we imagine they could have, being the most learned Doctors of God's Church.  
If this Treatise did contain nothing else but a check of this rash and impious assertion, it would not be ungrateful to your Excellency; but had I left any thing unexamined of what he treats in his discourse, he would interpret my silence his own Victory, and flattering himself with a fond persuasion of the evidence of his arguments, would think unanswerable, whatever were not answered. And though he touches but lightly the Controversy of the Necessity of an infallible living judge of Controversies; yet for the respect I own to Your Excellency I endeavour to fathom this question: I say for the respect I owe to your Excellency, for wanting nothing to an accomplished happiness under your Excy's Government, but Unity of subjects in Faith and Communion, the greatest obligation I can cast on them, and testimony of my Duty I can exhibit unto your Excellency, is to show, by what means we may attain to that Unity; which is no other, than a living infailible judge, from whom we are to receive the true fence of Scripture. I wish my endeavours may be as successful, as my inclinations are real to show myself in all occasions,  
MY LORD, Your Excellencies most Humble, and faithful servant, I. S.   

THE PREFACE.  
IF men's wills were inclined to embrace the Truth, as their understandings are instructed to perceive it, we might spare our labour in writing, and cut short the number of Controversy Books that the world is glutted with. It's inclination is wanting to the will; not instruction to the understanding. Nature provided, the understanding should direct the will: That This should neither love nor hate; but as That, should represent the object worthy of hatred or love: but the malice of Man has preposterously inverted this order: now it's not the practice, that the will love, what the understanding knows to be good, but the will, biased by Interest, or other worldly considerations, doth incline, and in a manner force the understanding by the violence of our Passions, to adjudge for Good (let it be what it will) wathever suits best with her depraved inclinations. Hence there are as many Religions in the State, as there are Interest's; that bias the Subjects; we should therefore lay our pens aside; and by a constant address of our prayers to God, beg his Grace for to reform the will, which with the cloud of her desordered Passions darkens our Reason; and lessen our Transgressions, which stupify our minds: for certainly, it's not light, that is wanting in so learned an age; but sinsabound which indispose our eyes to see it.  
But whilst our Adversaries decry our Religion, with such a stream of Pamphers, as floweth daily from the Press; shall we by our silence starve our Cause, and make it suspected of weakness, in giving some ground by our muteness, to think it cannot be defended? or shall we spare a little Ink to defend, what we are obliged to assert with our blood? This hath moved me to write this Treatise; and that as some receive better nourishment from grosser meats, than from  fare; it may happen, that some one may meet with these lines, and receive more spiritual nourishment from them, though rudely worded, and in a plain style, than from the learned Treatises eloquently penned by others. Being a Debtor (with S. Paul) to the wise and unwise, I endeavour to satisfy, Them, with the strength of my Reasons; and These by stooping to vulgar expressions, and sometimes to Periods which might be well omitted, if only Men of quick Apprehensions were to read what I writ, to open my fence to those of common understanding.  
What chief hath moved me to publish these lines, was the dismal fall, of Mr Andrew sal; a jesuit, and a Professor of Divinity and Controversies, as he tells us, all which qualifications, if true, makes his Revolt from the Church more criminal. He desires he may be answered seriously and soberly setting a side all bitterness, calumnies and railleries, all which he shall easily obtain of me, far from insulting over any Christian for his weakness; but rather drawing from it a caution for my own safety. I am not of the severe opinion of those servants, who would pluck out presently the Tares, which budded in the field of Corn Mat. 13. but advised by the Master of the field to forbear with patience; zizania dimitti iussit, (says S. Chrysoft. hom 30. in 9 Mat. ut poenitentiaelocus daretur. He commanded the Tares should not be touched, that there might be time for repentance: Because, as. S. Augus. says serm. 46. etiam ipsa zizania saepe in triticum mutantur. Perhaps that which now is Tare, may by the kindness of the soil, and celestial influence become wheat; which Experience hath often shown to be a wholesome advice; whereas many that have fallen, have by God's Mercy recovered, and by repentance been raised to a higher degree of Sanctity, than the Innocent attained unto, who never did fall. And if it be true (what he says) that some have aspersed him with base calumnies, and laid ambush for his life; I am so far from approving that practice that I think it an effect of insolency and pride, which blinds them not to consider their own frailty, and what they may be: we ought rather to pity his misfortune, and praise God, that has not suffered us to split on the same Rock: and since we do not know, but that by God's mercy, he may be reclaimed, why should we upbraid him Pharisee-lyke, whom, for aught we know, God has designed to make by a generous conversion and acknowledgement of his error, superior to us in his Glory?  
This just moderation shall guide my pen; neither can Mr sal justly complain that I exceed it, in letting the world know that he spreads too much his Talents and employments in empty Titles, nay and fictitious ones. Professor of Moral Theology in the Royal College of Salamanca; no more than in with Hall at London. Professor of Controversies in the Irish College of Salamanca, and his Auditory composed of Spaniards french and Irish. No controverfies taught in that College, nor has not been these forty years: and how unlikely it is to be true, what he says, may appear, in that he says his Auditory was composed of Spaniards, a People that cannot endure any dispute of the Principles of Religion, altogether strangers to matters of Controversy: and of frenchmen; and it is as hard to find a french Studiant in the university of Salamanca, or any other of Spain, as a Swallow in winter, especially that when Mr sal was in Salamanca, the war betwixt France and Spain was very hot, and likely they must have got a Safeconduct to go to be Mr Sall's Scholars. Professor of Divinity in Pamplona Tudela and Palencia in Spain. In the Colleges of Tudela and Palencia there is not nor was there at any time Divinity taught: in Pamplona, indeed he was Professor of Divinity, for one or two years; and had they been as content of him, as he was of himself, he would have continued many more. Rector of the Irish College he was; an employment that requires no more than a mediocrity of discretion to govern half a dozen Lads peaceably; and I know not was it a greater credit for him to have been in that imployement, than to have been cast out of it before the years end, when others continued it for three years at least, and commonly for 6. or eight years. As for other things that might be said, I will take no notice of them.  
And even from this moderate reprehension of his vanity, I would have willingly abstained, did he not oblige me to it. For I appeal to the Protestant Reader, whether it be not fit, that when he pretends by fictitious Titles to gain credit to his cause, and to his arguments with the vulgar People, I should open their eyes, to see that he is not, what he says he is The Priests and Leuits, sent by the jews to the great Baptist, to know what he was 10.1. made him two very different questions, What are you; What do you say of yourself; Knowing that often times, there is a vast difference betwixt what a man really is, and what hè says he is. And this never appeared more apparently, than in the great difference that is, betwixt what Mr sal is, and what he says he is. And it is very important for the truth of the cause which I defend, that the Reader take notice of this difference: for wise men, dot not so much consider the quality of the person that speaks, as what he speaks; and value not an argument, for his sake who proposes it, but for its own merit: But Men of vulgar capacity, who do not understand the strength or weakness of an argument; value it not for what it is in itself; but for the learning and credit of the Person, that proposes it whence it is, that men of common understanding, who know not the weakness of Mr Sall's arguments, will, not withstanding, believe them to be very pregnant, because they are of a man of that vogue and credit, which he most unjustly usurps, of a great Divine, a Venerable Rector, and Professor of Divinity: so that the most dangerous weapon wherewith he attacks us, is his credit and Authority, which belongs not to him. If he were content to fight us with his arguments; we would be content with a bare answer, for upon the learned men they would never make any impression; nor upon the unlearned, who to value an argument, only looks on the Proponent: but when he comes to fight us, in the shape of a very learned Divine, and a great Master in Sciences; we must unmask his ignorance and vanity, lest his arguments, which in themselves have no force, assisted with that usurped credit and authority, may work on the Spirits of ignorant People.  
Perhaps this Treatise may seem larger, than might be thought necessary for an answer to Mr Sall's discourse: I confess it is; and were I to consider only what his discourse deserves, it required no answer; for it contains nothing but what has been said twenty times and answered so many more: though, this being the first Essay of this great Divine in favour of Protestancy, its strange if he were so learned as he would have us believe him to be, but that it should be an exquisite piece: yet I have thought fit to answer it, and do intent not only an answer to him, which could have been done in fewer lines, but an exact discussion of the Points he toucheth, and particularly of that prime and great Controversy of which depends the resolution of all others, The infallibility of a living judge of Controversies, which is the Church. Therefore, for a full satisfaction of those that desire to know and embrace truth I divide this Treatise into two Parts; in the first I will prove the Necessity of a living infallible judge of Controversies, and prove it to be the Roman Catholik Church. In the second I will examine those pretended Errors, which he fastens on our Church; and will endeavour to leave nothing unanswered that he objects against us, though I may prepone or postpone his arguments as the Method of my discourse requires. If my labour Prove to your spiritual advantage, I am sufficiently rewarded; if not, I shall not want a reward from him that erowns good desires▪ far well.  
Your friend in Christ jesus I. S.   

THE FIRST PART PROVING the necessity of an infallible living judge.  

I. CHAPTER. BUT ONLY ONE TRUE RELIGION. The need full Means afforded by God to come to the know legde of it.  
THAT God is to be adored, it's the voice of Nature, pronounced by all Nations: Reason proves 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 unto 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 unlimited, his Perfections innumerable. But it is not arbitrary to Man, to adore God with what manner of Worship his fancy suggests unto him; or his private spirit inclins him unto. God, as he requires a Worship at our hands, so he has himself revealed, what manner of Worship he requires. Perdiscamus (says 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 Moses' Levit. 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 revealed to Mankind a new manner of divine 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 heaven should recommend unto us an other manner of divine worship, we should not heed him.  
This worship of God, revealed by him to Man, is true Religion; worship him ever so much, if you do not adore him, as he has revealed he would be worshipped, you have not true Religion. That there is a true Religion extant, it's doubtless, both for that we pretend each of us, his own Religion to be the true one; and that God has laid a command upon us, and we 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, wherewith the world abounds, there is but one true Religion, (whatever, and wherever it be) it's also manifest; for true Religion is that manner of divine worship, which God has revealed; but God has not revealed those several manners of divine worship, which do oppose and contradict one another: if it be he that revealed we should worship him by denying the Messiah, as the jewdoes; certainly it must not be he that revealed we must worship him by believing in the Messiah as the Christians do: consequently both those Religions of judaism and Christianity must not be true Religions. If it be he that commanded, we should worship him by believing the real Presence of Christ his Body in the Eucharist; certainly it's not he that commanded, we 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 proved: No Religion, wherein God is duly worshipped, and a man may be saved; can justly be called, an accursed, heretical, and damnable Religion; this Position is evident: (consequently it appears how unjustly Protestant's call the Catholic Religion, Idolatrous and superistitious; it being by their own acknowledgement as we will prove against Mr sal, a religion wherein we may be saved and consequently wherein God is duly worshipped) But S. Paul in express terms, does anathematise, accurse and condemn all and each Religion, (even those that are Christian Religions) besides that one which he and his fellow Apostles did teach; if we (Gal. 1.9.) or an Angel from Heaven, should Euangelize unto you, otherwyse than as we have done, let him be accursed: pursuant to which doctrine, Hymenaeus, Philetus and others, declining some what the doctrine of the Apostles, in the Article of the Resurrection of the Body, not absolutely denying it, but saying it was already past 1. Tim. 1.20. and 2. Tim. 2.18. they still remained 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 subvertors of the Faith; which would have been a manifest injustice in him, if they stiil remained in a true Religion, where God was duly worshipped: it follows therefore that no other, even 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 life were sufficient for salvation, the Prelates and Pastors of the Church in all ages are to be laughed at, for their continual care of keeping their flock in unity of Faith and doctrine, whereas any Religion was sufficient with a good Moral life, the General Councils were most rash and impious in condemming Arrius Nestorius, and other heretics, whereas they still remained Christians, and the lyues of many of them were most just and upright as S. Augustin testifies of the Pelagians. Let the Libertins then, of our age be undeceived, who to secure their interest and ambition are ready to embrace any Religion, that is the most prevalent in the state; for all (though Christians) Religions but that one which S. Paul professed; all but that, whose unity the Prelates and Concils did endeavour to preserve, are accursed, heretical and impious.  
Now since of all Religions, that only is the true, which God has revealed unto us; and that no other worship will please him; doubtless he has afforded us the needful and sufficient means, to know what Religion it is, and to distinguish it from other pretended Religions which he has not revealed. Without Faith and Religion it is impossible to be saved; God therefore who desires our salvation, and commands us under pain of damnation to have true Faith, must have provided us of the means necessary to attain to true Faith. Let us examine what Faith is: It's an Assent given to an object, for the testimony of him that proposes it: it is therefore grounded on the Authority of the Proponent; and can have no more assurance of the Truth, than the testimony on which it is grounded as for example Human Faith, wherewith I believe what a Man of credit and known honesty tells me, can have no more certainty, than the credit and honesty of that Man has: and whereas Men, let them be few or many in Number, using only natural means, may deceive or be deceived; either in the testimony they give, or in the grounds of their Assertion; be it the evidence of their senses, (which are subject to fallacy) or the evidence of their Natural reason (for some times, reasons that seem to us evident, are but sophistries) it is manifest that human Faith, which relies 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 absolutely it might be otherwise, and so the Faith grounded upon it is still fallible.  
But divine Faith; That Assent which Gods requires of us to revealed 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 fear of being mistaken: and whereas Faith has no other assurance of the Truth, than the Authority of the Proponent, it follows that divine Faith must rely upon a most infallible undoubted Authority, which can not deceive or be deceived. Hence it follows that no evidence of senses, (for our sensations are deceitful) can be a sufficient ground for divine Faith, nor no natural reason; for if it be probable, or only morally evident; it may be false, or falsified; if absolutely evident; it can be no ground of Faith, because Faith being an argument of things not appearing, as S. Paul says, it surpasses natural reason; and because that if it be evident, it forces the understanding to an Assent, and so leaves no place for the merit of Faith which consists in believing what the understanding may deny, because of the difficulty it finds in assenting to an obscure object; which the will assisted with the pious inclination overcomes, and thereby merits. No Histories nor doctrine of Fathers, no testimony or authority of any fallible Church or congregation, is sufficient, because divine Faith being infallibly certain must be grounded upon 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 unto us the revealed Truths, and on which we must bottom our Faith.  
Let us hear what Mr sal says as to this particular: he was once of opinion that Scripture alone was not the means appointed by God for proposing unto us the revealed Truths, their sense not being obvious even to learned men, and consequently not the means suitable to vulgar capacities, who being, as well as the learned, obliged to believe, 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 judge, assisted with his infallible spirit, that in case of doubt should determine our controversies, and declare unto us what we ought to believe. But, says he, pag. 27. the Archbishop of Cashell objecting, that we ought to be very wary in censuring the Wisdom of God, if this or that was not done in the government of the world, which seemeth to us good to be done; the Modesty of the Proponent added such weight to this advertisement that it touched me to the quick, and reflecting on this point in my solitudes, I see says he, we might as well say that it belongeth to the goodness of God, not to permit that his holy laws should be transgressed by vile creatures; nor that the Pastors of souls, especially the Pope, should scandalise their flock and as we do not judge it a failure in his goodness to permit sins; so we ought not waver in our opinion of his goodness and Wisdom, if he has not appointed a visible judge for our direction, having given us the holy Scriptures, which a bound with all light and heavenly doctrine, to such as are not wilfully obstinate.  
Briefly, Sr, here are three different opinions of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, Catholik, Lutheran, and Protestant: of the three quite opposite one to the other, God has revealed but one as I for merly discoursed; and obliges me under pain of damnation to believe that sense and no other; I say under pain of damnation, for said he, if you will not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. Io. 6. must I not expect of God's goodness that he will afford unto me what is absolutely need full to acquit this obligation? he absolutely requires of me to believe that sense, and no other of those three which he revealed: must I not then expect of his goodness some means to ascertain me which of those three different opinion is that which he revealed? would it be consistent with his goodness to oblige me under pain of damnation to fly to the Moon, and afford me no wings (which we 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 divine Faith: such an Assent is impossible if there be not an infallible Authority on which it is grounded; which you Protestants cannot deny, for it's therefore you reject Tradition, and will admit no other Test of Faith but the written word of God, because Faith must be grounded upon 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 injury to God, that it became his wisdom to afford you some other infallible Authority, whereas without such an authority it's impossible to have the Assent of Faith which he requires? and was it not therefore that he gave to his Apostles who preached to the primitive Christians, the credit of infallible Oracles, because then there was no Scripture written nor any other Authority whereupon to bottom their Faith, but the testimony of the Apostles? Since therefore we do manifestly prove that Scripture alone is not sufficient to determine Controversies, and instruct us what we are bound to believe, let not your instructors Modesty take it ill that we say it becomes the goodness of God to appoint a living infallible judge on whose testimony and authority we may rely and ground our Faith. We say with St Augustin l. de vtil. cred. ad Honorat. Si Providentia 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 God's Providence governs not the world, we need not be solicitous of Religion; but if Providence rules all, it cannot be doubted but that God has appointed an authority, by which, as by a certain assured way we may be lead to God. We must therefore grant such an Authority (which is not Scripture as we will prove) or deny Providence.  
Your instance is very weak, and un becoming so great a divine as you profess to be; God's goodness cannot be questioned for permitting sins and the scandals of Popes; nay it's becoming his goodness to permit them; for having created Man with perfect liberty for to work well or ill, it becomes his goodness to give him all that is needful for the exercise of that liberty; and Man could not exercise it (if we did not pretend to some extraordinary miraculous Providence for which we have 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 gave him liberty that he might use it well; and if he uses it ill; it's his own fault.  
We ought not, say you, to waver in our opinion of God's goodness for not appointing a Living infallible judge, whereas he has afforded us the Scriptures which abound with all heavenly light to them, that are not wilfully obstinate: and this you prove 2. Tim. 3.16. Holy Scriptures are able to make us wyse unto salvation, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. But I infer to the contrary: whereas the Scriptures, though replenished they be with heavenly light, are not sufficient for to declare unto us what we ought to believe; we might waver in our opinion of God's goodness, if he did not appoint an infallible living judge for to instruct us: and that the Scriptures are not sufficient for the instruction of them that are not wilfully blind. Mr sal himself proves it; for pag. 17. he tells us that doubting of the Tenets of our Religion, his wit not content with an ipse dixit like Pythagoras his scholar, demanded Reason for what he believed: he betook himself to the frequent reading of Scripture: but, Sr, if you be not content with an ipse dixit, you are as unfit for Christ's school, as for that of Pythagoras, and if your wit demands reason for what you believe, Scripture is no place to seek 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 even to those that are not wilfully blind, he was no such, for he did read with a real desire of being instructed.  
The text of S. Paul says that Scripture is able to make us wyse to salvation; but does noy say, that Scripture alone is able: if you will have text to be for your purpose, you must follow the example of Luther, who to prove his error of justification by Faith only, corrupted the text of S. Paul Rom. 2.8. we account a man to be justified by Faith, without the works of the la: and foisted in the word Faith alone. 2. S. Paul in that text speaks only of the Scripture wherein Timothy was versed, and which he had perused from his Youth, which was only the Old Testament: so that if the text proves the sufficiency of the Scripture for our instruction, it proves the sufficiency of the Old Testament only. 3. S. Paul in that vers ch. v. 14. says to Timothy, thou continue in those things thou hast learned, and are committed to thee knowing from whom thou hast learned them. Whence its apparent that he remitted Timothy for instruction, to the Scripture and also to the doctrine delivered to him by a living Oracle, which was the Apostle himself. Lastly the whole Canon of Scripture was not completed when S. Paul writ that text, nor in many years after; and you can not pretend that ever we had the sufficient means for our instruction in any part, but in the whole and entire Canon; therefore you cannot pretend that that text doth prove the sufficiency of Scripture.   

II. CHAPT. SCRIPTURE ALONE, NOT THE Means for to instruct us in Faith.  
IF Scripture alone, were the means appointed by God for to declare unto us what we ought to believe; is it not strange, that Christ should not himself have left us a Written word to walk by, when he laid upon us the obligation of embracing true Religion; or that he should not, at least, have laid a Command upon his Apostles of delivering us a written word? read the whole Canon, and you shall find no such command: but he left Apostles and Pastors, and a command upon them, to teach and preach unto us; and upon us of believing and obeying them; which argues that the means which he designed for our instruction in Religion, was not a written word, but a living Church. Necessity is laid upon me, yea woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel. 1. Cor. 9.16. He feared no woe for not writing, but for not preaching the Gospel; because he would deprive the flock of the means which God appointed for their instruction. And the Channel by which Faith is conveyed unto us being our Ears, fides ex auditu, and not our Eyes, it seems apparent, that the means which he appointed is a living Oracle who speaks, and not a volume which we read.  
But let us suppose that the Apostles did by special command of Christ writ the Gospel: 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 denied the Old Testament to be Scripture. Epiph. Haer. 41. The Ebionits' rejected the four great Prophets, the Books of Solomon and Psalms of David. Epiph. Haer. 30. Marcionits' rejected 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. Matthew. They also rejected the Epistles of S. Paul Epiph. Haer. 30. And the Disciples of Cerdon would not believe the Acts of the Apostles Tert. de Praescrip. c. 51. The Lutherans this day blot out of the Canon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, as also that of jude, the second of S. Peter and second and Third of S. john, all which the Caluinists believe. The Church of England will not admit the Books of Maccabees, Esther judith and others, which the Chatolik Church admits: nor did the Ancient Fathers of the Church prove against the Marcionists and other Heretics 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 commoveret Authoritas: I would not believe the Gospel to be the Gospel, if the authoriiy of the Church did not move me to it.  
Now I argue thus: you say true Religion is known by Scripture alone; that's to say, we have no assurance of a Truth's being a revealed Truth but by Scripture alone. Therefore we can have no more assurance of a Truth's being a revealed Truth, than we have 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 revealed Truths: But Scripture alone gives no assurance that it is true Scripture; that it is not corrupted either by the malice or ignorance of the translators, or inaduertency of the Printer; for there is not a text in all Scripture that mentions it: therefore the Scripture alone cannot ascertain us of the Truth of Religion. And it cannot be imagined but that, since the true sense of Scripture is doubtful, God has provided us of some means to know which is the true sense; so also since that we are obliged to believe with divine Faith, that this Book is Scripture; it cannot be doubted I say, but that God has afforded some means for to ascertain us which is true Scripture, and to confound those that deny the Scripture to be Scripture. But Scripture itself alone can never assure us of its being Scripture.  
For to say that Scripture doth manifest itself to be God's word by certain Criteria, or signs found in Scripture itself, as a divine beam of light, a Majesty of style, an energy of words, whereby it does manifest itself to the humble and well intentioned hearts to be God's 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 we, and all that time the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, jude and S. Peter second Epistle, and second and Third of S. john were not believed, as an article of Faith to be Scripture; nay were absolutely denied 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 have: and whatever you may judge of us Catholics, Luther, you will say, was humble and well intentioned, and could see no such Criteria or signs in those Epistles, which Caluin believes to be Canonical, and 'tis but a fond imagination to conceit any such lustre or Majesty in those Books, which you believe, more than in the Books of Tobias, Esther and others which you deny. Consider, I pray, if a Pagan desirous of his salvation, 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 ever read, of any Kingdom covert to Christianity by reading the Bible only, without Apostolical men to expound the Christian Doctrine, and by that you may gness, which were the means appointed by God for our instruction, if Scripture alone, or a living Church.  
And allowed we be assured this Book and an other is the word of God: of the Scripture we may say, what S. Paul said of the Lords supper: This if worthily taken is life and salvation; if unworthily is damation: if Scripture be understood in the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost, it leads to true Religion, if understood in the wrong sense, it leads to perdition, as S. Peter says, 2. cpist. 3.16. speaking of the Epistles of S. Paul, the unlearned and unstable deprave them, as the rest of the Scripture, to their perdition; by misunderstanding them. Grant this volume to be the word of God: the words of it may be, and are interpreted in divers and quite opposite senses; as that command of Christ, he that will not eat the flesh of the son of Man, and drink his blood, shall not have life in him; it is interpreted in three opposite senses by Lutherans, Catholics, and Protestants; and it is evident that Christ intended only one of the three senses: we are bound under pain of damnation to eat his flesh, and drink his blood, in that sense, which he intended, and no other will suffice: the Scripture alone does not assure us, which of those three senses, is that which Christ intended: for we have all the Scripture, we read it, we study, we pray, and we cannot agree in the sense of those words▪ either therefore there must be somewhat else beseids Scripture, for to assure us of the true sense of it; or God has left us with an obligation of believing and not afforded us the sufficient means for to ascertain us, what he will have us to believe.  
To say that God gives an inward light, and testimony of the spirit to the humble and well disposed hearts, which assures them the sense which they hold of the Scripture is the true sense, is a groundless fancy, exploded even by the modern Protestants; whereas 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 Controversists have fully refuted this foolish fancy; I only add that if the means appointed by God to assure us of the true sense of Scripture, be that inward light and testimony of the private spirit, God has afforded no means for to keep us in unity 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 sense of Scripture, which the inward light and testimony of each man's spirit does suggest; those lights and inward testimonies of the spirit being quite contradictorily opposite one to the other; it follows that the H. G. intended quite opposite senses 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 have myself: so each man must be content to have his Religion to himself, and seek no other to be of it. S. john 1. Epist. 4.11. bids us not to believe every spirit; but to try it; and in that very ch. directs us to a touch stone whereat to try our spirits, He that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth us not: in this we know the spirit of Truth, and the spirit of Error. If your spirit, hairs and obeys the Pastors and Prelates of the Church, your spirit is of Truth, in this we know the spirit of Truth in hearing us, not in reading us. If your spirit will not hear the Church, but prefer itself before the spirit of the Pastors and Prelates of the Church; your spirit is of error. The means therefore to distinguish spirits, to know the truth, and the true sense of Scripture, is not Scripture itself, nor your inward light but the Church, which is the approver or reprover of spirits.  
The Modern Protestants have found out an other way for to defend the sufficiency of Scripture, for to understand by it alone the true sense 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 sense found by the scripture alone comparing one text with an other; especially in what concerns the fundamental points of Religion necessary for salvation, which are easily found, and clearly set down in Scripture. Mr sal pag. 105. of his discourse seems to be of this opinion; saying, that all necessary knowlegde for Faith in God, to serve and praise him, is fully contained in what is clear of Scripture.  
There is nothing more clear, than that the Holy Scriptures are most obscure, even in points necessary for salvation; the obscurity consisting in the height of the Mysteries it contains, in the difficulty of its phrases, in the seemingly contradictions it contains; that the most learned men that ever were in the Church found it a task too great for their understandings to expound it: learned Protestants themselves do confess it, and our Controversists have so evidenced it, that it were a superfluous labour to prove it: that only text of saint Peter 2. epist. 3. ch. which I quoted but now, sufficiently proves it; and that no text nor texts of scripture compared doth declare sufficiently even the fundamental points of our Religion, two instances do clearly evidence.  
First God's Unity in Nature, and Trinity in Persons in all Christians acknowledgement is a fundamental article of Religion: we believe he is One not in Person, but in Nature; we believe he is Three, not in Nature, but in Persons. And what text or texts compared one with an other can you bring to show this Mystery? 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 prove against the Pagan, that God is One in Nature, and Three in Persons? He will allege out of saint john 1. ep. 5. the Father the son, and the spirit, and these Three are One▪ the word One signifies Unity in Nature, and the word Three Trinity in Persons: But says the Pagan, that is against all reason, and the principles of Philosophy, that Three distinct Persons should have but One Nature; and though I do believe the word of God to be infallibly true even in what surpasses my reason, yet I will not believe against my reason but what the word of God does assuredly say; and that text which you allege does only say they are One, but does not express, if that Unity be in Nature or in Person, nor doth the text express that the Trinity is in Persons and not in Nature: nay the Arrian, who is a Christian as well as you, sayeth, that text signifies no such Unity of Nature, and Trinity of Persons: and in your own confession, Christ is One suppositum or Hypostasis: his Unity is not in Nature, (for he has Two Natures, one Human, and the other Divine) but in Person; why may not we also say, that the father, son, and spirit, are One, and that their unity is not in Nature but in Person? whither will the Protestant go now, to prove against the Pagan this great, and fundamental article? He will quote out of saint john 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 two 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 two distinct Persons, or one Nature.  
And says the Pagan, bring you as many texts as you please, you will never bring any, which expressly declares the Unity to be in Nature, and Trinity in Persons; and I must not renounce reason so far, as to believe a Mystery, which no human reason can unsterstand; particularly, when you require of me, to believe only what the word of God expressy declares; and the word of God, which you allege does not expressly declare that Mystery, nor doth the word of God oblige me to believe your interpretation of those texts: I hear the Arrians and Sabellians, who are Christians as well as you, and they, with their Abettors, (who are not fewer in number nor inferior in learning to you) say, those texts which you allege do not at all import any Unity in Nature, or Trinity in Persons: for the Sabellians say, the word One in those texts signifies Unity 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 several Offices, which he does exercise: Father because he is the Author of all things; Son because he was born to redeem us; and Holy Ghost, because he sanctifies us: even as, say they, these three several names, Immense, Omnipotent, and Eternal signify One and the same God, who includes the perfections signified by those names.  
Arrius and his partisans understand those texts in a far different sense from you Protestant: the word Three says Arrius signifies three different Natures, which Arrius proves with a text, far more pertinent in appearance, than that which you Protestants allege to prove the Unity of Nature, S. Io. 14.28. My father is greater than I; which text, delivered without any restriction, says Arrius, proves the son to be of a different and inferior Nature to the Father. The word One says he, does not signify the Unity of Three Persons in Nature; but their Unity by perfect conformity of Will and Charity; which exposition he proves by S. Io. 17.11. where Christ praying for his Elect, asketh his Father, they may be one, as we are One: but certainly the Elect cannot be One in Nature, nor did he ask any such Unity for them; but that they should be One by perfect Charity and conformity of will therefore the Father and the Son are not otherwise One.  
Thus the Pagan to the Protestants, and adds; I believe the Scripture to be the word of God, because he has revealed it unto me; I am resolved to be a Christian; but I know not which party to embrace, the Protestant; or the Arrian; you will have me believe God's Unity in Nature and Trinity in Persons; and though that Mystery surpasses human reason, I am content to submit unto it, if I did find it expressly in Scripture; but those texts either singlely or all together do not expressly declare it; as I judge and as the Arrians and Sabellians who are Christians, as well as you, judge; and on the other side you do not require of me to believe, but what is expressly contained in Scripture▪ what shall I do in this case? You say it is expressly contained in those texts; but am I bound to believe it is contained in them, because you think it is? the Scripture does not tell me that I am bound to believe what you think, rather than what the Arrians think is contained in it: if I side with the Arrians, you say I am damned: if I side with you the Arrians say I am damned; and why to side 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 several Councils, in the points you hold in opposition to the Catholics; you say the Councils and Ancient Fathers, who condemned you did err, and were mistaken in the sense of Scripture: the Arrians and Sabellians also, say the Councils which condemned them, did err: you say the Mystery of the Trinity is unanimously believed by Protestants and Roman Catholics: but I ask, what credit hath the Roman and Protestant Church? have you the credit of infallible Oracles, by which God speaks, or have you only the credit of wise, learned pious men? if the first; that indeed is somewhat, and ends all Controversy: if only the second, the Arrians, Sabellians, Heathen and Pagan Philosophers, are as numerous as you, as learned, wise, and, as to moral honesty, as good as you, and they all deny that Mystery.  
Can any man of reason, say, this Pagan in this occasion, is obliged to side with the Protestants, rather than with the Arrians? they both have Scripture, they are all Christians, they read 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 living infallible judge, to interpret, and deliver the true sense of Scripture; this Pagan could not but be obliged to acquiesce to his interpretation; whence it's is manifest that Scripture alone is not sufficient for to ascertain us of the true sense of Scripture, even in fundamental points.  
An other instance to prove this truth: there is a point of Faith, which we are obliged to believe under pain of damnation, which is not expressed in any text or texts compared of Scripture alone, whitout an infallible interpreter. I do not mean the Necessity of Infant's Baptism, nor the Validity of Heretics Baptism, believed by both Churches, and for which, says S. Augustin l. 1. cont. cresc. c. 32. there can be no example brought out holy of Scripture. I prove it thus: We catholics and you Protestants dispute, if Purgatory be a fundamental point of Religion or not? If it be; it's a damnable error, to say it is not; both for that errors against fundamental points are damnable, as you confess, and for that to deny for fundamental, that which is a fundamental Truth revealed by God, is to diminish of the word of God; by which you deserve 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 deserves to be blotted out of the Book of life: consequently in this our contest, we are indispensably obliged to believe, either that it is, or that it is not: nor can we suspend our judgement, but must resolve absolutely 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 us what we are obliged to believe.   

III. CHAPT. THE SAME ASSERTION proved.  
Look back to the Infancy of the Church, for the first eight or ten years; there was not a word of the New Testament written; and the last part, (whatever that part was, wherein 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 we understand 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 Scripture that now is extant, and owned by us 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 denied S. Paul's epistle to the Hebr. judes' epist. second of saint Peter, second and Third of saint john to be Canonical; consequently they could not be the Test of Faith; because they were not believed to be Scripture▪ all this time, as there was an obligation upon Christians to believe, so they had the sufficient means, for to know what they were obliged to believe; which was not Scripture, because either it was not written, or if written, it was not all, (as now it is) believed to be Scripture: therefore God must have appointed some other means besides Scripture, for to instruct us in Religion.  
And if you insist, that the Scripture, as now it is extant, is the needful and sufficient means for our instruction, I infer; therefore we had not the needful and sufficient means, until all this Scripture now extant was written; consequently the Church, was for many years without the sufficient means for instruction: I infer again; therefore until the last text of Scripture was written, we had not the sufficient means; and whereas you are bound to prove by a clear text, that Scripture alone is the sufficient means, it must be with the last text of all scripture you must prove 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 proved▪ also it follows, that you must not pretend to prove the sufficiency of scripture by any text of the new or old Testament, written before the last text; whereas the whole Canon was not completed, when those texts were written; and consequently they could not prove the sufficiency of scripture which in your acknowledgement did not begin to be the sufficient means, until the Canon was finished. Moreover if the scripture, as now it is extant, be the needful and sufficient means; then the Lutherans, whom you receive to your Communion, and embrace as Brethren, have not the sufficient means for divine Faith, (and consequently nor Faith itself) whereas they deny many parts of Scripture to be Canonical, which you believe.  
But what most clearly proves that Scripture, as now it is extant, is not the sufficient and needful means, is this discourse; first its not the needful means, for if a very considerable part of this Scripture did perish, we would still have the sufficient means, in what would remain of Scripture, to instruct us in what we are bound to believe; for what we are bound to believe under pain of damnation, are only the essential and fundamental points of Religion; whoever believes them, though he denies other points not fundamental, and inferior Truths, in the doctrine of Protestants, believes what is sufficient for his salvation; 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 needful for to know what we are bound to believe; and if they did all perish, we would in what remained, have the sufficient means. Now that Scripture as now it is extant, is not the sufficient means, I prove 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 whereas you do not know, nor could any of your Doctors ever yet (though often desired by us) give a Catalogue of those, which you call fundamental points, which they be, and how are they distinguished from not fundamental points; its impossible that you can tell which part of Scripture is that, which contains the the fundamental points of Religion, and consequently you cannot tell which part of scripture in the sufficient for our instruction.  
That the Church was the means appointed by God for our instruction, before the scripture was written, the Protestant do not, nor cannot deny: and if they will not waver in their Principles, they must confess it continued so, until the whole Canon was finished; (which was not until many years after Christ his Ascension:) But, say they, scripture being written, which doubteless God gave unto us, 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 received for Gods written Oracle, the Church was cashiered out of those glorious offices, which formerly she enjoyed: because (as our Adversaries pretend) there was no need of any other infallible Oracle, but the scripture, which in the judgement of all is such. If this discourse be good; it proves also, that the Apostles ceased to be our instructors, and infallible Oracles after the scripture was written; and that the Church ceased to be infallible in fundamental points, because the scripture is an infallible oracle, contains all points, and one infallible Oracle is sufficient: yet our Adversaries confess that the Apostles remained still infallible; and the Church in fundamental points.  
And, whereas all scripture was not written at once, but successiuly by parts; the Church was not devested of teaching us, 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 perished already, and that there is nor in all scripture, any promise of its perpetuity, as there is of the perpetuity of the Church: then, I hope the scripture would return to her ancient prerogative of being the needful means appointed for our instruction: this extravagant position you are bound to affirm, and you can show no scripture for it, and yet you can believe nothing but what is in scripture.  
I should think this a good discourse: the Church was once our guide, and means appointed to ascertain us 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 devested of that Prerogative; therefore I am still obliged to believe she enjoyeth it: for the obligation that once was, and it not proved to be abolished remains still in force: there was an obligation of believing the Church to be Gods infallible Oracle; nothing appears, that taketh away that obligation: therefore it's still in force.  
To conclude, the Necessity of an interpreter besides Scripture, for to instruct us what we are to believe, is proved, not only, because Christ did place Apostles, Evangelist, Doctors and Pastors in his Church, Eph. 4.11. for this end, as the Apostle distinctly saies, for to keep us in Unity of Faith, to instruct us, that we may be no more Children wavering to and fro and carried away with every wound of doctrine. but also by the practice of the Catholic and Protestant Churches, who give such vast revenues to Ecclesiastical persons for teaching the flock, and expounding the Mysteries of Faith; if scripture were so clear in the necessary points, what needed any more, but to give each one a Bible, and employ the Rents of the Clergy in some other use? what needed so many authentic Christian doctrines published by both Churches for to declare the Mysteries of Religion? what needed so many Volumes and Commentarîes of the Fathers upon the scripture, if it alone is clear, full, and plain in what we are bound to believe?   

iv CHAPTER. A TRUE CHURCH ESTABLISHED by Christ to decide Controversies, and deliver the true Doctrine which we are bound to believe.  
NO Protestant, at least of our times, will deny the existence of a true Church, it being an article of the Apostles Creed, I believe the holy Catholic Church. The true Notion of it, we have from S. Paul Rom. 12.4. by a comparison of it with a Natural Body: as this hath several members, each one whereof hath its proper function; so we all, as so many different members, which exercise divers functions, concur to constitute one Body in Christ. In the natural Body, there is a head, which is the seat of the judgement which governs; there are eyes to see, ears to hear, a mouth to speak: hands to work and feet to walk: thus in the Church, Christ's mystical Body; there must be a head to govern, which is the suprem Pastor; there must be eyes to pry, and examine the truth; and these are the Doctors; there must be hands to deliver the word of God, and a mouth to speak; and these are the Preachers, Pastors and Curates, there must be ears to hear and feet to walk which are the flock. Hence we gather the true Notion of the Church of God to be a visible society of true believers, under one suprem Pastor, where the Faith of Christ is taught and believed.  
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 believe what the Church by her Pastors and Doctors does teach and command; and whereas the Church was still extant (or the article of our Creed was some time false) it follows, there were still extant Pastors, and Doctors, who did teach the true Faith of Christ, and a flock that believed it. As to the obligation of the Church to instruct and govern us, these texts of scripture evince it: Necessity is laid upon me for to preach, and woe be to me if I preach not. 1. Cor. 9.16. Attend to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the H. G. has placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God. Act. 20.23. Which obligation was laid an the Apostles and their successors, when Christ commanded them to teach all Nations, to preach the Gospel unto all creatures: which obligation S. Paul doth in several places of his Epistles declare, but particularly Eph. 4.11. He placed in his Church, some Apostles, and some Prophets, others some Evangelists, others some Pastors, and Doctors, and declares to what end did Christ provide his Church of them: for the consummation of Saints into the work of the Ministry; that we may meet in the unity of Faith, that we be no more children wavering to and fro, and carried away with every wound of Doctrine. Whence two consequences follow; the first that if you be tossed in your mind, and doubtful what to believe; if two Sacraments or seven; if real Presence or figurative; you are not to be carried away with every wind of Doctrine; but go the Church, which God has furnished with Doctor's Apstoles, and Pastors for to instruct you: the second consequence; that Christ Faith being but One, and we obliged to live in the Unity of that Faith, the Apostle tells us in this text, that the means which he has appointed for to keep us in Unity of Faith, are the Apostles, Evangelists, Doctors and Pastors of the Church, that the Church by them may lead us to the professiion of one Faith.  
The other part which constitutes the Church, is the flock, whose obligation is to obey and believe what she by her Doctors and Pastors does teach and command us: this obligation is manifestly proved Mat. 23.2. all, that they, who sit on the chair of Moses, will say unto you, that observe and do. Lu. 10.16. Christ commands, that he who will not hear the Church, is to be esteemed a Heathen and a Publican, and adds that he who despeiseth her, despeiseth him; that is to say he that despeiseth her Doctrine, which S. Paul expounds 1. Thes. 4.8. when after giving them instructions, he says. He that despeiseth these things, despeiseth not man, but God: and 2. Thes. 3.14. he that obeyeth not our word, do not acompagny him, that he may be confounded. These clear and manifest texts prove the obligation of the flock to believe, and obey the Doctrine, and commands, which the Church by her Pastors and Doctors layeth upon them. Whence it appears that the Church is the Oracle, and Mistress, which Christ has appointed on earth for to instruct and govern us.  
This discourse that the Church is constituted of two parts, the one whose obligation is to teach and govern, the otherwhose obligation is to learn, believe and obey, is clearly shown in the 1. Cor. 3. where the Apostle compares the Pastors and Prelates to Husband men, who soweth the seed, and to Masterbuilders that make a house; and compares the flock to a field that receives the seed and improuments, and to an edifice. But, says he, He that planteh, and he that watereth are one, and every man shall receive his own reward according his own works; we are labourers together with God, ye are God's Husbandry, ye are God's 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 sow the seed, which are the Apostles, and their successors: others are the Husbandry, the field which is watered, and receives the seed, whichs the flock.  
Out of these Premises I discourse thus: as it is impossible that God, laying an obligation upon us of believing revealed Truths, should not have afforded us the necessary means to know what Truths he has revealed; so it is a madness in me to expect to come to that knowledge by any other way or means, than by that which God has appointed for our conduct▪ it's an unquestionable truth, that God might have established an other manner of Providence for the salvation of man whitout Scripture Sacraments or Church; but if God has decreed in this his present government, not to save Man but upon certain conditions, will you be so peremptory as to expect by special privilege, as a person particularly favoured, 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 inquire what worship God requires from Man; what truths he has revealed; which is the true sense of Scripture: I do not doubt, but God might, if he were pleased, use other means for your instruction, without Church, Scripture, Pastors or Doctors, snatching you to the Third Heaven as headed S. Paul 2. Cor. 11.4. or by sending an Angel to resolve your doubts; or by inward illustrations and divine lights: but since that in this his present Providence he has established a Church, furnished as we mentioned with Doctors, Pastors, Apostles, and Evangelists; and laid an obligation upon her to teach you, and upon you to believe and obey her; will you as a person particularly privileged, expect to have the knowledge of what you ought to believe, and to yet the true sense of Scripture by any other means; than by and from that Oracle, which God has appointed for the instruction of all? I pity some deluded souls who ery out, God knows if I did know the true Religion, and the true sense of Scripture, I would embrace it. But, friend, do you expect a revelation from Heaven, or an inward light for to ascertain you? God has afforded means for to instruct us and commands us all (he excepts none) to hear and oby her, which is the Church: make use 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 believe; when God has given you means whereby to be instructed, and you will not make use 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 have already discoursed, and what shall be said in the ensuing chapters, it will manifestly appear, 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 believe; because I am persuaded it's it that God has left unto us for to instruct us; and that it contains expressly and clearly, what we are bound to believe. But we have proved in the two former chapters, that Scripture does not contain all articles which we are bound to believe; and that even the fundamental points of Religion, are not sufficiently proved by Scripture alone without an infaillible interpreter: for there is not any text hardly of Scripture but may be interpreted in different senses, and Scripture alone does not ascertain us, which is the true sense: And if an Heretic did arise, and say, that it is not lawful to keep 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 lawful for us to keep but one Holy day and no more in the week, and that we are obliged to work the other six days according that text, six days thou shalt work, but the seaveth is the Sabaoth of they Lord, Ex. 20. can his error be eleerly proved by Scripture alone? if he should say, that it is not conformable to the instruction of Christ, to give the Communion to Women, because we do not read that Christ should have given it to any; by what Scripture will you convince 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 unjust usurper of your goods; he will give you plain Scripture for it: To him that will contest with you in Law, and take your Coat from you, give him also your Cloak: Mat. 5.40. and by what text will you convince him, that he misunderstands that text? if he should say with the Luciferians, that a Priest who would apostatise from his Religion, ought not to be received again to the Communion of the Church, though he did repent, grounded upon the words of Christ, Mat. 5. if the salt (that's to say the Doctors and Pastors of the Church) hath lost its Savour, where with shall it be salted? it is therefore good for nothing but to be cast out, and trod under foot of men. This is a damnable error, the door is still open Mr▪ Shall, if you will but knock with repentance: yet no text of Scripture doth clearly convince that error; finally there was never yet any Heresy, no never will be, but will hit upon some text of Scripture to prove its error: and if it be lawful for every man to interpret he Scripture in the sense that seems best to him, they will never be convinced by Scripture alone.  
Hence it follows, that since the texts of Scripture admit different senses; either of two things must happen; or that God has left it arbitrary to Mankind, to believe that sense, which each one bonafide thinks in his own judgement to be the best; and has not obliged him to submit his judgement to the sense given by any other; and if so, Arriants, Protestants, Catholics and all are of a good Religion; for each of us believes that sense of Scripture which we think the truest, which is all that God requires. Or if God has obliged us all, to believe one sense of Scripture, though that sense may not seem the best to this, or that particular man; and will have us submit our judgements and believe that sense, which he obliges us all to believe; if so, then God must have appointed some suprem Authority to declare unto us, what sense is that, which he will have us all believe; to which all dissenting Parties must assent, and submit their judgement: for it were unbecoming the goodness of God to oblige man under pain of damnation to believe one sense, and no other of all the different senses the letter of Scripture admits; and not to afford some assured means and public Authority (for no private authority will suffice) to propose unto us, what sense it that. Nor will it be possible to keep us in Unity of Faith, without this suprem Authority, for it's not possible to have Unity of Faith, if we do not all hold one and the same senee of Scripture: nor it is possible that we all hold the same sense, if there be not a public Authority for to propose unto us what sense is it, that we must hold, to whose judgement we must be all bound to acquiesce; for if it be lawful for every man to reject that Authority, and hold that sense of Scripture which he judges the best; it will be lawful for every man to live in a different Religion from that of others, and so there will never be any Unity of Faith and Religion.  
Now that the suprem Authority appointed by Christ for to decide our Controversies, and deliver unto us the true sense of Scripture, is the Church established by Christ, it's proved by the texts of Scripture alleged in the beginning of this Chap. its proved also by the practice of all ages; for when in the Apostles days there arose a controversy about the Circumcision of the Gentiles some affirmed they ought, not only be baptised, but also circumcised; others denied the Necessity, of Circumcision; both Parties alleged Scripture, but neither was appayed: and how was the controversy decided and the true sense of Scripture alleged by both, proposed; by the Church convened in a Council at jerusalem. Act. 15. the one Party was condemned for Heretics if they did not submit▪ and acquiesce to the Doctrine proposed by the Church. About the year 324. arose a dispute betwit Arrius, (that was a member of the Catholic Church, and others also Catholics, concerning the Divinity of Christ; each of the disputants alleged several texts of Scripture, and pretended his own, to be the true sense: who decided this Controversy? was it the Scripture alone without a public authority to propose the sense of it? No, but the Church, gathered in the Nicen Council, to whose decisions all Christians were bound to acquiesce, and condemned as Heretics that would not. About the year 378. arose a dispute between Macedonius and other Catholics concerning the Divity of the H. G. which he denied; both Parties cited many texts of Scripture, but the dispute was not ended until 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 lawful to doubt of the Divinity of the H. G. To be brief look into all ages that ever any question arose concerning Religion, the final decision was alluayes devolved to the Church, who delivered the true sense of Scripture quoted by the Disputants, and esteemed an Heretic that did not submit. This shows that the world did ever yet believe, the suprem authority of deciding controversies, and delivering the true sense of Scripture was still in the Church.  
But the weary Protestants themiselues, who decry the Church, and will have no other judged of Controversies but Scripture, do confess that betwixt two Parties proving their differents Assertions of Religion out of Scripture, the Church hath the suprem authority of deciding, and delivering the true sense 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 way of salvation, pag. 206. and B. Lawd cited by Doctor Porter they teach, that the Decrees of General Council bind all Persons, oblige in conscience, till evideuce of Scripture or a demonstration makes their error appear, that they are not to be controlled by private 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 private Doctors, and not the Doctrine of the Protestant Church: I will prove that what ever their Doctrine be, their practice proves that they believe the supreme authority of deciding Controversies betwitxt two Parties disputing out of Scripture, to be only in the Church: the proof.  
Arminius a Minister of Amsterdam and Professor of Divinity at Leyden, broached new Doctrine, touching points of Predestination, Grace and Liberty; quite contrary to the Doctrine of Caluin, received in the Churches of Holland. By his wit and credit, he got many Proselyts, that in a short time, his Doctrine made great progress throughout all the States. Gomarus, nothing inferior to him in wit and reputation; an ancient Professor of Divinity at Groeningue opposed this novelty, and with all the ancient Ministers stood for the Doctrine of Caluin. Printed Pamphlets were published; Texts of Scripture quoted, but neither did yield to the other; each drew Abettors to their opinions, and the Provinces were divided into two factions of Armenians, and Gomarists. The Churches of Hollands petitioned to the State's General for a National Synod to determine the Controversy, but Armenius strengthened with the protection of Barnevelt A duocat General of the States, obtained that in lieu of a Synod, the matter should be discussed in a conference of Divins: the States deputed some persons of quality for to hear the Disptutans; Arminius presented himself with four Divines, and Gomarus with as many: Arminius his five articles were scanned; texts of Scripture searched for, and carefully examined, reasons proposed by both Parties with all ardour; nothing omitted that wit or industruy could give, and after a tedious and eager dispute, the question remained undecided; the Parties receded, each proclaiming the victory.  
Armenius died soon after, but his scholars took up the cudgel, and gained so much ground upon the Gomarists, that all the three Provinces of Holland, Vtrecht, and Ouerissel embraced their five Articles; and pretended a petition to the State's General for a toleration in the profession of that Doctrine, which they offered to defend with the pure word of God: adding, it did not appertain to a National Synod but to the Divins of each particular Province to take cognisance of the affairs of Religion in that Province, and therefore they protested against any National Synod. The Gomarists on the other side cried out for a Synod: the controversy did not only trouble the peace of the Provinces, but made a great Echo in the neigh bouring Reform Churches. The King of England by his Ambassador, Sr Dudley Carleton, represented to the States that the only means for to allay those disputes was a National Synod, to whom it belonged to judge which of the Doctrines controverted was the most conformable to the word of God, and if both could be toletated in the Church; and therefore demanded a Synod. Zealand and the other Provinces demanded the same; as also the Protestant Princes of Germany; the Commonwealth of Geneva, and generally all the Reformed Churches. All this passage is faithfully extracted, ex Act. Synodi Dordrectani, Typis Isaaci joannis Canicy printed at Dordtecht an▪ Dom. 1620.  
Heerupon the State's General issued their circular letters to all the Provinces requiring, that each should send six of their best Divines to Dordrecht, were the Synod was opened the 13. December an 1618. The King of England, the Electors of Palatin, Branderbourg, and Lansgrave of Hesse, the Valons, the Cantons of Surich, Berne, Basle, and Schaffouse, the Commonwealths of Geneva, Breme, and Embidem sent their Divins of most credit and learning to this Synod, so that we may call it more than a National Synod, and a Representative of all the Reformed Churches. And though the Ministers of France were not permitted to go thither, they sent their judgement of the question debated, in writing. The Arminians protested against the Synod, as being a Party concerned; and consequently not a competent judge, being composed of Persons confessedly of the doctrine of the Gomarists. (was it not thus that the Reformers protested against the Council of Trent.) The deputies of te extern Churches delivered in writing their opinions of this protestation: Those of England; that it was against the practice of the primitive Church; of the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Chalcedo, and Ephese, whose members were confessedly of the Catholic Church, opposed by Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius, and Eutyches; that not withstanding they were competent judges, against whom no protestation was admitted, but all Parties were obliged to submit. The Divins of Palatin; that to determine a controversy 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 Prelates of that Church, whereof they are members, and wherein the question is debated. The Divins of Geneva, 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 Divins concluded the same; whereupon the Synod condemned that protestation, and declared, itself to be the lawful and sovereign judge in that cause; Vel abycere debent omnem protestationem adversus Synodum, & subjicere sua dogmata illius judicio, vel certe si manent in protestatione immoti, eo ipso se declarant unioni Ecclesiarum reformatarum renunciare: Or they must set by all Protestations against the Synod, and submit their doctrine to its judgement, or if they persist in their protestation, thereby they declare themselves to renounce the communion of reformed Churches. Is not this to declare them Schismatics that will not submit to the Church? The Armeniens were then summoned to wave the Protestation and give in writing their five 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 bear any charge, or exercise any Ecclesiastical function, Sess. 138.  
The Armeniens did not submit to this judgement alleging 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 side with them, saying that a Council can not oblige men's consciences, and that their Decrees can reach no further, than to what concerns the Politic government of the flock: but this Synod, which indeed was more than a National one, of the Reformed Churches, 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 alleged, 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 have any regard for their Conscience, (behold their Decrees reach to the Consciences) they are bound to obey the commands of the higher Powers, and acquiesce to the judgement of this Synod. And immediately after this Synod, when the Arminiens insisted in their reason for not submitting, because the Synod was fallible, the States consulted their National Synod then assembled at Delpht, what ought to be done, This answered, that notwithstanding the Synod was fallible, they were obliged in conscience to believe the sense of Scripture proposed by it: and gives for reason; that whereas many pious and learned Doctors from all Churches did meet together in the fear of the Lord, to declare by the word of God, what ought to be believed, omnino credendum est, it must be undoubtedly believed, that Christ according his promise, was present to that meeting, and governed it, by the Holy Ghost judic. Syn. Desph. Sess. 26. Syn. Dord. And if the Decrees of Councils reach not to oblige Consciences, than Arrius must not be judged an Heretic though condemned by the Council of Nice, nor can Mr Shall believe S. Athanasius his Creed with the heavenly gift of Faith wherwhith he believes the Scripture, as he acknowledges, pag. 18.  
Now whatever any particular Doctor or Doctors of the Church of England say; what Pagan, would inquire into the Mysteries of Christian Religion with a desire of being instructed, would read this Synod of Dordrecht, and Delpht, and also the Councils of Nice and all other General Councils of the Catholic Church, and would not understanding, that it is the Doctrine and practice of both Church the Reformed and Catholic, that the Councils have the suprem Authority of deciding Controversies, and delivering the true sense of Scripture; that none can protest against the authority of Councils legally assembled; and that both Parties contesting about any point of Religion, is to be said by the Church, whereof they are Members, and whoever will not submit renounces the union of the Church, and becomes schismatic.  
Hence it follows Mr sal, that whereas there was no Christian Church visible, when your first Reformers opposed the Catholic Tenets, but the Roman Catholic Church; They were obliged to be judged by her, andsubmit their doctrine to her judgement, they being Members of that Church; that in declining her Authority in the Council of Trent, and protesting against her, as being a Party, and fallible; they became Schismatics. And if the Reformation in its of spring was schismatical, doubtless in their continuation it must be so, for time gives no prescription to an error, nor have you more right to continue in that separation from us, than your first Reformers had to begin it. And as the Arrians are still Heretics, though separated from us these 1300 years, and still obliged to teturn, so are you.  
Now let us hear Mr sal what means did he use to understand the true sense of Scripture; to satisfy his doubts in Religion, and to know what he ought to believe; and we will find he did not use the means which Christ appointed for our instruction, pag. 17. you tell us, Mr sal, that you discovered the Roman Church to be guilty of idolatry, covelty and impiety; your wit, say you, demanded you a reason for what you believed; and if it demanded and evidently co●●cluding reason, it ourlasht, whereas the Mysteries of Religion are of things not appearing, as S. Paul says, 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 undeniable that Scripture alone, is so far from being clear, and easy in points of Religion, that it alone nor with the assistance of Histories, Councils and Fathers, is not sufficient, even to so great a wit as you pretend to be, in no ways obstinate wilfully, but desirous to know and embrace the truth, is not I say sufficient to assure you what is an error or not; consequently somewhat else is wanting to know what we ought to believe.  
Pag. 37. you tell us that you went to the Church of England, whose Eminent Persons by word and writing did assert, (do not you see that besides the Scripture, we want a living Church to inform is what we out to believe?) that the fumme of our Faith, is the word of God contained in Canonical Scripture, and the plain undubitable consequences out of it. But Mr sal, you might have belied them all by your own experience, who read Scriptuse, assisted with your eminent with (forsooth) and knowledge in sciences, assisted by the Father's Histories and Councils, and yet, as you tell us, all made you doubt (pag. 18.) but could not assure you of the truth or untruth of our errors: consequently something else is requisite for to know assuredly what is Truth, and what not: But Mr sal, before that the Cchurch of England, by her Eminent Persons, did tell you the Scripture alone and its undubitable consequences is the entire sum of Faith, did you know that to be be true? did you understand 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 speak unto us of the Church of England? what need had you to go to her? You ought to have sought and found the resolution of your doubts in the Scripture alone and its undubitable consequences: if you did not, than you believe the Scripture and its indubitable consequences to be the sum of our Faith upon 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.  
Moreover Mr Shall, the Church of England informed, that the Scripture alone, and its indubitable consequences are the whole sum of divine Faith: but did the Church of England tell you, who is he, that must draw those indubitable consequences? Must those consequences be drawn by a public Authority established by Christ, or is it sufficient that the consequences seem undubitable to you or me, or any private person? If the second, than all sectaries in the world have a true rule of Faith, which is their own reason that dictates what they believe, to be an undeniable consequence of Scripture; and none can blame them for they regulate their Faith by the rule that Christ has appointed, if the first, than the Church of England, should have informed you, what suprem Authority is that, which must draw those consequences, and approve or reprove those which to private persons seem to be undeniably deduced out of Scripture: But this which your instructors omitted, has been shown unto you in this Chapter, not only by Scripture and reason, but by the practice of your Reformed Churches represented in the Synod of Dordrecht; that when two Contestants draw contradictory consequences out of Scripture, each one pretending his own to be undubitably deduced out of the Text, the Church whereof the Parties are Members, has the suprem Authority to resolve which is the true consequence; that the Parties are bound in conscience to submit to her judgement; and to be held for Schismatiks if they do not: and whereas your first Reformers drew consequences which seemed to them to follow undubitably from Scripture, and their Adversaries judged the contrary to be undubitable true; your Reformers were bound to submit to the Catholic Church whereof their were Members, and learn of her which were the true consequences, and were Schismatic for not doing so; and as their error descended to you and your living Brethren; the obligation also of being instructed by the Catholic Church, and acquiescing to her judgement descends unto you. And thus Mr Shall you miserably mistook the means which Christ appointed for to instruct us in Religion.   

V CHAPTER. THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED FOR our instruction, is infallible.  
THough I reserve a chapter a part for Mr Sall's arguments against this Tenet, yet I must here toucth two of them, which show that he is either ignorant, or malicious in mistaking our doctrine, by the answer to which I will declare, what we believe in this particular. He impugns our doctrine from the pag. 29. to 35. and from the pag. 39 to 44. pag. 39 he argues that Infallibility is an Attribute proper to God's essence, which can no more be communicated to any Creature, than the Deyty itself; it's a Blasphemy, says 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 believe but that you are sufficienty sensible of the weakness of this argument, which from the very beginning of your 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 have borrowed them) and most evidently answered; and if you had any ingenuity you ought not to trouble your Auditory with such third bare trifles, but tell them also, what we answer; and retort it if you could. Can you that pretends to the credit of a Professor of Divinity, ignore, that a man, who is by his own Nature Mortal, might by God's Protection, (who promises him, he shall never die) be immortal? and why will you deny but that Man, who by Nature is subject to error, may by God's special protection, (promising him that he shall never err) be kept from falling into any error or mistake? This is what we believe, that the Church, which is by Nature (as being a congregation of Men) fallible, may be mistaken, and though ignorance or malice teach an untruth, but that God has promised to assist her continually with his spirit, for to lead her into all Truth; and never to permit her to teach or believe any error: by virtue of which promise (judge you if such a promise be impossible) we say the Church cannot err in her doctrine, which is to be infallible.  
Dare you deny, but that the Prophets, the Apostles, and Evangelists 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 entrench on God's prerogatives, or give his Attributs to creatures? God is infallible by Nature; by his own proper perfection, this is his Attribute; and this cannot be given to any creature: to be infallible by the protection of an other, who defends him from falling into any error, is not Attribute of God, it were a Blasphemy to say that he is infallible in that manner; but the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and the Church are thus infallible, by God's 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 infallibility: some will have it to be in the Pope alone; others in him and a Council of Cardinals; others in the Pope and General Council alone. This dissension is to Mr sal a concluding argument that there is no such thing as Church infallibility: 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 jewish Church; others that it is in the Protestants, others in the Catholic Church; others in other Congregations; and will conclude in Mr Sall's 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 poor Man, ignorantly or maliciously mistakes our doctrine: all Catholics do agree in the infallibility of the Pope and General Council jointly, this is the infallibility we believe as an article of Faith.  
It's true, that the Catholic Authors do dispute if the Pope alone is infallible; some say he is, and will have it to be an article of Faith that he is; others say that he is not, but with a Council of Cardinals and Divines; 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 hears them, and permits them to dispute: and whatever Bellarmin or any other says, we are not obliged to believe it to be an article of faith whilst it is opposed by other Catholic Doctors and the Church does not determine the Controversy: but what you are to observe 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 unanimously in the infallibility of the Pope and Council together; because that with out any controversy the Pope and Council ioyintly, represents the universal Church; and the universal Church is infallible: this is the article of Faith we believe. And if you tell us, a Pope, or a General Council has erred; you will tell us nothing to the purpose, if you do not show that a Pope and Council together has erred: for that's the Church, having by the answer of these two arguments, declared what infallibility the Church clayms, and where we believe this infallibility to be, let us now prove our Tenet.  
First, it's a comfort to an unacquainted Traveller to be guided by one whom he firmly believes to be acquainted with the way: though really your guide were not acquainted with the way, if you certainly believe he is, and that he cannot stray; though you do not know the way yourself, you will follow him with satisfaction, and without fear of being biased: but if you do not know the way, and you believe your guide is not so well acquainted, but that he may stray; you will still travel with fear of being biased. This is the different condition of a Catholic and a Protestant: the Catholic travelling in the way to salvation, (which is Religion) is guided by a Church, which he, without the least doubt, believes cannot be mistaken; whether she can or not, since he is absolutely persuaded she cannot, he travels with satisfaction and without fear: the Protestant in this way, is guided by a Church, which he believes, is not so well assured of the way, but that she may err; ought he not therefore to walk disatisfyed, and with continual fear of being misled?  
You answer that the Protestant is not lead by the Church, but by the Scripture; which is an infallible guide. It's very sure, the Scripture is infallible, understood in the true sense, but you can have no assurance that you have the true sense of Scripture; consequently you can have no assurance, that you have an infallible guide; this proposition is certain: The Scripture ill interpreted, does misled: this proposition is also certain, you, and your Church may err, in the interpretation of Scripture comparing one text with 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 misled you; and as you have no well grounded assurance, that you and your Church do not err in the interpretation of Scripture, comparing one text with an other; you can have no assurance but that you are misled. But the Catholic believing 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 doctrine, which gives you that satisfaction, and rest of mind; rather than the Protestant doctrine of fallibility, which leaves you doubtful, if what you believe be true or not? Particularly when in believing it, you hazard nothing: not your salvation; for all learned Protestants (which we will prove against Mr sal) do grant salvation in the express belief of articles of Popery; you reply, it's no solid comfort, that the Catholic amuses himself with, in believing his Church that guides him to be infallible, if really she be not so: for if it proves 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 we consider the testimonies of Scripture, the strength of reason, the consent of ages, the multitude of Vniversityes Fathers and Doctors that defend this doctrine of infallibility; it is as likely to be true as your doctrine of fallibility; it's as likely that you are mistaken in believing fallibility, as I am in believing infallibility: you run therefore as great a hazard of being mistaken as I do: on the other side, you cannot have that satisfaction without fear of being misled; that rest of mind, in the assurance of the truth (for you may err) by believing fallibility, as I have by believing infallibility: my condition then is still better than yours, and my doctrine to be preferred before yours.  
Your Church, as you confess may err in points of Religion, whence it manifestly follows that it is not the true sense of Scripture, that leads you in the road to Religion; for the true sense of Scripture is absolutely infallible: I ask you therefore, on what do you ground your Faith? You tell me, that upon 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: whoever may err, relying upon a Principle; can never be sure that he does not err, whilst he relies only on that Principle: this proposition is undeniable; for if he can err relying on that Principle; it's because the Principle is fallible, and if the Principle be fallible, it alone without the help of some other, can never give any assurance that you do not err: for example you believe 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 man's testimony, and have no other; you will never be assured of the Kings being at London. You believe the Church fallibility: and on what ground do you rely? on Scripture as interpreted by the Church: you may err relying on this Principle as you confess; therefore as long as you rely on this Principle only, and have no other, you can never be assured that you do not err: the Church of England has no other, nor will admit no other Principle to ground their Faith upon, but the Scripture interpreted by her, and comparing one text with an other therefore she can never be assured of the doctrine she believes; consequently cannot be assured of the fallibility of the true Church.  
What will you say in this case: there is a Man accused of Murder before your tribunal, he does not only deny the fact, but many circumstances favours his innocency, and the very Person that accuses him says, he is not sure, he is the Murderer: surely you would not condemn this Man to death; it being against all the maxims of justice to punish a man that is not convicted criminal. This is the very matter in hand: the true Church is accused of fallibility and falsehood in her doctrine; the circumstances of having flourished for so many ages, in the credit of an infallible Oracle, favours 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 we proved, 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 whilst she has no other Principle but that, she can never 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 Murder?  
Add this discourse to the former: it is a Principle in all well governed Commonwealhs, that a preacable Possessor is not to be disturbed from his possession, until that by unquestionable proofs he be convicted an unjust usurper or detainer; no conjectures, 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, until that by evident proofs he be convicted. The true Church was in all ages in peaceable possession of this prerogative of infallibility, never denied to her, but by some few condemned Heretics: what evident unquestionable proofs can you bring to convince her an unjust usurper or detainer of it? Reason affords you none, for to say that infallibility is an Attribute proper to God, is impertinent; whereas she clayms no other infallibility, but such as you grant to the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists: but, say you, in a General Council, which is a multitude of Men, where a point of Religion is to be resolved by the mayor part of Votes: and where passion, and interest sometimes may sway, it may happen, that an error may have more Abettors, and truth be out voted: This is to say that God has no Providence over his Church: since he has promised the conduct of his infallible spirit to her, for to lead her into all truth, and keep her unspotted from all errors; let each particular of that multitude be ever so corrupt in himself: God, who can as easily govern the hearts of many, as of one; will not permit them to determine an error, nor truth to be out voted. Was not the Council of the Apostles and Ancients at jerusalem a multitude? Were not the first four General Concils multitudes, which the Protestants confess to have been infallible, and guided by God's spirit, which was as necessary to the Councils of succeeding ages, the emergent Controversyes being no fewer in number, nor less in weight.  
Neither does Scripture afford you any: match, if you can these texts: I am with you all the days, until the consummation of the world Math. 28.20. and if the Church did teach an untruth, would Christ be with her then? He will give you an other Paraclet the Spirit of Truth, that will abide with you for ever; who will lead you into all truth. Io. 14.16. when the Paraclet will come, whom I will send from my Father, the Spirit of truth, he will give testimony of me, and you will give testimony: Io. 15.26. the Paraclet and the Church, are joint Witnesses of the truth.  
Nor does experience favour you: all that you can show is that some Pope did err, or that some Council did err; but that's not to the purpose, if you do not show (which you will never do) thal a Pope and Council together has erred. whereas therefore neither scripture, Reason, nor experience doth afford you any unquestionable evident proofs, that the Church is an unuist usurper or detainer of that prerogative of infaillibility, which she has en joyed in all ages, why will you pretend to disturb her peaceable possession?  
Let us hear what the scripture suyes: Lu. 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me: Christ spoke to his Apostles and Disciples on whom he laid the charge of teaching and preaching, and who were the Church representative: whatever therefore we hear from the Church representative, we hear it from Christ; whatever the Church speaks, Christ speaks, otherwise we should not hear Christ speak, when we hear the Church speak: the Church therefore, is the Mouth by which Christ speaks: and as we cannot hear an untruth from him, as he cannot speak any, so she cannot speak, nor be heard to speak an untruth: this is the clare by S. Paul 1. Thes. 2.13. when you received from us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of Man, but as indeed it is, the word of God. And therefore says he 1. Thes. 4. S. he that despeiseth these things, despeiseth not man, but God. Can a man speak more pertinently to signify that the doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of God; that when we hear her, we hear him; and that her words are infaillible, whereas they are the words of God?  
Observe that the Council of Apostles and Ancients at jerusalem. Act. 15.28. deciding the Controversy concerning Circumcision, delivers their sentence thus; It seemeth good to ihe Holy Ghost and to us. Signifying that the resolution proceeded jointly from both; from the Holy Ghost; by his inward inspiration and direction; from the Council, by its outward declaration: can we doubt therefore, but that the resolution of Controversyes by that Council was infallibly true; and not only of that, but also of all succeeding Councils; whereas 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. when the Paraclet will come, he shall give testimony of me and you shall give testimony; in which words Christ did speak to his Church, which was the witness, which jointly with the Holy Ghost, was to give testimony of him; and grounded on the Promise of his Paraclet, which was made by Christ, not only to the Apostles, but to his Church for ever, until the consummation of the world.  
This is yet more clearly proved by the following discourse: Christ commands us to hear the Church; that he that despeiseth her despeiseth him Lu. 10.16. to observe and do what those that sit on Moses his chair, bids us do Mat. 23.2. commands them to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans, that will not obey her. S. Paul commands us (Heb. 13.17.) not to be carried away with various and strange Doctrines, but obey the Church, wherein says he, Eph. 4. God has placed Apostles, Evangelists, Doctors and Pastors to teach us: out of these and the like texts, (which are frequent in scripture,) largue thus. He that does what Christ bids him do, and believes what he bids him believe; cannot do amiss, nor believe an error: but Christ bids us believe and do, what the Church commands us to believe and do, as appears by these texts; therefore he that does what the Church commands him to do, and believes what she commands us to believe; cannot do amiss nor believe an error: consequently what tever the Church teaches is no error.  
To conclude. S. Io. 1. epis. 4.6. having warned us to try our Spirits, if from God or Satan; he gives us a rule whereby to try them; he that knoweth God heareth us, he that knoweth not God, heareth us not. In this we know the Spirit of truth, and the Spirit of error. This is the way prescribed by S. john to ascertain us of the nature of our Spirits: if our Spirit be conformable to the Spirit of the Church, it's a Spirit of Truth; if it does not conform itself to the Spirit of the Church; it's a Spirit of error: 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 error: for what assurance can you have, that the Cloth which you measure is of a yard in length; if you be not assured, that the yard wherewith 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 Adversaries, will still reply that all this is to be understood of the Apostles, who were infallible whilst they lived, and are now infallible in their written word: I have already shown that the written word is not sufficient to ascertain us of the truth or untruth of our Spirits, and will now prove in this.   

VI CHAPT. THAT NOT ONLY THE APOSTLES and Church in their days, but that the Church in all succeeding ages is infallible.  
THe Church of England confesses that the Apostles and Church in their time, 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 however, it's their Doctrine, as appears in Mr Sall's discourse pag. 18 professing to believe, the Holy scripture the Apostles Creed, and S. Athanasius his Creed (parallelling this with the other two) with the heavenly gift of faith; and if the Council of Nice, which delivered unto us the doctrine 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 believe that Creed, and the doctrine of the Council with the same Faith, with which we believe the scripture. Now the Protestants all agree in this; that now, nor in these many ages, the Church is not infallible; for which assertion, you must expect no scripture from them, nor no reason, but their bare word.  
But let us see what reason they pretend: God, say they, having given us an infallible written word, sufficient to instruct us, Church infallibility was for the future needless; what school boy but sees the weakness of this reason? first, after the scripture was written, the Church continued infallible for some ages, Mr sal must confess by what I have now said; as generally all Protestants say; and as all, must say, otherwise Arrius, and other Heresiarks, might have questioned the truth of their doctrine if they had been fallible; and could not be obliged in conscience to acquiesce to their iugdment, nor ought not tobe held for Heretics nor excommunicated for not submitting to them, if they were fallible; as yond do not esteem yourself an Heretic for not submitting to the Catolick Church on te same account. S. Gregory l. 1. c. 24. says of the first four Councils I do embrace and reverence the four General Councils, as the four Books of the Gospel; which had been rashly and impiously said, if they had not been infallible. Secondly if Church infallibility was needbess because the scripture, which is infallible, was written; then it was also needless that the Church should be infallible in fundamental points of Religion; and yet Protestants do constantly aver, that the Church is still infallible in fundamental points, thought he scripture be infallible also in them. Thirdly, the Apostles remained still infallible after the Scripture was written; and why not the Church? fourthly, if infallibility is needless, because the Scripture is infallible, we may say also that S john is not infallible in is Ghos pell, at least, as to those points which were all ready mentioned in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; or that these three, lost their infallibility by the writing of S. john's Ghos pell; because one infallible Ghos pell is sufficient, at least as to the points it contains.  
These instances show that reason to be very frivolous: and if it proved any thing, at most it can prove that the Church infallibility is not necessary for our instruction; but it might be-necessary for other ends of God's providence; who might have left still that gift of infallibility to his Church, for a mark of his love to her. we find he did promise the conduct of his infallible Spirit to his Church; we de not find he should have limited this grace to any time; nay to the contrary, we find that he said, it should be for ever, all days, to the consummation of the world, why should we therefore limit that favour unto à time; to conclude we have proved in the 2 and 3 chap. that Scripture is not sufficient to instruct us, and consequently an infallible Church is still necessary.  
An other reason no less silly, to prove that the Church after few ages became fallible: for the Popes. Prelates, and People became very vicious; and from the debauchery of manners, they came, by God's just iugdment, to fall into errors in doctrine: which Mr sal pretends to prove by Scripture pag. 32. the promise made by Christ of the Paraclet, for to lead the Church into all truth, was a conditional promise as appears by Christ his word Io. 14.16. if you love me, keep my commandments, and I will ask my father, and he will give you an other Paraclet, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive. The Paraclet is promised on condition they Keep the commandments; and by the later words, whom the world cannot receive; the Paraclet is flatly denied to all those, the Scripture styles by the name of world; that is to say, the, wicked and worldly men. Hence (says Mr sal we can be no more sure, that the Pope and his Council are infallible; than we are that he life's in God's love, and observance of his commandments: and whereas it is manifest by our own Histories, that the Pope, Pastors and flock have fallen into many crimes, it follows they have forfeited the conduct of God's infaillible Spirit.  
If from the lewdness of manners, we might conclude the Church's corruption in doctrine, what Gospel 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 Prelates: the sins of Prelates did deface the Gospel, and did the Apostasy of Luther and the Sodomy of Caluin restore it to its splendour? Christ did foresee that they, who should sit on the chair of Moses, would be wicked in their lyues; and yet commanded us, to obey, and believe their doctrine. The conduct of God's Spirit promised to them, for to lead them into all Truth, was not a personal gift given to them for their own sakes, but for the flock; for to keep them in unity of Faith: and therefore though God does permit them to fall into wickedness of life, his Providence will not permit them to fall into errors of doctrine; that the flock, which it obliged to obey them, may not be misled. To prove that the Promise was only conditional, you corrupt the text: for as well your Bible, as ours, says thus: if you love me, keep my Commandments; and there puts a punctum. Then adds a distinct verse or section; And I will ask my Father, and he will give you an other Paraclet etc. which makes an absolute sense, independent of the former. That this is the true interpretation of that text; it appears, for in several other texts, That assistance of as Mat. 28 20▪ behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Mat. 16. the Gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Io. 16 13. when the Paraclet shall come the Spirit of Truth, he shall teach you-all truth. And is it not strange Mr sal should aver, the Paraclet was promised upon condition of God's love, and observance of his Commandments; whereas the Church remains still infallible infundamental points; notwithstanding that it has failed in that condition, as Mr sal and all Protestants do deknowledge. But what he will never answer is, that if that Promise was conditional, it folloves we cannot be sure the Gospel is infallible, if we be not sure that the Evangelists, when they wrote it, have been in the love of God, and observance of his Commandments; for if they were not, they had not the Paraclet says Mr sal; but no text of Scripture tells us, that the Evangelists were in the state of Grace when they writ the Gospel; nor nothing else gives us assurance of it. Therefore we are not assured the Gospel written by the Evangelists is infallible: nay which is worse, in the common doctrine of Protestants, we are assured it is not infaillible; for the common doctrine in their Church is, that it is impossible to keep God's commandments; the Evangelists therefore, when they writ did not keep God's Commandments; consequenly they could not have the Paraclet to lead them into truth; consequenly the Gospel is not infallible, and so Mr Shall overthrows all-Christian Religion.  
Let us consider what inducements had the primitive Christians to believe the Apostles infallible: was it not the testimony of the Apostles, confirming their doctrine with many Miracles? look into the Histories of all succeeding ages, and you will find, that the Church, which affirmed herself to be infallible, did confirm her doctrine with many and great Miracle, as we will evidence in the ensuing Chap. And on what do you ground your belief, when you say the Apostles were infallible? You say, that upon the Scripture: but I defy you to show 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 prove the Church to be infallible in succeeding ages, or they do not prove the Apostles to be infallible.  
For example we prove the infallibility of the Apostles by the words of Christ: he that heareth you, heareth me. Lu. 10. whence follows, that the words of the Apostles were the words of Christ. But Christ himself, Mat. 18. declares that text must be understood of his Church, wherever it be: if he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a Heathen and Publican. We prove it out of S. john 14.18. He will give you an other Paraclet, the spirit of truth, that will a bide with you for ever; but this text plainly declares that the Promise was made also to the Church in succeeding ages, by the word for ever; for the Apostles were not to be for ever in their own persons, but in their successors; and to remove all occasion of cavilling upon the word for ever, saying that it signify only the time of the Apostles lyues, Christ declares himself in a clearer expression, Mat. 28. I am with you all days to the consummation of the world giving us to vnderstand, that the Paraclet was not sent to his Apostles alone, but to their successors to the words end. We prove it by the text of S. Io. 16.26. when the Paraclet will come, whom I will send from my Father the spirit of Truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he will give testimony of me, and you will give testimony. But there is nothing more clear, than that the whole Chapter speaks all a long of the Church; (read, I pray, the text) consequently that text is to be understood of the Church, as well as of the Apostles. We prove it, because the Apostles were the foundation (S. Paul Eph. 2.20.) whereupon the Church was built: But S. Paul calls the the Church also the Pillar and foundation of Truth 1. Tim. 3. We prove it because S. Paul commands us in several places to believe his doctrine, for that his word is not the word of Man, but indeed of God, and consequently infallible. 1. Thes. 2. bu● Christ also Mat. 23▪ commands us to obey and believe the Church in succeeding ages: on the chair of Moses have sat the scribes and Pharisees, whatever they bid you do, observe and do, obliging us to obey and believe not only Moses, but those that succeed in his chair. Thus not a text shall you meet for the infallibility of the Apostles, but proves likewise that of the Church.  
Doubtless you will not deny, but that Christ his Command of teaching all Nations, preaching the Gospel, that the Bishops should rule the Church, was laid not only on the Apostles, but on their successors for future ages; other wise the Prelates and Pastors of future, and this our age would not be obliged to teach preach, and rule us. You will not deny also, but that Christ his command of hearing the Church under pain of being esteemed Heathens and Publicans, of obeying them that sit on Moses his chair, of being subject to our Prelates, was laid on the flock of all succeeding ages, as well as on that of the Apostles days: it follows therefore that the Pastors of our age are as much obliged to teach us, as the Apostles were to preach to them of their age; and that we are as much obliged to obey and believe the Church in our age, as the flock was in the Apostles time to believe and obey them: who can doubt them but that as the Authority, jurisdiction, and obligation of teaching descended to succeeding ages, the infallibility also given to the Apostles for to acquit that obligation, did descend; it being given by God, for the love and government of the flock, that they should not be mis lead. And here enters the argument that I proposed in the former Chapter. Whoever does as Christ bids him do, and believes as Christ bids him believe, cannot do amiss, nor believe an error; but Christ bids us do and believe, as the Church in succeeding ages bids us do and believe; therefore we cannot do amiss, nor believe an error, consequently they cannot misled us.  
But says our Adversary, the Paraclet was to remain with the Church until all truth was taught necessary for salvation; but it cannot be doubted but that the Paraclet taught the Apostles all truth, and they delivered those Truths in their written word. Therefore after that word was delivered to us, the Paraclet was to remain no longer. This objection well understood, will give light to our doctrine, and manifestly confirm its truth.  
Christ says Io. 15.15. that he taught his Apostles all whatever he had heard from his Father: it's manifest therefore he taught them all truths necessary for salvation: this was before his Passion, and yet after his Resurrection, S. Luke c. 24. tells us, that ie his journey to Emaus with the two Disciples he interpreted the passages of Scripture to them, which signify, that through inaduertency or forgetfulness we may come to doubt, even of what truths were already taught: nay he says 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, having said he taught all things, yet he says, that he had many things to open to them, which they could not then learn, until the Paraclet came. This might seem a contradiction, but is none: for when he said that he taught them all he had heard from his Father, that is to be understood, that he taught and delivered to them the General Principles and Truths of Faith, wherein all truths of Religion were contained; and 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, it's therefore that the Holy Ghost is called by the Fathers, Basil. 5. cont. Eunom: and Mar vict: 3. contra Arium, the Interpreter, and Voice of the Son because the interpreter says nothing of his own, but delivers in expresser terms, what the Author has already said: and the text clearly says, 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 sudden open to the Apostles all the Truths and consequences included in those General Principles delivered by Christ; or if he did, that he did not so clearly, as that they should have understood all; for after that descent, we read Act. ●0. that Peter doubted, if the Gospel ougth to be preached to the Gentiles, and he was instructed by a heavenly vision, it ought: also Act. 15. it was doubted if besides Baptism, the Faith full were to be circumcided. But we 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 delivered to them by Christ: consequently there is no Truth of Faith which now is believed by us, or shall be believed by future Ages, but the Apostles did distinctly and particularly know; for as Tertul. says, l. de praeser. c. 22. quis integrae mentis credcre potest, aliquid eos ignorasse, quos Magistros Dominus dedit: what man of a sound wit, can believe, that they were ignorant of any thing whom the Lord gave us for Masters: we confess also, that the Apostles did teach and deliver 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 which ye have learned,▪ wheter by Epistles, or by word of Mouth:▪ some of these truths, in succeeding ages either through forgetfulness, or through inaduertency of their Disciples, and their successors (who minded chief those Articles that were opposed by Heretics and laboured in declaring them, and neglected the others,) came to be only confusedly known and not so exactly, as they were delivered 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 Adversaries calumny us, coin a new Article; it adds nothing to what the Apostles delivered; but it declares to the Disputants in Religion, what was anciently taught and believed by the Apostles, and was forgotten or misunderstood by others. Doubts in Religion, are but Doubts of what the Apostles did teach, some say onething, others an other: what we pretend is, that whereas these doubts have been in all ages and ever will be; there has been, and ever will be an infallible Church to ascertain us, which is the true Doctrine; for though the Apostles knew all Truths, and taught them, either by word of Mouth, or in writing; what Doctrine they delivered verbally, or by word of Mouth, is doubted of by Posterity; if This, or That be of Apostolical Tradition; alsoe the written word is questioned, if This, or That Part of Scripture be truly Canonical: what we 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 unto them the true sense of the Truths which he taught them: That as, though the Paraclet taught all Truths to the Apostles, yet he still remained with them to direct them, if any doubts should occur against those Truths; and as, though the Apostles taught to their Disciples all those Truths, yet the Protestants themselves confess it was needful, they should have left an infallible written word, to inform and ascertain us what Doctrine the Apostles did teach: so we pretend that, though the Apostles have taught verbally and by their written word all Truths of Religion, yet since that we see 'tis doubted what the Apostles did teach verbally, and which is their written Doctrine, it was absolutely needful there should be left to us after their departure an infallible Guide and Instructor for to ascertain us, which is the Doctrine and written word of the Apostles, and the true sense of that written word; which infallible Guide and instructor we say, is the Church, constantly assisted by God's infallible Spirit. So long therefore shall the Church be assisted with that Spirit, to direct us, as there shall be doubts against Religion, which will be, for ever.   

VII. CHAPTER. THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC Church is the true Church appointed to teach us: Infallible in all Points of Religion.  
BY the Roman Catholic Church, we do not vndestand the Diocese of Rome, as Mr sal wilfully mistakes; but the whole Congregation of Faith full spread troughhout the world, united 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 miles round, the Camp takes its denomination from the head-quarter, where the General lodges. This Church, we say, is the Church which Christ established to teach us what Truths he revealed: for that Church established by Christ, which flourished in the Apostles time, is it now extant or not? if not we all labour in vain in proving each of us, that his wone Church is the true and Primitive 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 loudly disclaym infallibility; therefore no other is the true Church but the Roman Catholic.  
You say the True Church is infallible in Fundamental Points; that Your Church is so far infallible, and no other Church can justly claim to any more; consequently that yours is the true Church. But I reply; the Scripture says the Church is infallible, and you now in some measure do confess it: the Scripture does not limit that infallibility to points fundamental; nay says the Paraclet shall lead her to all Truth. by what Authority do you make that restriction? the Apostles and Church in their time was infallible in all Points Fundamental and not Fundamental they taught as well the chief and prime Articles of Faith as the inferior Truths; they writ the new Testament which contains both kind of Articles Fundamental and not Fundamental; and which is infallibly true in whatever it contains; and they were no less infallible in what they taught verbally, then in what they writ; whereas S. Paul commands us to hold fast the Traditions received from them, whether by written Epistles, or by speech. 2. Thes. 2. Now I ask were the Apostles infallible in the Points not fundamental and inferior 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 word was indeed the word not of men, but of God; for the word that is not infallibly true, is not God's word. If they were infallible, than the Church in the Apostles time was infallible in all points fundamental and not: either that Church therefore is not now extant, and so we labour in vain in pretending it is, or there is a Church now extant infallible in all doctrine of Religion fundamental and not; which can be ne other but the Roman Church, whereas Protestants and all other sectaryes-owns themselves to be fallible.  
You answer again, it's the same Church as to the substance and essence of a Church, which requires only to be infallible in fundamental points, as yours is; but I will prove that it is as repugnant to the essence of the true Church to be fallible or falls in small articles of Faith as in great ones: I say in small articles of Faith: for to teach a doctrine to be an article of Faith, is to teach it is revealed by God: but it is impossible the true Church, should teach any doctrine small or great to be a revealed Truth, which is an untruth, and not really revealed by God because the Church is commissioned by God to teach us his doctrine, what he has revealed; and for that purpose has given her the Mark and Seal of his Commission, which are Miracles, whereby to confirm their doctrine, by which God moves men to embrace and believe 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 Moses, Ex. 4.1. said, They will not believe me, nor hear my voice: God gave him the gift of Miracles as a mark and sign that he was sent by him. When Elias raised the dead Child to life (3. Reg. 17.24.) the Mother cried out; now in this I have known, thou art a man of God, and the word of our Lord in they mouth is true. Christ being asked if he was the Messiah, proved himself to be such, by the Miracles he wrought, Mat. 11.3. The blind see, the lame walk, the Lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, and the dead rise again. S. Paul 2. Cor. 12.12. calls the Miracles which he wrought, the signs of his Apostle ship, and S. Mar. last ch. says that the Apostles preaching every where wrought Miracles in confirmation of their doctrine. Christ to prove against the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat. 9.6.) that he had power of forgining sins, which they denied, cured the sick Man of the Palsy, That you may know that the son of Man hath power of forgining sins, saith he to the sick of the Palsy, Arise, take up thy bed, and go to thy house. Therefore if the Catholic Church does work Miracles in proof of the doctrine she teaches, 'tis an unquestionable truth, that she is the true Church (as Nicodemus concluded, Io. 3.2. No man could do those things if God were not with him.) and that no man can deny or doubt her doctrine to be from God: wherefore Christ (Mat. 11.21. pronounced Woe against Corozain and Betsaida, because they did not believe his doctrine to be divine, 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 judging them to 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 objected against the Miracles of our B. Saviour and Apostles. Can not the inhabitants of Corozain and Bethsaida say, that the Miracles which Christ alleged, were but Sorceries, or effects of natural causes? did not the Scribs and Pharisees say it? to conclude, if thy were true Miracles, 'tis evident the doctrine in whose confirmation they were wrought, is divine; 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 infinitely True, and to whose infinite Veracity it is as repugnant to speak a small untruth as a great one, should confirm any untruth, everso small, with a Miracle; consequently a Church that would deliver a mixed doctrine, of some great Truths, and some small untruths, it is impossible that God should work Miracles by that Church, in confirmation of her doctrine; for that would be to own that doctrine for his own, and own small untruths to be revealed by him, whereas he gives his commission, and his seal and Marks of his authority for to teach them: And as it is not credible that the King of England should give his commission under the broad seal of England to any man to induce his subject into a Rebellion, so it's less imaginable that God should give his commission. with his broad seal, which are Miracles and supernatural signs, to teach an untruth ever so small; his infinite veracity being so averse to all untruth. By no other means did he confirm the doctrine of the Trinity to be his doctrine, by no other signs did he move men to believe, than by working Miracles by the Church that taught it; if therefore he works miracles by the Church that teaches Purgatory, real Presence, and others, which you call inferior points and small errors, he confirms that doctrine to be his, and so approves and owns small untruths to be revealed by him. Therefore S. Paul when he preached as well great, as inferior Truths or articles, could confidently say, that his words were indeed the words of God, because God did confirm his doctrine by Miracles and supernatural signs: particularly Mr Shall averring that the doctrine of Purgatory and real Presence are damnable errors, if ignorance doth not excuse the Professors, certainly God would not give the Marks of his Commission (which are Miracles) to teach them. It remains that we prove, God has wroutght Miracles by the Roman Catholic Church, even in those ages, wherein the Protestants affirm that she was plunged in errors; and in confirmation of those Tenets, which they say are errors. Secondly that we are bound to believe them to have been true Miracles; thirdly that the doctrine in whose confirmation they were wrought must be true revealed doctrine.  
As to the first, we speak not of forged Miracles, which have been▪ and are still condemned by the Church, and their Authors punished as impostors; we speak of uncontrolled Miracles wrought in the presence of the very Authors (and Authors of an unspotted credit, Holiness and learning, even in the opinion of our Adversaries) who relate them in their works left to Posterity. S. Augustin l. 22. de Civit. Dei c. 8. relates, that in his own time, many miracles were wrought, and some in his own presence, by the Sacraments of the Church, by the intercession of Saints, and their Relics, especially of saint Stephen, of saint Gervase and Protase, when (he being then in the town) their Bodies were by a heavenly revelation discovered to saint Ambroise at Milan: by the sign of the Holy Cross, by the sacrifice of Mass, and Earth of Christ's sepulchre; and mentions in particular (besides others) that a woman called Palladia was suddenly cured by praying to S. Stephen, Ad sanctum Martyrem orare perrexerat, quae mox ut cancellos attigit sana surrexit. S. Bernard in saint Malachy's life relates many Miracles wrought by this Saint; and that he himself, after the Saint expired, took his hand, and laid it upon the withered and useless hand of a boy then present, who was presently restored to perfect health. The Miracles wrought by S. Bernard himself in confirmation of the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantion and Invocation of Saints, opposed in his time by the Henricians, and Waldenses, are recorded by God fred in vita S. Bern. l. 3. c. 5. and particularly, that stupendious Miracle of Sarlatum, a village near Toulouse, when the Saint blessing some loaves of bread, he said to the multitude that were present. In this you shall know that these things, (meaning those Tenets opposed by the foresaid Heretics) are true, and those false, which the Heretics endeavour, to persuade you that whosoever of your diseased persons, shall taste of these loaves, they shall be healed: and the Bishop of Chartres (his friend) then present, adding that the promise was conditional, provided they did eat of that bread with Faith, the Saint replied; that he did speak without any such restriction, that his meaning was, that whosoever did taste of them loaves should bo cured of his sickness. And effectualy, as many sick persons as did eat of the loaves, were cured; and this Miracle being published, such a multitude flocked to meet the Saint from all parts, that he was forced to decline the common road. No less authentic is that passage of S. Damascen, related by john Hierosolymitanus in the life of Damascenus, his own scholar and privy to all his life. Leo Isauraus that great persecutor of Images, understanding that Damascen was very active in defending their worship, and that he had writ learnedly in the defence of that Tenet; conterfeited a letter, as written by Damascen unto him, inviting him to surprise the City of Damascus, whereof he was Governor; this letter Leo Isaurus sent unto Hisiam, Caliph, or King of the Saracens, whose subject Damscen was; proving thence the Treachery of Damascen, and his own sincerity and honesty in detesting so execrable an action of a subject against so deserving a Prince: Hisiam astonis●ht that Damascen should be capable of so base an action, consulted his Councillors, concluded him guilty, and condemned him to the forfeiture of his Means and Employments, and that his right hand should be cut of, and nailed to a gibbet in the Market place; which being executed, the saint retired to his house, humbly begged 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 honour of her and the saints Images might be restored to him; which. He promised he would continually employ in defending that Doctrine 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 employ it, according to they promise, in writing against the impiety of those who injure us by their un worthy demeanour towards our Images: awaked out of his sleep he found his hand as perfectly united to his arm, as ever it hath been. This Miracle was diuulged; Damascen called by Hisiam; and after so supernatural a testimony of his Innocency, restored to his former dignities and Means; all which he renounced; gave his Means to the Poor, and became a Priest, and a great Opposer of the Iconoclasts. There is hardly any age of the Church but affords us the like Miracles wrought by the Roman Catholics in confirmation of our Doctrine: it were tedions to rehearse more, especially when these now related are sufficient for the present subject.  
That these things happened (whither they were true Miracles or no, we do not dispute now) but that such things as we have related, did really happen, no sober man can deny it; for certainly he would be held for an obstinate fool that would say, there was no such man as Caesar or Cicero in the world; that he never fought with Pompey; for which we have no other warrant, but the testimony of Heathen Authors (for no Christian did ever see them) and none but a mad man will deny but S. Agustin, S. Bernard, john-hierosolimitanus and other saints and learned D. Doctors that writ the forementioned passages, and others of the same kind in several other ages, are as much deserving of credit, as the Heathens: and if you did meet in S. August. S. Bern. and other saints, that the figurative presence was believed in their ages, and such as believed Purgatory, were punished, doutless you would believe them, and cry victory against us; it can not then be, but prejudice that will hinder you from believing those passages did happen, whereas they do in their writings testify they happened in their own presence▪ what character would he deserve, 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 times; no such things a spanish fleet defeated by the English, in Queen Elizabeth's time and Philip the second of Spain. would not you judge such à man to be mad: for all this we have no other warrant but Histories; and the Authors were not, more honest, learned, wise and holy than S. Augustin, Bern: and other saints who relate Miracles wrought in all-ages-can he then deserve a better character, than of a mad man or fool that will deny them? moreover either S. Augustin, S. Bern, and the other saints that relate those Miracles, did believe the Tenets of Invocation of saints, adoration of Images, and real Presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, or not? if they did, than you confess that the saints now reigning in heaven, and confessed by you to be saints, and none of the simple sort, but learned wise men, did believe and were saved in the belief of our Tenets: if they did not believe them; what end or advantage could they have in feigning those Miracles: we 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 which superstitious Monks relate, are either feigned Miracles, or wrought by Satan's enchantments to establish wicked worship of Images, Invocation of saints etc. not that I think S. Bernard was a Magician (says Osiander Cent. 12. pag. 310.) but that I think it probable, Satan wrought the Miracles, whereby the saint himself, and others were deceived.  
Supposed then, that such things did really happen, we will prove they were, and we are bound to believe they were true Miracles: for this you cannot deny, but that S. August. S. Bern: john Hierosol. and God fred. who were wise 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 passed▪ they examined narrowly the passages, and their circumstances; thy judged them to be true Miracles; must not we believe them to have 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 observed, that when Damascens hand was restored, and S. Bernard cured the sick by the laoves he blessed; is it possible, if these had not been notorious miracles, but enchantments, that some Iconoclast, and some Henrician or waldenses, against whose Doctrine they were wrought, should not have examined and discovered the cheat? S. Bernard had many Enemies infrance, all the Henricians, and Apostolici, waldenses; Damascen had the Emperor Leo for Enemy and all the Iconoclasts, and not only them but in the weary City of Damascus, all the Ambitious Courtiers; who envied his greatness, and pressed Hisiam to cut of his hand: and can it be imagined that none of all these should have writ or published if that passage was a cheat and no known miracle? or by what means did the Centurists, Osiander, and Protestants in our age, come to discover they were all but enchantments, which the enemies of those Saints, that then lived, could not discover? Once that Luther in Germany thought to cheat the world, and make men believe he could cast out Devils, the cheat was discovered and many writers of that time did relate it. Once that Caluin in Geneva thought to delude the world, and show that he could raise the dead, he brybed a man to feign himself dead, that he might be thought to raise him to life; 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 Heretics, against whose Doctrine they were wrought, or some one than living should not have discovered it?  
This you cannot deny, but that Herod, and many jews, who never did see our Saviour work any Miracles, nor hear him preach, were bound to believe, and obstinate for not believing our Saviors' Miracles and Doctrine; only upon this account, that they were credibly informed by those who were ey witness of his Miracles and doctrine; notwithstanding that the Scribe and Pharisees said, they were wrought by the Devil: whereas therefore S. Augustin, S. Bernard, and the Saints of other ages, are as credible Witnesses as those jews were that related the Miracles of Christ's, and could judge and know what a miracle was, as well as those jews, do inform you that those true miracles were wrought in those ages in confirmation of our Catholic Tenets, and that, in their presence; you are bound to believe they were true miracles, and obstinate in not believing them. To say, as the Centurists and Osiander, that these miraculous works were Sorceries and enchantments, is a most desperate assertion; first it is to make the Saints and Fathers of antiquity (who relates them as wrought in their own presence, examined by them, and judged to be true miracles) mere fools, that were deceived, and knew not to distinguish betwixt a true miracle, and a Sorcery: Secondly what rule or way hath Osiander and the Centurists got, to know those passages to be enchantments and not true miracles, which S. Augustin, S. Bernard and other Saints had not? Thirdly, Christ appayed the hunger of a multitude with few loaves which he blessed; S. Bernard cured the diseases of a multitude by the loaves, which he blessed: let us abstract from the Authors of these two actions; let the actions be considered by a learned Pagan Philosopher, who believes not in Christ; will not he judge them both to be equally miraculous, or both to be but enchantments? I conclude what all wise learned holy men, (and especially even the adversaries also of the Author) do judge, after an exact examine of all circumstances, to be a true miracle; it is wilful obstinacy to deny it be such: but the fore named Saints, and they of all other ages (as will appear if you read the Ecclesiastical Histories) have judged miracles to be truly wrought in each age, some have been eywitnesses of miracles, other have examined and enquired what they were, and their circumstances, and judged them to be such: S. john Damascen, and S. Bernard's enemies against whom they preached and writ, did not deny them to be such. Therefore we cannot without obstinacy deny them.  
Now, that we are obliged to believe the doctrine in whose confirmation they we wrought, it's proved by what is said; and that if we be not obliged to believe Catholecisme, its most apparent, we are not obliged to believe Christianity; for by the self same arguments by which you prove, against a Pagan, the Christian Religion to be true, we also prove, the Catholic to be true: consequently either the Catholic must be true or the Christian is not: by what were the jews and Gentiles persuaded, that Christianity was revealed by God? because it was preached by Holy men, of great sanctity of life, of great austerity, of no attach to the world or worldly things, of admirable virtue, and who confirmed their doctrine with supernatural signs and Miracles: but S. Bernard who preached the Invocation of Saints, Transubstantiation, and veneration of Relics, against the Henricians, was a great Saint; witness Whitaker de Eccl. pag. 369. I do realy believe S. Bernard was a true Saint. Osiander, Cent. 12. Saint Bernard Abot of Clareval was a very pious man. Gomarus in speculo Eccl. pag. 23. One pious man your Church had in many years Bernard a Saint. Pasquil's return into Engl. pag. 8. he was one of the lamps of God's Church. S. Augustin was confessedly a great saint, S. john Damascen that writ several learned Treatises against the Iconoclasts for the worship of Images, S. Malachias, S. Thomas Aquinas and S. Francis Xaverius, who converted so many Kingdoms in the Indies to the Catholic Religion, at that very time, that Luther revolted from the Church; all these, and many more great Saints preached the Catholic Religion and confirmed it with many Miracles, as we have related and the Histories do manifest: therefore we have as strong motives to persuade the truth of Catholic Religion, as you have to prove the truth of Christian Religion; both therefore must be believed, or neither.  
Can any man judge it consistent with the goodness of God, to permit Transubstantiation and the worship of Saints and Images, if they were false doctrine, to be proposed to men, by great and Holy Saints, and confirmed by so many miracles; when by the very self same means and motives of credibility, he proposes to us Christianity; whereby men must find themselves equally obliged to believe both or neither? nor will it be an evasion, to say that the Miracles wrought in favour of Christianity were true miracles, and those which were wrought for Popery, were but enchantments and sorceries; for abstracting from Faith, which obliges us to believe that the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were true miracles, our senses and Natural reason cannot but judge the restitution of Damascens hand, the healing of the sick by the loaves blest by S. Bernard to be as true miracles, as any that was wrought by the Apostles; and therefore they were judged by all wise men of those ages to be such: and abstracting from Faith as I said, what reason can be alleged for to say, the one were true miracles, and the others not?  
I conclude with this discourse: as Children are obliged in conscience to honour, their Parents, (its God's commandment) so you are obliged in conscience to believe that Doctrine to be true, which is confirmed by true Miracles: for as we formerly discoursed, its impossible that God should confirm false Doctrine with true Miracles, that being repugnant to his infinite veracity, to confirm a lie with the seal, and marks of his Commission to teach it: but for your obligation of honouring this particular Man and woman, who are your Parents; it's not requisite you have evidence, 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 have, is grounded only upon the testimony of honest people that informs you of it: the like you have, that true Miracles have 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 believe that doctrine is true, in whose confirmation those Miracles were wrought.  
You reply; this makes our Faith of that doctrine but fallible Faith; for if I have no more assurance of the truth of those Tenets, than I have of the Miracles that were wrought in confirmation of them; of the truth of those Miracles, I only have a moral assurance grounded upon the testimony and judgement of those saints which relate them; all which is but fallible; for it might happen they were deceived; consequently all the certainty I have of the truth of the Tenets, is but a moral and fallible certainty; and so our Faith is not infallibly true. I answer, the motive of my Faith, and ground where upon it is bottomed, is only the voice of God pronounced by the Church, which delivers that doctrine of God; which Motive and ground is infallibily true. But because this Motive is obscure, and does not appear evidently and certainly to the understanding that it does exist, the understanding cannot assent unto it, until it be made more known, and the way to make is more known, is not to make it evident that it exists; for the Motive of Faith must be obscure, and it is against the essence and nature of Faith, to be evident, or the Motive of it to be evidently proposed to the understanding, as Mr Anderton does most solidly and learnedly demonstrat in his Treatise of a sovereign remedy against Atheism and Heresy: The way therefore of making it more known, is to make it evidently credible, and likely in the judgement of any rational man, that such a voice of God speaking by the Church, is extant: and this is done by the Miracles and supernatural signs, which the Church works in confirmation of her Doctrine; which are undeniable inducements to any man of reason to judge it most credible and likely, that it is God who speaks by that Church: and our understanding being thus confirmed by this judgement of credibility than follows our obligation of believing the Doctrine; the credibility of the existence of God's voice by the Church, and our obligation of believing being thus proposed by our understanding; The understanding is still able to deny an assent to God's voice speaking, because nothing can force the understanding to an essent, but the evidence of the object; and it's not evident to the understanding, that God speaks, but evidently credible: therefore; the will must enter, which assisted with the previous judgement of the credibility of the doctrine, and a pious inclination from God, for to resolve, commands the understanding to assent to God's voice speaking, in which command of the will determining the understing to Assent, the Merit of Faith doth consist. So that the whole and only Motive of our assent of Faith, is God's voice speaking by the Church: the Miracles and other supernatural signs, are not the Motives of our Faith, but of our judgement of credibility, and of our obligation of believing a Doctrine so credibly proposed: which judgement of credibility and obligation of believing, need not to be absolutely and Metaphysically evident, but morally evident in the highest degree of Moral evidence, as it is in this case, that true Miracles have been wrought in many, or most ages by the Catholic Church in confirmation of her Tenets. Read the Resolution of Faith in the 2. part of these Treatise.  
Your obligation of believing the Miracles of the Church being thus proved, your obligation of believing her infallible in all points of Doctrine, is most apparent: for God, whose veracity is infinite, cannot speak the least untruth, nor deliver it as his Doctrine, nor give his commission to teach it; nor confirm it with the marks and scale of his Commission, for that would be to own it te be his Doctrine revealed by him; whereas therefore he has confirmed the Doctrine of the Catholic Church with so many Miracles, its impossible it should contain the least untruth.  
And when you would be so obstinate, as to doubt of all other Miracles, you cannot be so blind, as to doubt of the conversion of all Nations that ever were converted to Christianity, by the Catolick Church; what Nation was there ever yet converted to Christianity by the Protestant Church? or in what History do you read that ever you sent Preachers to convert Pagans? it was S. Austin, a Massing Priest sent by Pope Gregory the Great, that converted England to Christianity; if you believe the Chronicles of England: it was S. Xaverius a jesuit, (to whom Sectaries have no relation, if you will not make him Father of the Quakers) that converted the Indies; it was S. Patrick sent by Pope Celestin, that converted Ireland; they were Priest and friars and Monks that propagated the Gospel, in whom Protestants have no Interest, but what their revolt from the Church has given them in their Lands and estates▪ what Miracles, what conversion of Nations to Christianity, what succession of Pastors, since Christ his time, what General Councils that condemned heresies, can the Protestant Church show? And is it possible, that God should have given those glorious Marks of a true Church, to the Catholic Church, if it were not the true Church; and give no visible Mark at all of a true Church to the Protestant, if it were the true one? both Churches pretends to be the true, and sereval other Congregations pretends to the same: has God given no visible marks whereby to distinguish his true Church from falls ones? otherwise, why should we be obliged to believe This, to be the true Church, rather than That other? and can it be imagined, that he should have given Miracles and supernatural signs to the Catholic Church, if it were the false one, and give none to any other, if any other were the true Church.  
Lastly I prove that the Roman Catolick Church, is infallibly true in her Doctrine Purgatory, real Presence, and any Doctrine though small and inferior you call it. The Catholic 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 foundation or essential points of Faith. But if it did in any point whatever, though small you judge it, it would etr in fundamental articles of Religion: therefore it has not, nor cannot err in any whatever: I prove the Minor. It's a fundamental article of Faith, that God is infinitely true, that he cannot tell an untruth: but if the Doctrine of Purgatory were untrue, the Catholic Church would teach that God delivers an untruth; for the Church teacheth, that Purgatory is a Doctrine tevealed by God; if therefore Purgatory be an untruth, she teaches that God delivered an untruth; and consequently she errs in a fundamental article of Faith.  
Now its time we examine that impious Position of our new Minister, Mr sal he follows much the tract of Luther his Grand Reformer, not in that he should have disputed with the Devil as Luther did, in points of Religion, for the Devil is not so kind but to the grand Heresiarcks: thus far he imitats Luther that, in the beginning of his Apostasy, his chief drift was a separation from the Catholic Church upon any account whatever; I say whatever, for it is evident that the first Reformers had not fixed on any one settled Religion in opposition to the Catholic, whereas they were struggling and disputing for many years in several meetings, had to that purpose, to determine what ought to be believed by all, and what articles of Popery ought to be denied, and which not: which doth evidence, that their first drift was to separat from the Catholic, and their second endeavour was to find out some other Religion, we have the proof of this in the Chronocles of England, for their separation from the Church of Rome began by the Schism of Henry the Eight, which was quite different from the Religion his successor and Son Edwrad the 6. endeavoured to establish; and this quite an other, from that which Queen Elizabeth introduced; for she would have an Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and other points denied by the former: that which the Queen established, was fashioned to an other shape by King james and his successors. Nay to this day the Sectaries, who style themselves Reform Religion, do not agree, what Tenets must be held in opposition to the Catholics, but are sufficiently Reform by denying what the Catholic believes. Thus doth Mr Shall proceed, for what he has proposed to himself was a separation, however it should be, from the Church of Rome, but you will find in his discourse that he is not yet throughly resolved, what Religion to choose and what to believe; not only because that he has resolved to be of the Church of England which is an individuum vagum ready to change with all governments, but that in his Declaration he professes to believe the 39 Articles of the Church of England, and pag. 39 he says, that the sum of his Faith is the written word of God and the plain undubitable consequences out of it and it is manifest that the 39 Articles are not plain undubitable consequences out of Gods written word: for, a plain undubitable consequence, is that, which, the Premises being granted, is judged by all wise, learned, understanding men, to follow out of the Premises, and cannot be denied be any wise understanding man; That in the Roman Catholic Church there are wise, 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 coined, were not wise and learned men, that studied and understood the Bible; and to all these the 39 Articles seems contrary to the word of God, so far they were, from judging them plain, and undeniable 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 judge them to be plain undeniable consequences out of Scripture. So that you must say, that either all are a company of knaves that speak against their consciences, or that those 39 Articles are not plain and undeniable consequences out of Scripture; consequently Mr Sall's some times believes only Scripture, and its plain consequences; sometyms more.  
But what proves that he is not yet throughly a Protestant (and so we know not what he is, but a Not Catholic) is, his blasphemous Position, that there is not salvation in the Roman Catholic Religion; for it is the constant doctrine of the Church of England that the Catholic Religion is a saving Religion: first, because this has been ever yet their complaint against us, that we are uncharitable in denying salvation in their Church, and they extol their own charity for granting that in the profession of Popery (provided, he has no other sin) a man may be saved. 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 God's Church, I believe the Catholic Church; and that there was no other Church then extant, but the Roman Catholic Church, they also confess it, and must grant it; for the essence of the true Church consisting as they say, in the due administration of the Sacraments, and preaching of the word of God; and no other Church being extant in Luther's age, and the precedent, that administered Sacraments or preached the Gospel but the Roman Church; doubtless it must have been the true Church; for in what Kingdom, Province, City, Village, Church or Chapel in the world was these things, or any of them, done by Protestants? its therefore the constant doctrine of Protestants, that Roman Catholic 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 saved in the true Church of God, provided his life 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 saved; and it were to say that all our Ancestors, for so many ages, all the Father's Doctors and saints confessed by the Protestants them selves to be saints, were all damned.  
Neither can Mr Shall excuse his Blasphemy, and cure the wound with that plaster of Ignorance which he applies, saying that Papists (pag. 116.) may be excused by ignorance; and this small 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 saved for the space of so many hundred years, no saints that are confessed by both Parties to be such, if they were not fools and ignorant people of the simple sort; whereby all the wise and learned Fathers and Doctors of the precedent ages, and of this age are absolutely damned. Nay and Thomas Aquinas, which he himself styles a saint, and none of the simple sort▪ but a learned Doctor, who confessedly was a Papist is also damned. It's impossible that his Auditors, if they were of the Church of England, could hear him with patience, to cast all their Ancestors to hell; a Blasphemy so opposite to the Doctrine of their Church; wherein doth the Charity of the Protestant Church consist, and they do vaunt that they exceed the Catholics? is it in saying that by ignorance a Papist maybe saved in his Religion, provided his life be good? this is no excess of Charity, for we grant also (as we will declare in the ensueing Chap.) that Protestants, and not only they, but Heathens and jews may be saved in their Religion, if they be ignorant, and live well. we are but little beholding to the Protestant charity, if they grant no greater capacity of salvation in the Roman Catholic Religion, then in Paganism and judaism. No Sr since you are resolved to be a Protestant let me teach you their Doctrine; it's thus: they say we are guilty of errors, that their Tenets of figurative Presence, No Purgatory etc. are undeniable plain consequences out of Scripture, and therefore we err in denying them: and that we do err blamably and wilfully, because they are plain undubitable consequences out of Scripture; (as you say also Mr Shall (and whereas we have the scripture, and believe it to be the word of God, and have wits to understand, and sufficient instruction, we cannot but be wilfully ignorant, which ignorance is not sufficient to excuse us from blame for not believing: but they say, that our denying of them articles, though we be obstinate in our denial, will not damn us, (if we have no other sin) because they are not fundamental Articles of Faith; our errors do not shock the essential parts of religion, though it were better and more safe to believe them, yet their belief is not absolutely requisite for salvation. This is the Doctrine of the Church of England; they grant us salvation, not for any ignorance, but because we hold the substance and all essential points of Faith.  
It's therefore that Bramhal, Bishop of Armagh, called the Articles wherein the Protestant dissent from the Catholic Church, Pious opinions, and concluded that both Churches had true Faith, it's therefore that Doctor Stillingfleet compares both Churches, the Catholic to a Leaky ship, wherein a man may be saved, but with great danger and difficulty; and the Protestant to a sound ship, wherein one may be saved without hazard. It's therefore that King I ames in the meeting of the Protestant Clergy at Southampton pronounced this sentence; we detest in this point the cruelty of the Puritans, and judge them deserving of fire, who affirm that in the Popish religion a man may not be saved: read the Doctors of your Church; Luther c. 6. and c. 4. in Gen. Osiander in epitome: p. 2. pag. 1073. Melancthon in Conf. Aug. art. 21. printed at Geneva, 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. de Pol. Eccl. but it were tedious to name all; not any of the Church of England, nor of the Lutherans but confesses that the Catholic Church, is a saving Church because it has not erred in any fundamental points; that we are of one and the same Faith, as to the substance.  
It's true the Rigid Puritans, and the Hugonots of france do say, that the Catholic Church did err in fundamental points of Faith necessary for salvation; and that therefore there is no salvation in her Comnunion: and the Hugonots are of this sentiment, but since about the year 1634. for before, they constantly believed with the Church of England, that the Catholic Faith was a saving Faith; witness the answer of the Huguenot Diuins to Henry the fourth of france, who ask if a man could be saved in the Roman Religion, they answered yea; where upon he prudently choosed that Religion, which in the judgement of all Parties was a saving Religion Spondanus add an 1593. But Mr sal does not Profess to be a Puritan, nor Huguenot; and how come he to utter such an impious expression?  
But I will prove against him and his Associates Puritans, and Hugonots, that there is salvation in our Religion, even in their own Principles: for either the true Church can err in fundamental points, destructive of salvation, or not; if not, than the Roman Church, which in the confession of you all, was the true Church, before, and in Luther's age, did not err in any point of doctrine repugnant to salvation; if it can, than 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 salvation. Secondly you confess that the Lutherans and Protestants are in a true way of salvation; but if the errors of the Catholic Church were fundamental and damnable; They could not be in a sure way of salvation; for it is as damnable an error, to say that a man may be saved in the profession of damnable errors; as to profess them: for example its as damnable an error to say, that a man may be saved denying jesus-christ, as it is to deny him; vae qui dicitis bonum malum; if the Catholics therefore be in a damnable state for professing those, which you call errors; the Protestants and Lutherans; who unanimously say, they can be saved in the actual profession of those errors, must be in a damnable state. You must then either absolve both, or condemn both: besides, the Lutherans hold some Points with the Catholics, which you condemn as damnable errors in our Religion, for example, the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist; yet you believe the Lutherans may be saved in their Religion; therefore you must grant salvation to the Catholics.  
And now let us draw Mr sal by the skirt, and mind him of what he says pag. 24. The Arch. B. of Cashel his instructor, discoursed with him, and his modesty (pag. 28▪) added great weight to his reasons; Poor soul; how simply you were fooled out of your Religion, as appears by this passage: His Lordship acknow-ledged the Catholic Church was a part of the true Church: (but not the whole) and Mr sal fancied to perceive such an admirable charity and real desire of union among Christians, in this noble acknowledgement of his Grace, in granting us that Honourable Title, that he presently yielded all respect and submission to his reasons. Open your eyes, Poor Man, you are charmed by your instructors modesty, and cheated of your Religion by fair words. Honourable title? wherein doth the Honour of that Title of Catholic consist, if it does not signify a Profession leading to salvation? is it because that we believe many articles of Christianity, though we deny some? then the Title of Arrian and Pelagians is Honourable; which Professions believed divers Tenets of Christianity. Is it because that by ignorance we may be excused and be saved? but you say, that only the simple sort can have that ignorance; and besides, jews and Pagans may be saved in their respective Professions, if they can claim ignorance. Thus that Honourable title, which sounded so plea saint to your ears is but an empty voice.  
His Instructor granted the Church of Rome to be a part of the Catholic Church, but not the whole; and Mr sal did see such a vein of Charity and zeal to run through these words that he was ravished: was ever, Poor soul so deluded. why did not you ask, what his Lordp meant by Roman Church, if he meant the Diocese of Rome; that indeed is a part of the Catholic Church, but that is not the Church we speak of; that we say, is infallible; and whereof we are Members, (for we are no Members of that Church) wherein we say, man must be saved if in any: but if his Lordp did speak to the purpose, and to what we believe; by the Roman Catholic Church, as I declared 5. ch. and in the entrance to this chap. we understand all Christians throughout the world united in Faith and Communion with the Church of Rome; which is the chief and Mother Church: if he says, 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 lest No Protestants nor any thing like them) that did administer Sacraments and preach the word of God, but was united in Faith and Communion with the Roman Church; only such as were then held by Luther, and now by us schismatic 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 believe, that the Roman Church, (take it either for the Diocese of Rome, or as we understand it,) is a part of the Catholic 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 says, no: for it: requires to have an entire and inviolable Faith: and you that is a Professor of Divinity, will say, that a particular Person who holds damnable errors against the doctrine of the Church and obstinately adheres to them, is an heretic, 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 doctrine.  
You see Mr sal that against the doctrine of the Church of England, against your own and your Instructors concessions, you have engaged in that blasphemous assertion of not salvation in the Catholic Church, to use your own expression, pag. 75. to spite the Catholic you ran beyond all measure, even of your own principles; as to spite the jew, and seem a good Christian, one would eat more Pork, than his stomach can bear. And to get the credit of a sound and zealous Protestant among your new Brethren, you have exceeded them in decrying the Church.  
But the Reader will understand by what I have discoursed in this Chapter, that the Catholic Church is the true Church; that she cannot err in any point whatever of Religion, and consequently, that salvation is to be sought in her.   

VIII. CHAPT. THAT THE PROTESTANT CHURCH is not the Church of Christ, nor any part of it: That they cannot without blasphemy allege Scripture for their Tenets: That they have not one, and the same Faith with Catholics: that out of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. How far can ignorance excuse Protestants.  
IT is the constant doctrine of the Protestant Church (for I call not the Puritans and Hugonots of France, Protestants, whose error in this point I have she wen in the former chap.) that the Catholic Church has not erred in fundamental points of Religion; because the true Church, (such as the Catholic was before Luther confessedly, and now is, in their acknowledgement) cannot err in essential and fundamental articles, consequently they discourse, that the Protestant and Catholic Church, differ only in points not fundamental, and inferior truths, which, say they, are pernicious errors, but break not Unity of Faith, nor destroys not salvation. That the true Church can err, and is fallible in points not fundamental and inferior truths. This is faithfully the doctrine 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 several others cited in the Protestant Apology, tr. 1. c. 6. and tract. 2. c. 2.  
Now we must consider, what is the Protestant Church properly; it believes many Articles (and as they say all fundamental Articles) that the Catholic believes: so far they are not Properly Protestant's, but their proper Notion is to be taken from those Tenets, wherein they differ: so that Protestancy properly, and as it is condistinct from Catholecism, or Popery, as you say; is the doctrine wherein the Protestant Church differs from the Catholic. Now I prove that the Protestant Church, as it is properly the Protestant Church, condistinct from the Catholic, is not the Church of Christ; because it does not teach the doctrine of Christ; and no Church can be called of Christ further that it teacheth his doctrine; and doubteless if we did ask the Protestants and first Reformers, why they did separate from the Catholic Church, they would say. To believe and practise the Doctrine of Christ, which the Catholic denied. But I will prove that their doctrine, for which they separated from us, and wherein they differ from us, is not the Doctrine of Christ.  
The argument is in Ferio, thus: No fallible doctrine is the doctrine of Christ. For who would be so blasphemous, as to say, that what Christ has taught is fallible Doctrine: But Protestancy (that's to say all the Doctrine wherein Protestants differr from Catholics and for which they separated from us) is altogether fallible Doctrine; therefore Protestancy, as it is properly the Doctrine of the Protestant Church, is not the Doctrine of Christ: That Protestancy, or the Doctrine wherein we differ, is all fallible Doctrine, its manifest; for Protestancy, or Doctrine wherein we differ, is altogether of points not fundamental; we all agree in the fundamental Articles, as they unanimously confess; we only differ in inferior Truths, wherein the Catholic Church has erred. But the doctrine of points not fundamental and inferior truths is fallible Doctrine; for it's their constant Doctrine also, that the true Church, be it the Catholic or Protestant, can err and is fallible in articles not fundamental, and inferior truths: therefore all your Protestancy is but fallible doctrine; therefore it's not the doctrine of Christ. I confess ingenuously, I think this argument cannot be solidly answered.  
For is it not certain, that you differ from us, as you say, only in not fundamental articles? is it not also your doctrine, that the true Church is fallible in articles not fundamental; how can it then be denied, but; that you differ from us only in fallible doctrine; the doctrine wherein you differ from us is Protestancy, and nothing else is properly Protestancy, but that for which you departed from us: therefore your Protestancy is but fallible doctrine, and consequently not the doctrine of Christ.  
Hence I infer that you cannot without Blasphemy look for your doctrine in Scripture; no text or word of God can be alleged for Protestancy; nor any other warrant but your mere fancy: for your protestancy is but a parcel of fallible doctrine, and no fallible doctrine can without Blasphemy be sought for in Scripture, which contains nothing but Gods infallible word. Observe how vainly the Protestants do boast their Religion, and difference from us to be bottomed on the word of God; that their figurative Presence, is clear in the Scripture that they will prove the pretended errors for which they forsook us, by Scripture: they amuse the poor People with the specious pretext of Scripture; no Rule of Faith but Scripture; no judge of Controversy, 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 Doctrine 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 Doctrine of Christ, being all but fallible Doctrine; if they will not pretend to be a part of the Church because they believe the chief and fundamental Articles, wherein they agree with us; and that's ridiculous, because, in so much they are not Protestants; it's not for them Articles that they departed from us, and set up a distinct Church, this is to be a part of the Church in as much as they can pretend to be of the Roman Catholic Church: and if they might be called a part of the Church for that reason; Pelagians, Eutychians, and other Heretic Congregations may be called so also, and thus the Church of Christ instead of being the House of Peace and union, be a house of confusion.  
Out of this discourse also we may understand, how vain is the pretence of Protestants and several other sects, to unity of Faith with the Roman Catholics; for when we urge 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 Catholic Church has that Faith, for you ackowledg its a true and a saving Faith, that holds all Articles necessary for salvation; if therefore there be but one saving Faith no other will save but the Roman Catholic Faith: they are so gravelled with this discourse that they are glad to claim kindred with us, and say that we all, Catholics, Lutherans Presbiterians and Protestants, have but one and the same Faith, as to the substance and Essentials of Faith; because we all believe the Prime and chief Articles of Chlistianity, Christ's Incarnation, Passion, etc. which with a good moral life is sufficient for salvation; nor is it possible that God will condemn a man that believes those Articles, and life's a good life, for denying Purgatory, a trifle nothing material if there be any or not. This Omnifidian Doctrine of the Latitudinarians is now in great vogue, and cried up for a charitable Doctrine that excludes none from salvation, but lycenceth you to change Religions as your Interest or convemency requires.  
Out of this Principle follows, that if they have not the same Faith with the Roman Catholics, they have not a saving Faith; otherwise there would be two saving Faiths: But they are not of the same Faith, nay they are of a far different; for it's not enough for unity of Faith with the Catholics, to believe the Prime fundamental Articles; but all and every particular Article, though inconsiderable it may seem to you, which the Catholic Church proposes to be a revealed truth: any one Article that you deny, though small it be, for example Purgatory, breaks unity of Faith with the Roman Catholic Church.  
The Church believes the Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and believes the lawfulness of Marriage; and the lawfulness of eating any victuals. You cannot justly say, that one of these Articles is more. Fundamental than the other: why should the lawfulness of Marriage be a Fundamental point of Religion, more than the real Presence? by your sense 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 lawfulness of Marriage, would he, I say, have unity of Faith with the Catholic Church? by your rule he would, because he agrees in all fundamental, and Prime points; he only differs in an inferior truth, a small matter. Yet S. Paul expressly says that he would not: 1. Tim. 4.3. in the lather days certain will departed from the Faith (observe the word depart) attending to the Spirit of errors and Doctrine of Devils, for bidding to Marry and abstain from meats. Doth not this prove that the denial of small Articles breaks unity of Faith? you cannot therefore pretend to have the same Faith with the Roman Catholics, 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 soul after man's death reassuming again his body in a short time, as Hymenaeus and Philetus said, it's no fundamental Article, as you Protestants understand fundamentals, for the chief and prime Articles: yet S. Paul says of these two 2. Tim. 2.18. their speech spreadeth like Canker, of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus who have erred from the truth, saying that the Resurrection is past, and have subverted the Faith of some. Behold the denial of small and inferior truths, is called by S. Paul, a spreading canker, an erring from the truth, a subversion of the Faith; it breaks therefore unity of Faith; and hence conclude, that you have not unity of Faith with the Roman Church, though you believe with her the Trinity, Incarnation and other chief Articles, because you deny many others, under the pretence of being small and inferour Truths▪ and deceive not yourself with that distinction of fundamental and not fundamental Articles, where with your Leaders do amuse you. No article whatever is man obliged to believe, if it be not sufficiently proposed to him that God has revealed it: and any article whatever, which is sufficiently proposed unto us, to have been revealed by God; we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe: it so that as to our obligation of believing, all Articles are equally fundamental, if they be sufficiently proposed. It's true some Mysteries of Faith are of their own Nature more requisite, and needful, 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 believe them, is not that they are so absolutely or greatly needful, for no such absolute nor great necessity of Christ his death can be proved, he could have redeemed us with one tear he shed; yet it is a fundamental Article, because it is sufficiently proposed to me, to be a truth revealed: so that in order to my obligation of believing, all Articles sufficiently proposed, as revealed truths, are equally fundamental: And since that we own our obligation of believing the Scripture to be Scripture, Trinity and Incarnation, upon the testimony of the Church which says they are revealed Truths, since the same Church declares that Purgatory also is a revealed Truth, I am as much obliged to believe it, as the Trinity and Incarnation, though the Mysteries in themselves, be of an infinite inequality.  
By this it's proved that without the entire belief of all and every Article believed by the Church of Rome, you have not one and the same Faith with her; if you have not her Faith, you have not the true saving Faith; for hers is such, and there is, but One: if you have not a true saving Faith, you cannot be saved: therefore out of the Church of Rome there is no salvation. Blame me not for this Assertion; blame S. Paul who says there is no salvation without Faith, and says there is but one Faith, which we have proved, and you confess to be our Faith: blame S. Augustin epist. 152. Whoever is, or shall be separated from the Catholic Church, although he thinks himself to live most laudibly, for this one wickedness, that he is disjoined from the unity of Christ, shall have no life, but the wrath of God remains on him; blame the Fathers of all ages, who unanimously agree in this; that out of the true Church there is no salvation. By what I have discoursed in the first chap. it is evident there is but one Church: by what I have discoursed in the progress of this Treatise and especially in these two last chap. I proved that this one true Church is the Roman Catholic Church. It's consequent therefore that out of her Faith and communion is no salvation.  
Neither can we be justly accused of want of charity for holding this Tenet: by your acknowledgement (I mean the Protestants and Lutherans) the Catholic Religion is a saving Religion: but no Religion is a saving Religion, that is not charitable, witness S. Paul 1. Cor. 13.2. If I should have Faith, so as to move mountains, and have no Charity, I am nothing. Therefore you cannot say, but our Faith is a charitable Faith.  
Answer me to this argument; God has commanded under the dreadful punishment of being blotted out of the book of life, to add nothing to, or diminish any thing from his word: Revel 22.19. and Deut. 4.2. Either wee Catholics do add to the substance and essentials of the Faith of Christ, by believing real Presence, and Purgatory to be fundamental points of Religion revealed 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, we Catholics must be blotted out of the Book of life, because we believe too much, and impose upon the flock a larger belief than Christ has; or you Protestants must be blotted out of that book, because you take away some fundamental points which Christ has revealed: it is therefore impossible that in both Religions a man be saved. Either we are not a saving Religion, because we add fundamental points; or you are not, because you take them away, But by your acknowledgement, and by what we have proved we are in a saving Religion; therefore you must confess that you are not.  
Now we must examine if ignorance can excuse the Protestants, they pretend that they do not know they are in an error; ad here we will answer to what Mr Shall avers, that all Catholic Doctors confess, that a Protestant baptised, believing the Common Principles of Christianity, not convinced of error against Faith, but conceiving he follows the truth; is not an Heretic, but a member, of the Catholic Church; and so living a good life may be saved; for which he citys our Catholic Divins.  
It is the constant Doctrine of our schools, that an invincible ignorance of the Truth excuseth from the profession of it: and saying that it is the constant Doctrine, I need not cite Authors for it. An invincible ignorance, is when you have no means, nor cannot get, after a diligent enquiry, any means, for to overcome it, and be informed of the Truth. The second position assented also unto 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 have means afforded to you, for to instruct you, and through carelessness or some other motive, you do not make use of those means: or if you have not those means at hand; you may, if you inquire for them get them and be instructed; and in so weighty a matter as Christian Faith whereof depends your salvation; did you know that in Constantinople you could find them, you ought, setting all other considerations aside, to go thither to seek them. Now we all grant, that a Protestant who is invincibly ignorant, that has no way, nor after due enquiry, can get no means to overcome his ignorance, and be sufficiently informed of the truth of the Catholic Tenet; such a man Baptised, believing the common Principles of Christianity; and living a good life will be saved: but this is small comfort, for of the jews and Pagans we must say the like. Secondly a Protestant (and there are I fear, many of this sort) that would amuse himself with the persuasion of being in an invincible 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 persuades himself to be invincible, will excuse him, and will not be curious to inquire any more; this man, I aver 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 persuades himself that he is invincibly ignorant, and soothes himself with that persuasion, 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 invincible ignorance, and what if that ignorance be not truly invincible? what if he be not certain, that his ignorance is invincible? then it cannot excuse him: therefore whereas he does not certainly know that his ignorance is invincible, he exposes himself to manifest danger of professing a damnable error.  
But however the Principle taken in itself is true; that if a Protestant be invincibly ignorant, it excuses him. And whereas no man can certainly know that the ignorance of a Protestant it not invincible;, (only God can know that) certainly it is rashness in any man to say; this man that died in the Protestant Religion is damned. For invincible ignorance is a matter of fact; it depends, of, that the truth was not sufficiently proposed; that the means appointed by God for our instruction were not had, or could not be had; and how can you know certainly, that all Protestants have the truth sufficiently proposed to them or that they have, or can have the sufficient means to be instructed in the truth; nay or to doubt in the least of their own Profession: for example a young Lad that never left his Father's house; never heard of Catholic Religion but all to desaduantage; has no Catholic to confer, with, or if any, not such as can give him satisfaction; he is through sickness or other impediments unable to go in search of Priests, or learned men; he life's in his own Profession well: can you be sure that this Lads ignorance was not invincible? for my part, I judge there are some though but few I fear, that have an invincible ignorance. I say but few, for the reason I will produce soon. But of learned men and men versed in the transactions of ages, we may have moral assurance, that their ignorance cannot be invincible; and of them we may say, that if God has not given them some inward light in the last gasp, and an act of contrition, (which yet to us is un known) but that they died in the belief of their Tenets they are damned.  
The reason why I say, that but few Protestants can have an invincible ignorance of our Catholic Doctrine, is; All men are persuaded that there is a true Church, and there is nothing more evident to any man of common sense, than that all those Congregations, and each of them which we see among us of Quakers, Presbyterians Anabaptists, Protestants, Catholics, are not the true Church, this I say is apparent to any man of common sense; because each of us condemns not only the external government, but the Tenets of the other; and though all the rest joins to oppose the Catholic, yet take them separately, they are as apposite against one an other, as they are against us. 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 upon the concerns of Religion, (which every man is obliged in conscience to do) than to learn by the Chronicles of England, and by the several Histories that are written, when did these that we call Reformations begin; on what occasion, and where in the world was there any such thing as Protestant Church, Presbyterian Church etc. two hundred and four years agone. There is not a child in the Parish hardly, but knows that Luther and Caluin began the Reformation which now is called Protestant, Presbyterian etc. 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 us; 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 understanding, this point cannot be soon cleared; therefore I will not now engage in it, because I pretend to show to men of common understanding an easy way to find out, if this or that be a true Church▪ whether your Religion was in the Apostles time or no; you cannot deny, but that which you call the Reformation, is but of less than two hundred years' date. The ruins of the Churches and Abbeys, the Church Lands, the Crosses placed in the heigh way, and several other marks yet extant of Popery do testify it was the Catholic Religion, that was the Religion of the Land, your Chronicles bear witness, it was it that flourished for so many ages before, in it your Ancestors did live and die. This no man but knows.  
This supposed; there is no man of common sense (if he reflects on the affairs of his salvation, which reflection we 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 understanding do not doubt of it, notwithstanding all what we have 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 salvation, which is culpable and damnable. I say they are bound in conscience to doubt of it: first because common sense, if not biased by some prejudice, does dictat to any man, that novelties and innovations in matters of Religion are to be suspected, and this pretended Reformation is such, that was un known to the world the day that Luther began it, and to all the precedent ages; for never was there any such thing as Protestancy spoken of. Secondly because common sense dictates to a man that an ancient Religion, which flourished, and which, and no other was established in all Christiandom ought not to be reversed by a private Man as Luther was, without sheuving by Miracles and supernatural signs, that he was commissioned by God for so great a work; and whereas Luther did show no such (not Protestant dare say that ever he did) the truth of his Reformation ought to be doubted of. Thirdly that very Catholic Church which he opposed, was in former ages often opposed by others, and she still remained victorious, and her opposers condemned for Heretics, 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 have sufficiently examined the causes of that Reformation, and found them to be just; and that you receive the Faith you profess from them; and that you rely on their word: I answer, for one Ancestor of yours who approved the Reformation; a hundred of your Ancestors approved the old Catholic 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 respective successors are divided among themselves, some of them approving in the Catholic Church for good Doctrine, what others condemn for an error; this very dissension 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 believe the Real Presence; Luther condemns the Catholic Church for believing S. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, and some other parts of Scripture, to be Canonical: Caluin, with the Church of England says the Catholics do well, and they also believe them to be Canonical. Several other examples we could bring of Doctrines that some of the Reformers condemn for errors in the Catholic Church, and other Reformers say they are no such: ought not this to make us 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 Catholic Church does in this age, and in Luther's, and each of the precedent ages work Miracles in confirmation of her Doctrine; 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 Catholic Church, and falsehood of the Reformation? read the Histories, 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 believe them: this I call, and cannot be called otherwise than obstinacy; to deny what the whole Torrent of Antiquity affirms, as it would be obstinacy to deny there was a julius Caesar in the world, for which we have but the testimony of Histories 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 writ those Miracles had no pike against Protestants, nor did not write out 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 reflection could be pardonable; but to say that all the Fathers and Historians of Antiquity, were knaves that spoke against their consciences (many relating them to have been wrought in their own presence) or fools that did not understand what miracles were, is an intolerable impudence.  
Add to the Miracles wrought by this Church in all ages, the conversion 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 union in Doctrine of Faith; (none in the Reformation) the voluntary poverty of her Professors, exchanging plentiful estates for the powerty of a religious life (a practice recommended by Christ, and thought madness by the Reformation) the multitude of Churches built by her, and demolished by the Reformation. Does not all this prove our Church to be the true Church of Christ, that he has qualified with such glorious Marks. These makes our Church so glorious, and shine like the City on the Mountain, like the candle in the candlestick, that it is hardly possible that any man can have on invincible ignorance of her being the true Church; and Woe be to the man, that relying on the persuasion of the invincibility of his ignorance (which in effect is but obstinacy) will live out of her.  
I conclude with that Paper, that Mr sal speaks of, wherein he delivered that a Protestant, believing the common Principles of Christianity, and lieuing  the rules of his profession, being invincibly ignorant might be saved; for which doctrine he complains to have been censured; and cries Victory, because that none of our Clergy did answer, though they did censure him. He misinforms his Readers; it was not that doctrine 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 judged by you, Reader, if he was not indiscreet in this point: for if a Preacher were sent to convert Pagans to Christianity, would it be discretion in him to teach them, Srs the Christian Religion is the best, but you may be very well saved in that which you hold, if you be invincibly ignorant. The doctrine is very true, but a man that goes to convert them, to Christianity from a Religion that he knows is in itself false, ought not to encourage them to remain in that Religion, with the hopes of being savedin it: his obligation is to beat them out of their ignorance, and not to propose it unto them, as a Medium of salvation: would not they answer him well; if we can be saved through our ignorance in the Religion we have; why do you disturb us with any other, and create scruples in our minds? This is Mr Sall's case that was sent to Ireland to convert Protestants who thought themselves perhaps to be invincibly ignorant: judge you was it discretion to propose unto them their invincible ignorance as an encouragement to remain in their errors. It's not always 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 says, proposed him that question, were they catholics or Protestants? if Catholics its manifest, they needed not to be instructed in that truth; it's no fundamental point of Religion. If Protestants, they were not obliged to know it, for the same reason▪ and, that the answer was an encouragement to them to remain as they were, and seek no instruction; and whereas they made that question it seems they doubted if invincible ignorance was sufficient; and if that answer had not been given; likely the would secure their salvation by seeking instruction. This is the indiscretion, for which he was censured. Now we will descend to the errors which he fixs on the Church of Rome.    

THE SECOND PART, OF THE PRETENDED ERRORS of the Roman Church, alleged by Mr Sall.  
Having in the former part shown the Necessity of an Infallible living judge; and that to be the Roman Catholic Church; there needed no other answer to any doubt in Religion, though intricat and unanswerable it might seem to us, but to say, the Church which is infallible and God's Oracle teacheth it: therefore it must be true, though I do not understand how. But because our Adversary confides much in the strength of his arguments, we will descend to examine each point in particular, which he impugns; and it will appear, that though we had not the testimony of an infallible Church, to rely upon; but only Reason, and Scripture as interpreted by Ancient Fathers; our cause is better grounded, than theirs, and if not better, at least as well: which if it appears; then none, but will condemn them for forsaking an old Religion, and seeking to reverses it by a pretended Reformation, when they can show no better grounds for their Novelties, than we have for our Ancient doctrine.  

POP'S INFALLIBILITY, AND THE Resolution of Faith expounded.  
HE forsakes the Catholic Church for her errors, and which be they? the first, is the Pope's infallibility: if this be an error, it's not of the Church, for as I have shown ch. 5. it's no Arcicle of Faith that the Pope is infallible; if he misliked that doctrine, he might have denied it, and remain a Catholic. I can not well perceive what he thinks of the Church universal; whether he believes her infallible or no? for, pag. 34. he grants, that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3.15. The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth. Must be understood of the universal Church; but whether he grants, that thence she is proved infallible or no; I cannot understand: thence he infers; that the Roman Church, that is to say the Diocese of Rome, is not infallible, nor the Pillar and ground of Truth: but alas he might have spared himself that labour; for we do not believe, that the Diocese of Rome is an infallible Church; nor that the Pope is infallible: when we say, the Roman Catholic Church is infallible, we mean, (and all our Adversaries know that) the Church of Rome, and all Churches universally spread throughout the world, which are united with her in Faith and Communion; either as she is diffused, or representative in a General Council: wherein Protestant's are not included, though a Christian Congregation, because they are divided from her. This Church is the true universal Church; called Roman, because the chief Pastor is in Rome; called Vaiversal, because her Members are spread throughout the world: of the infallibility of this Church, Mr sal speaks nothing, but of the Pop's infallibility, which is no Article of Faith; which, if an error, is not of the Church, and therefore ought not to leave the Church for this reason.  
When our Adversaries are obliged, and do promise to prove our errors by plain and undeniable Scripture, from the pag. 29. to 35. and from pag. 39 to 44. where Mr sal under takes to prove this error, not one text of Scripture does he allege, but three, so far from being plain and undeniable, that any man of common sense will find them impertinent: the first ps. 11.1. verities are maimed among the children of Men. And how can this prove the Church to be fallible, if it does not prove, that the Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets are also fallible, who were Children of Men? and if it does not prove the Church to be fallible also in fundamental points, which Mr sal and all Protestants deny? The second, all Men are Liars, Fallibility, signifies only a possibility of delivering an untruth: a Liar is he that actually delivers an untruth, and that against his own knowledge: so that the text, if it proves any thing to Mr Sall's purpose; it proves that the Apostles, Evangelists, and the Church of England, are a company of fourbs, that against their mind and knowledge delivered untruths; for they are all men; and all men are lyards▪ The third text, is out of S. Io. 16. proving that the Paraclet was promised to the Church only upon condition of loving God, and keeping his Commandments; to which I have given a full answer ch. 6● read there to save me and yourself the trouble of a Tatalogy.  
Thus Mr Shall has forsaken our Church, and cannot prove by plain Scripture (as he is obliged) her errors. Two reasons he alleadgs, that infallibility is an Attribute proper to God; and that there must be no such thing as infallibility of the Church, whereas our Authors do not agree, where to place it; if in the Pope alone, or in the Council: to which reasons I have sufficiently answered in the beginning of the 5. ch. He says, that the text of S. Paul Tim. 3. the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth, must not be understood of the Diocese of Rome: and he knows well, that we do not pretend it should; we plead for the infallibility of the universal Church, as we said, but now: He admires that Bellar: should prove the Pope's infallibility be the two Hebrew words, signifying Doctrine and Truth, placed by God's command, in the breast plate of the High Priest; and thence draws a consequence very absurd to him; that the High Priest also must have been infallible in the old Law. I will not enlarge in this point because, it concerns the Pope's infallibility; which is no Articles of Faith (and only such I intent to vindicat:) but I must advertise him of his ignorance, in admiring it should be pretended, that the High Priests of the Ancient Law were infallible; whereas (though monstrous it seems to him) not only Catholic but Protestant Authors do teach it: one I produce, Doctor Porter a great Clerk in the Protestant Church, in his book called Char. Mist. pag. 35. The High Friests in cases of moment had a certain Privilege from error, if he consulted the Divine Oracle, by the judgement of vrim, or by the breastplate of judgement wherein were vrim and Thummim; whereby he had an absolute infallible direction. And immediately following: if any such promise made by God to assist the Pope, could be produced, his Decison might pass justly for Oracles without examination.  
This blasphemy says he, of parallelling the Pope with God in the Attribute of infallibility, is raised to a higher degree by their practice, of making the Pope the suprem judge and Arbiter of God's Laws. And how does he prove this calumny? Bellarmin l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. sticketh not to say, that if the Pope did command vices, and prohibit virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe vice to be good, and virtue bad. And the Council of Constance commanded the Decrees of Popes to be preferred before the institution of Christ; whereas having confessed, that our saviour did ordain the Communion under both kinds to the Laity, and that the Apostles did practise it; they commanded it should be given for the future but in one kind, alleading for reason that the precedent Popes and Church did practise it so: which is to extol the Decrees of Popes above them of Christ: as if the Laws of England, were not to be understood, or practifed in Ireland, but accordging to the will and declaration of the King of France, certainly the King of France would be deemed of more Power in Ireland, than the King of England, and the People more his subjects.  
Answer: Bellarmin in that place speaks expressly of vices and virtues, when there is a doubt of their being such: as for example, usury is a vice of its nature bad: (per se malum) now we all know it to be such; and restitution to be a virtue: if there should arise a doubt of vsury's being a vice; and in that case the Pope should command usury to be practised: then we should be obliged to practise usury: and Bellar. gives the reason; quia tenetur Ecclesia in rebus dubys acquiescere iudicio summi Pontificis. Because in dubious cases the Church is obliged to obey the Pope. Behold how Bellar: speaks in case of doubt that vice is vice, and virtue is virtue: for in that case the Pope, as being the chief Pastor, is in possession of the obligation of being obeyed by God's command, and a doubtful excuse cannot exempt the subjects from their apparent duty. Melior est conditio possidentis.  
The Council of Constance knew, that though the Communion was instituted, and practised by the Apostles in both kinds; yet Christ left it arbitrary to his Church to give it either in one or both, which I will prove in the discourse of Half Communion; and therefore finding that Christ himself and his Apostles sometimes gave it in one; and that the precedent Popes for just reasons had commanded it should be received so; issued that Decree of receuing it in one kind. And it is false what you say that they alleged no other reason for so doing but the Decrees of precedent Popes; they alleged also for reason the example of Christ and his Apostles who gave it in one kind. Though Christ washed his Disciples feet before he gave the Communion. Might not the Council say, Notwithstanding that Christ did wash the Receivers feet, yet we do not require that ceremony? because that though he did so, he did not oblige us to it: it's so in this case; though in the institution he gave both kinds; he did not oblige to give both; and therefore the Council might have commanded to give but one: which was not to prefer their Decrees to his institution; but to make use of the Power he gave them. Your example of the King of France proves against you: for if the King of France had the Power and command from him of England, to interpret the Laws; and the Irish were commanded by him to understand and practise them, as the King of France should interpret them, and not otherwse; certainly you would not say in that case, that the King of France will have more command and Prower in Ireland, than the King of England; if to flatter his Excellency, you have not a mind tn say, that the Lord Lieutenant has more Prower in Ireland, than the King and so bid fair for a halter.  
Another example to prove we extol the Papal Laws above the Divine: Costerus, says he, c. 15. (17. he sold have said) prop. 9 doubts not to aver, that it is a greater sin in a Priest to Marry, which he confesses is but a transgression of a Papal Law; than to keep a Concubine, which is against the Law of God. You belie Costerus in saying that the Marriage of a Priest is but a transgression of a Papal Law; Though it be but a Papal Law, that any who receiveth Priesthood, shall make a vow of Chastity; yet the vow being once made, it's a transgression against the Divine Law to violate it: a breach of vow a sacrilege, says Costerus. And this being evident; it's no less that it is agreater sin for him to marry; first because he shows by marrying that he is an Heretic, believing that to be a marriage, which really is none. Secondly, by marrying he testifies a steady resolution of persevearing in the sin.  
Canus, says he, and others cited by him, do aver that the Church can err materially, and consequently allows no more infallibility to the Church, than to a private Doctor: Answer. Canus and other Divins say that the Church an err materially in matters of fact; as I will declare in the next ensuing Point; but in Points of Doctrine, no Catholic says that the Church can err, nor materially; and Private Doctors can err not only materially but formally. Lastly he impugns our Doctrine of infallibility with an argument as old as the Reformation: because we cannot prove it but by Scripture, and we prove Scripture again by the infaillibility of the Church; and this again by Scripture; and so go still round in circle, which is ridiculous in the schools: and hence he takes occasion to pick aquarrel with Becanus; to no other effect, but that his Auditory should understand that he was acquainted with the works of great Divins. But I will declare how we can easily expound the Resolution of our Faith without any Circle; which I am sure the Protestants will never do.  
An act of Faith, is an Assent to a truth which is obscure and reason cannot comprehend (an argument of things not appearing says S. Paul) only because it is sufficiently proposed to us, that God revealed it: and therefore S. Paul calls it a captivating of our understanding, which is to say sumission of our Reason. By Resolution of Faith the Divins understand, To declare the Motive, why I believe, or the ground whereupon our Faith doth rest.  
God doth not require of us to believe suddenly that a doctrine is revealed by him, because the Proponent tells us so. S. Peter calls Faith, a Reasonable Obsequy: we must have strong reasons to move us for to believe a Truth to be revealed before we give our Assent: therefore, before the Act of Faith (and in human Faith also it's so) we have some inward dispositions previous to the Assent, a good opinion of the Proponent for his life, for his actions and conversation, which prepare our understanding, representing it reasonable to believe what is proposed. Christ himself, when he came to preach, did not oblige the jews to believe abruptly, that he was the son of God, but began with a Holy life, admirable doctrine, miracles and supernatural signs, and these were previous dispotions to prepare them, that having such strong and credible Motives, for to judge him a Person above the rank of Ordinary men, they should believe him, when he should teach them, that he was the son of God; whereas it was incredible that God should credit him with such supernatural works, and continual marks of his benevolence, if he were an impostor.  
This appears in the passage of the Blind man cured by Christ's Io. c. 9 the Scribs and Pharisees said Christ was a sinner; the Blind Man argued, No; in as much as he worked so great a miracle in him: Nisi hic homo esset à Deo, non poterat facere quid quam: if this man were not from God he could do nothing: all this while, he did not believe that Christ was God; but a man from God, extraordinarily favoured by him. He being thus prepared with these external Motives, and judgement of credibility, whereby he judged Christ to be somewhat more than ordinary; Christ meets him again, and bids him believe in the son of God, yea, said he, who is he: (behold how he was ready, and prepared by that precedent judgement, for to believe) He that speaks to you, is he, said Christ: and presently he believed: Credo Domine. You see the Motive of his Assent, was the testimony of Christ; which he thought, he was bound to believe, having formerly seen his works; which made it evidently credible to him that he must speak but truth; whereas they proved him to be a man from God. Thus the People of Samaria, believed him to be the son of God, when they did hear him; because they were previously disposed by the words of the Samaritan, and the miracle, she related of him. Thus the Prophets and Apostles proceeded, preparing their Auditory, with the Holiness of their lyues, secret energy of their doctrine, miracles and supernatural signs, which moved men to judge that they were sent by God; and that they could not be Cheats, and the People, (which is to be observed) would be judged obstinate, and were judged obstinate, such as did not believe their doctrine, when they did see them; or, though they did not see them, but were credibly informed by those that did see them.  
We have in the former part of this Treatise shown the great inducements and Motives we have to judge that the Roman Catholic Church, beyond all Congregations in the word, is particularly favoured by God; the sanctity of her doctrine, the conversion of Nations by her, unto a doctrine so seemingly contrary to reason, and irksome to our natural inclinations; miracles wrought by her in all ages, the constancy of her Martyrs, even in the youngest age and weaker sex. Her unity in doctrine, against the persecutions of so many Tyrants and Heresiarks that almost all ages opposed it; these marks which are proper only to her; and that no other congregation can claim, makes it evidently credible, that if God speaks to us by the mouth of any, it must be by hers. The like, and no other, had the Primitive Church, to judge of the Apostles that God spoke by them: and such as in the Apostles times did not believe them, having so great inducements to judge them men of God, were condemned for obstinate people: and consequently who will not judge the same of this Church, ought also to be held for obstinate, notwithstanding any pretence of ignorance they may allege.  
Having these inducements to prepare our understandings for Faith, it follows, that what ever this Church proposes unto us, to be a Truth revealed by God; we are obliged to believe her, and embrace her doctrine upon her testimony; whereas it appears by those inducements so credible, that God speaks by her as he did by the Apostles.  
Now I resolve my Faith thus: you ask why I believe the Trinity? I answer, because God has revealed it. You ask why I believe, that God revealed it? I answer, because the Church, by which God speaks tell us so. You ask, why I believe, that God speaks by the Church? (here is the difficulty:) I must not answer, because the Scripture says it, for I believe Scripture only upon the testimony of the infallible Church, and to prove again the infallibility of this, by the Scripture, would be a circle: neither must I answer, that I believe God to speak by the Church, because she works miracles, for if the miracles be absolutely evident, they can be no Motive of Faith, which is of its own nature obscure: and if they be but morally evident miracles, they cannot be the Motive, because the motive of Faith must be infallible; and because the Motive of an Act of Faith must be God's word, and miracles are not God's word, but signs and Marks of his word. We must therefore answer to that question again, because the Church by which God speaks, says, that God speaks by her, and I am obliged to believe he speaks by her because he does credit her with so many miracles and supernatural Marks, which makes it evidently credible, that he does speak by her. Where you distinguish the Motive of your Act of Faith, from the Motive of your obligation of believing, and your judgement of credibility: the Motive, that you give for your Act of Faith, is only the word or voice of God by the Church: (and nothing else but the word of God can be the Motive of Faith.) the Motive you give for your obligation of believing, and judgement of credibility; are the external inducements of miracles and supernatural signs. You reply: To believe that God speaks by the Church, because the Church by which God speaks says so; is to believe that God speaks, because Gods speaks by the Church; which is idem per idem: to believe a thing for itself; and an obscure thing, for a thing equally obscure; which is unreasonable; whereas an obscure unknowen thing cannot be believed but for something that is more clear and known. I answer, what is believed, is that God speaks by the Church, which is obscure and unknowen to our reason: The Motive, why we believe it, is the voice of God by the Church, evidently proposed to our understanding by the external Motives of credibility to be credibly his voice; so that the same thing which of itself, and considered without the external Motives of credibility, is obscure and unknowen; acompanied with the motives of credibility is more clear and known and moves me to believe: but so, that the Motives of credibility are not the Motive, nor any part of the Motive why I believe the testimony of the Church to be the voice of God; but are the Motives why our understanding evidently knows it to be very credible, and judges it very just and reasonable that we should believe it to be the voice of God.  
And that this is the way of Resolving Divine Faith, it's proved; for we have the same Faith, that the Primitive Church of jerusalem, Antioch, and Damascus had: and consequently we must have the same Motive of Faith. When the Apostles preached to them, they believed the Trinity, not for Scripture; for but little or nothing was then written of the new Testament; but because God told them by the Apostles that it was a revealed Truth. And if you did ask them, whey they believed that God did speak by the Apostles? they would answer, because the Apostles who were God's Messengers told them so, and they could not but be obliged to believe it because of their miracles and supernatural signs. Thus we say of the Church.  
Now the Church being believed infallibly true; we believe the Scripture to be the word of God upon her testimony; and the Scripture being believed God's word; then we draw out of the Scripture, new proofs and Motives of believing the Church to be infallible; because the Scripture, which is the word of God says it. But the chief and last Motive whereupon our Faith must rest, is the word of God speaking to us by the Church: the Church, I say by which God actually, in this present age speaks unto us: for we do not believe because God did speak in the 1.2. and third age by the Church; for that is Tradition, and Tradition (nor Scripture) is not the Motive, but the Rule of our Faith; the Rule by which the Church is guided to know which and what is the word of God: the Motive of our Faith, is because God speaks now, by his Church, as he did in those first ages; for which we have evident arguments of credibility as the first ages had.   

Pop's supremacy.  
What is believed, as an Article of Faith by the Church, is the spiritual supremacy of the Pope: his supreme Power either Direct or indirect in temporal affairs over Princes, is no Articles of Faith; but a question disputed in the schools, and neither Party, that denies or affirms is condemned of Heresy by the Church; if Mr sal misliked the Doctrine he might have disclaimed it, and remain a Catholic, as many other Catholics do. He speaks of the sufferances of the Irish upon the account of this Doctrine, a mere fiction, as wittily, as maliciously invented to make the Pope odious to the People: That the Irish should have suffered for that cause, is false, but it's very true that they suffered for not swearing the contrary Doctrine, That the Pope has no such Power; which no man can swear whereas he is not certain of it; and whereas it is a question disputed in the schools if he has or not, that Power; how can any man in conscience swear either part to be true? but what Mr sal might well condole is the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the oath of supremacy, that the King of England is head of the Church, and let him consider if it be not cruelty against souls, to oblige them to swear a thing that, not only Catholics, but all sectaries out of England denies, nay Caluin in cap. 6. Amos Prophetae says. Qui tantopere extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae, fuerunt homines inconsiderati, erant enim Blasphemi, cum eum vocarent summum Caput Ecclesiae. And the very Protestant Doctors themselves not agreeing, in what sense, and how far is it true that the King is supreme Head of the Church, the poor People must be forced to swear it.  
Then, say you, the Council of Lateran erred in assuming that Power, when it decreed Princes, who did not purge their Territories from Heresies, should be deprived of their Lands. You abuse the Council; neither it, nor any other Council did not assume that Power, as you say, but finding that is was that the probable, and perhaps, as they supposed the most probable opinion of Divins, that the Church had that power, grounded their fact upon that opinion; and issued their Decree of that punishment against such Princes: And the Catholics, who deny any such Power in the Church do not, nor any man cannot say, the Council erred formally (that's to say blameably) in that Decree; because it was grounded upon a probable opinion; and it is not requisite in any Tribunal for the justice of a Decree or sentence, that it be grounded upon infallible grounds. And the Catholics who deny that power do say, that Decree was Materially erroneous, because the opinion upon which the Council was grounded, was false. whence you can only gather that the Council may err Materially only, in matters of fact, (such as that was) but in Doctrina fidei & morum, in Doctrine of Faith and Manners, it cannot err, neither formally nor Materially, because it is assisted in that Doctrine constantly by God's infallible Spirit.   

Transubstantiation.  
How strangely Mr sal is blinded in calling us Idolaters, for believing Christ's real personal Presence in the Sacrament; and pag. 116. says we will be damned for this, and orher Tenets, if ignorance does not excuse us; and yet the Lutherans who are the Elder Brethren of the pretended Reformation; whom Protestants do embrace, and receive to their Communion; believe that real personal Presence of Christ as well as we: are they Idolaters also; and will they be damned, if ignorance does not excuse them? or will it be pardonable in them, and damnable in us?  
He says we have no pertinent text of scripture for it, pag. 21. and 28. but I defy him with all his Divinity, to answer me to these two following syllogism, grounded upon most clear texts: first Luk. 22.19. eat, this is my Body which is given for you. The text declares he gave them somewhat what to eat: we say it was his Real Body, and prove it: He gave to them, that which he gave for them: the text says it, eat, this is my Body which is given for you. But what he gave for them, was not a figure, but his real and true Body; therefore what he gave to them was not a figure, but his true and Real Body. it will be no answer, to say that he gave to them figuratively, what he gave for them really; for the text makes no distinction, betwixt what he gave to them, and what he gave for them; and if you presume to say, that what he gave to them, was but a figurative; why may not we as well say, that what he gave for them, was but a figure, and so fetch from Hell again the Heresy of Martion, that what suffered for us, was but a Fantastical Body?  
For to lead you the second syllogism, observe that when the Multitude Io. 6. said, This saying is hard, how can this man give us his flesh to eat; Christ called them Vnbelievers: There be some of you, who do not believe; nay says, they are damnable unbelievers, v. 54, He that will not eat of the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, shall not have life in him. Observe secondly, that what the jews though heard, and impossible, was that Christ should give them to eat his true and real flesh, for no man could apprehend any difficulty in that Christ should give the figure of his Body, whereas they did eat yearly the Paschal Lamb, which they believed to be the figure, of the Messiah; Christ promised what they judged hard and impossible; what they judged hard and impossible, was not that he should give a figure of his flesh, but his true and real flesh; therefore what Christ promised was not a figure but his real and true flesh: and Mr sal himself, pag. 63. does acknowledge, that the jews did understand Christ to have spoken of his true and real flesh: The jews understood him to have spoken of a corporal and fleshy eating, as the Papists do. Now answer me, I pray, to this syllogism: A damnable unbeliever is he who denies a Truth sufficiently proposed to him to be revealed by God; The jews in this occasion were damnable unbelievers, and what they denied was a fleshy eating of his real Body, as the Papists believe it: therefore Christ in this occasion did sufficiently propose unto them a fleashy eating of his real Body as the Papists believe it.  
Pag. 63. he raises an argument upon this text for the figurative presence: for says he the jews understood him to speak of a corporal and fleshy eating of his Body, as Papists do, and so represented difficulties that reason dictated against the like expressions, as we did in the beginning of this discourse; but he did correct their understanding, by his subsequent words, v. 63. it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak are spirit and life by which he draweth them from the apprehension of a corporal eating, to that of a spiritual feeding: consequently Christ did mean a figurative spiritual eating of his flesh: thus Mr Sall.  
By this, you acknowledge, that the jews did not apprehend or think of any figurative eating, consequently they could not either believe it, or deny it; for how can a man deny, that which never fell into his apprehensions: tell us therefore what is that which they denied, and denied damnably? they could not deny, but that which they apprehended was spoken; and what they apprehended, as you confess, was a corporal fleshy eating. That therefore they must have denied; therefore they were called unbelievers: but how were they damnably unbelievers, if Christ did not sufficiently and credibly propose unto them a corporal and fleshly eating? For none is bound to believe, if the revealed Truth be not sufficiently and credibly proposed to him? either therefore Christ his words, My flesh is truly meat, my Blood is truly drink, did sufficiently and credibly propose a corporal eating of his real flesh, or they ought not to be called damnably unbelievers. They would not believe that corporal eating of his real flesh, as you do not, for the difficulties which reason dictated against the like expressions; such as you, and your fraternity, proposes against them; and therefore we say, that you are damnably unbelievers, as they were, and you, and they are checked by those words of Christ, the flesh profiteth nothing, it's the spirit that quickeneth, &c, which were not to check their understanding for apprehending a corporal eating; but to check their obstinacy, that for the difficulties, which natural reason did suggest against his expressions, they would not believe, what he spoke, and they understood him to have spoken: the flesh profiteth nothing, that was to say to them and to you, that they must not judge of this Mystery by the senses of the flesh, nor by natural reason which is adquired by the help of the fleshy senses, They cannot understand how that can be: It's the spirit that quickeneth, that's to say, it's the Divine grace, that must enlighten your understandings to know and believe how this can be. Even as when S. Peter confessed Chest to be the son of the living God, Christ added, it's not flesh and blood that revealed that unto thee, but my Father that is in heaven, Mat. 16 17. which was to say; that it was not natural reason, nor any knowledge of the senses of flesh, or gotten by them; but the grace of the heavenly Father that discovered that Mystery to him.  
If you read that passage in S. Io. 6. you will find, that Christ as we have evidently proved, proposed a corporal eating of his real flesh, but did not at all then (which is to be observed) propose the manner, how he would give his flesh to be eaten. The obligation of the jews was to believe that he would give it; and not to dispute, how that could be, or in what manner: but they began to think how it could be, quomodo potest, etc. and their natural reason, (which only they consulted) not understanding that it could be otherwise, than by cutting his flesh in morsels to be given to them, this appearing so absurd to human reason, they absolutely denied, the possibility of the Mystery. If Christ when he proposed to them his flesh for food, had also proposed the manner that he intended of giving it, perhaps they would have believed, but then he did not, but only the eating of his flesh. Their error was two fold; the one, that they denied the possibility of giving his flesh to be eaten; for which they were called unbelievers: the other was the cause, why they denied it; because the manner of eating it which their natural reason proposed unto them, appeared absurd, and therefore not conceiving how it could be they denied it; therefore Christ checked this their understanding, that the manner of giving his flesh really to be eaten was in a spiritual way, above what their natural reason could apprehend, and said its the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; as we have expounded: but they, either because they did not understand this expression, or that they obstinately adheared to their first denial, flinched from him.  
I conclude with this reason: you will not deny but that God might, if he were pleased, have converted the substance of that bread, which he took in his hands, into his real flesh and Body; as by his omnipotent word he created all things of nothing; as he converted the water into wine; and as the bread, which we eat, is by the heat of our stomaches converted into our flesh and blood: suppose, I pray, that he intended at the last supper to make such a change; or that now he descended from heaven to make it: what words could he use, more significant, to let us understand that he gave us his real and true Body under the Accidents of bread, than those, take, eat, this is my Body which is given for you, this is truly my flesh: if in a serious discourse I promised you a horse; would not you understand that I intended to give you a true horse? would I perform my promomiss by giving the figure of one? since than that he might have given us, if he had been pleased, his true and real Body, and that he spoke, as if really he did intent it, (for he could not speak otherwise if he did) we must understand that he did intent it, and gave it. If he did intent it, when he spoke those words; what could hinder him? if he did not intent it; was it sincerity and honesty to speak otherwise, than as he intended? no more than if you, having promised a horse, would give only the picture of one.  
Let us hear Mr Sall's arguments; he gins, as the jews, with difficulties that reason proposes against so great a Mystery; that the Accidents of bread should be without any substance to rest on, that a Body would be at one time in many places; that a well proportioned body should be confined to the small compass of a wafer; that the Accidents converted into vermin should produce a substance. I would tire my Readers patience, if I did scan each trivial objection of these that has been a hundred times answered, and our answers never replied unto. You would have shown more wit, Mr sal, and got more credit by replying to the answers, that our writers give to these objections and especially Bellarmin from whom you borrow them, than by repeating again a parcel of third bare trifles, against so great a Mystery, in homage of which, we must captivat our sense and reason, as we do to the Mystery of the Trinity, which surpasseth all created intellects, far more than this Mystery and yet not so clearly expressed in Scripture, as this is. And if you must have natural reason, for to believe this Mystery, tell me, what reason have you for to believe that the Bread and wine giveth life and grace to the worthy eater? what proportion can reason find betwixt bread, and Diuin grace? what proportion betwixt the water of Baptism, and spiritual Regeneration? none, if you do not appeal to the omnipotency of God: by he same we answer you also, (to shun tedious Tatalogyes) that those difficulties you represent be impossible to Nature but they are possible to the omnipotent word of God.  
But for the satisfaction of the Reader I will deliver this argument in the terms of an ingenious man which once I discoursed with. This Mystery, said he, is repugnant to sense and reason; consequently it is not to be imposed on man, if God will not have him to renounce both. It's repugnant to sense, for what we see, taste, and feel, is but bread: repugnant to reason; for this aught prudently to conclude, that the substance of bread is there, upon the testimony of the senses, which perceive the Accidents that, by natural course, are inseparable from the substance of bread. I answer, Reason prudently aught to conclude the substance of bread is there, whereas the senses perceive the Accidents, which are naturally inseparable from that substance, if there were not a higher Authority that affirms the substance is not there; to whose testimony, Reason is bound to yield, against the evidence of the senses: as when the Angel appeared to Tobias to acompany him in his voyage; Tobias, at his first appearance ch. 5. prudently judged him to be a Man, whereas the senses did perceive all the Accidents proper to human Nature; and nothing affirmed him to be an Angel: there Reason prudently concluded upon the testimony of the senses: but when in the 12. ch. the Angel discovered himself to be an Angel; then Tobias his reason was reclaimed, and against the evidence of his senses, which did see nothing but Accidents of Human Nature; believed it a Spirit upon the testimony of an Angel. The like passage we read to have happened to Abraham, Gen. 18. whence we understand, that God may separat the Accidents from the substance to which they are proper; and also that when the testimony of our senses clashes with a higher Authority, Reason must yield to the higher Authority, against the evidence of our senses.  
This is the present case: our senses say its bread what we see after the consecration: the word of God says its his Body; if the word of God did not oueraw the senses, reason ought prudently to conclude its bread; but the word of God being of a more infallible authority than the senses, Reason must yield to the word of God, and say its Christ's Body; against the evidence of the senses that say its bread.  
But replied he, God will not have Reason go against the evidence of our senses, but yield to them even in matters of Faith; for after his Resurrection he proved it to his Apostles by the evidence of their senses, saying Lu. 24.36. feel and see for a Spirit hath no flesh nor boans as you see me to have. I answer, they did not believe his Resurrection only upon the testimony of their senses, but also of his word and asseveration, that said he was revived. God will have us, as I said formerly, yield to the evidence of our senses, when there is no higher authority that thwarts their evidence, as here there was none, but the higher authority did rather assert, what the senses did testify, but in the Mystery of the Eucharist it is not so; God's word does contradict the senses, and therefore Reason must, yield to it against our sensations.  
Pag. 21. Mr sal argues, that no necessity urges us to believe Christ's real presence in the Sacrament; neither for the effects that he promises by it: not for the verifying of his words, seeing our saviour said in the same tenor, I am the true vine; without any alteration in the vine, or his person: not for the effects of the Sacrament; Christ being able to confer, what spiritual graces he pleases, with the worthy receiving of bread and wine, without any substantial alteration in the Elements; as in the water of Baptism he affordeth the sovereign grace of spiritual regeneration in the substance of water.  
I answer, its necessary for the verifying of Christ's words in the institution of the Sacrament: for let the words Body and flesh, vine, Rock etc. be equivocal, as he will have them to be; indifferent to bear two senses figurative and real. This is evident, that when a word bearing an equivocal signification, is put in a Proposition, it is determined to signify that, of which only, and of no other, the Predicat can be verified: as this word Man, may signify a true, or painted man: in this proposition Man is a rational living creature, it is determined to signify a true Man; because the Predicat, rational living creature, can be verified only of him, and not of a painted man. So the word Body, that may signify a true, or figurative one; in the institution of the Sacrament, This is my body which is given for you, it's determined to signify Christ his true body, because of it only, and not of a figure, it can be verified which is given for you. If you observe this Principle, you will clearly answer any text that may be alleged against this Mystery. As to the instance of vine and such like mystical expressions spoken of Christ, put them in a proposition with the word Christ, and they will be determined to a figurative or mystical signification, because that Christ that died for us cannot be said of a vine or Rock in their proper signification.  
Now to the second part of his argument: that God might, had he been pleased, have redeemed us, with out any real Incarnation of the second Person, or real Passion of Christ upon the Cross, it's out of controversy; for his infinite wisdom and Power, wanted not other means for to redeem us: is it therefore we must say, with the Heretic Martion, that the text, And the word was made flesh, must be understood figuratiuly, and deny any real Incarnation of Christ, or Passion, on the Cross, but only a figurative one? by your argument we might, because God might, had he been pleased, convey unto us by a figurative body and Passion, all the effects and grace, that he conveyed unto us by a real Incarnation and Passion: the spiritual regeneration, conferred on us in Baptism by water, he might have conferred it on us by wine or Rose water: is it therefore we must say that true natural water is not necessary for Baptism? but say you, the text does distinctly express water; yea, and the text in the institution of the Eucharist does distinctly express Body: and as the text does not add, true, and real Body, so it does not add true and natural water; by what rule, must water in the text sygnify natural water, and the word Body, must not signify a real body?  
Thus far we agree that Christ might, were he pleased, have given us the effects of the Sacrament by a figurative Presence only; also that he might have conferred them upon us by the real presence of his Body (for there is no impossibility in that he should have givenus his real Body under the Accidents of bread) the question is, what is it that he has effectually done, and which of the two has he given, the figure of his Body, or his real Body? I say that his real Body, for that is requisite for the verifying of his words in the institution of the Sacrament.  
But why does S. Paul call it Bread so often; even after the consecration? as 1. Cor. 11.13. as often as you eat this bread, whoever shall eat this bread, he took bread in his hands he broke it and said this is my Body which is broken for you. These expressions denote, that it remains still bread. No Mr sal, it retains the name of bread, because it retains the appearance of bread, and because that when a thing is changed into an other, it still retains the name of what it was, as in the Scripture we read, the blind see, the lame walk; though they see, they are called blind, because they were blind, and are restored to their sight. And S. Io. 2.9. says; when the Ruler of the feast, had tasted the water, that was made wine. The liquor that the Ruler of the feast tasted was true wine; yet the text calls it water, because from water it was converted into wine. So the bread, which by the words of the consecration, is converted into Christ his Body, retains the name of bread, because it was once bread; because it has still the appearance of bread, and because we should understand, that true bread and wine, and nothing but bread and wine, is requisite for the due administration of that Sacrament; as for the Baptism true natural water is necessary.  
And that you may not be startled at S. Paul's calling it so often bread, observe you the rule I have given, and you will easily perceive that the word bread so often used after the consecration, signify not true and real bread, but bears only a mystical or figurative signification, for you will find that the Predicats that are said of that bread after its consecration, cannot, in any wise, be verified of true substantial bread; and consequently that the word bread after the consecration cannot signify real, but figurative bread, for example Christ says of that bread that S. Paul speaks of; the bread that I shall give is flesh for the life of the world: what was given for the life of the world, was not true bread, but true flesh, consequently when that flesh is called bread, the word bread must not signify real bread. Christ says of that bread, this is my Body, which is given for you: This Predicat, which is given for you, cannot be verified of bread, in its true and proper signification; consequently the word bread after the consecration, signify but figurative bread, the appearance of bread.  
But says Mr sal, we all agree in calling the Eucharist a Sacrament, a Sacrament is but a sign of a sacred thing; why should not we agree also, in calling the Sacrament of Christ his body, the sign of Christ his Body: and here he brings a rhapsody of texts of S. Augustin, S. Denis, and others, to prove that it is but a type, a Symbol, a figure, and remembrance of Christ his Body, which labour he might have well spared; for we do freely grant that the Eurachist is a sign, type, remembrance and Symbol of Christ his body offered for us on the Cross; the Eucharist is a commemoration, and representation of that bloody sacrifice; but it is also Christ his true Body: the unbloody oblation of his Body in the Eucharist, is a figure and representation of the bloody oblation of the same body on the Cross; as a King that would act a Part in a tragedy of his own victories, he would be the thing represented and the representation. He alleadges the words of some Fathers of the Church, that expressly say the Symbols in the Sacrament are not changed in their Nature, but do abide in their proper substance, figure and form: nay, more distinctly, they say, that the Nature and substance of bread and wyne remain after the consecration: thus speaks Saint Chrysost. if you believe Mr sal, in an epistle he writ ad Caesarium; but if you believe Bellarmin, S. Chrysost. never writ any such epistle: also Gelasius, a Pope says Mr sal, though Bellarmin says he was no Pope but some Monk) and Theodoret dial. 2. c. 24. And is it not a pretty thing that the Protestants would persuade us, that these Fathers and others, did believe only a figurative Presence, and yet from the very first beginning of their pretended Reformation they constantly aver, that all the Fathers fell into the errors of Purgatory, real Presence, Adoration of Saints, etc. whoever will read those Fathers will find the real Presence most clearly asserted in several places of their works; especially in S. Chrysost.; and for one or two obscure passages, or expressions, that our Adversaries meet, with they must be for a figurative Presence? Bellarmin and our Catholic Authors, give a Catholic sense to those words; the Protestants give an other, the Fathers do not live to speak for themselves and declare what sense they intended: is it not necessary therefore, that we should have an infallible living judge, who may deliver unto us, what we must believe in this Mystery?  
This advertisement I must give my Reader; that the Fathers in all ages of the Church, some spoke nothing at all of the mysteries now controverted, and believed by us, others spoke of them but briefly and obscurely; others wrote in some places of their works plainly, and distinctly; but in other places in expressions, subject to misconstruction. The reason was, that the Fathers of each age professedly writ, or altogether, or for the most part of their works, of those points of doctrine which were opposed by the Heretics of those times, and those they delivered in their proper Notions, expressly, and carefully, shunning any dubious words; but of other mysteries and Articles of Faith, that were unanimously believed, no contradiction of Heretics requiring an exact discussion of them; either they omitted to speak of them, or writing of them, they were not so careful in speaking with clear expressions, because they had no occasion of fearing a misconstruction of their words; particularly when in other places of their works, they had delivered themselves in plain terms. Hence it is that we must not be startled if we do not find any mention of Indulgences, Purgatory, or real Presence in some Fathers; or if we meet some words in some Fathers, which may be wrested against our Tenets; as in this of the real Presence, which until about the year 800. had not any opposition among Christians, than it was opposed by john Scotus (not the Franciscan friar) and by the Arch Bishop of Sens in France: but this storm was soon and easily calmed: about the year 1100. Berengarius raised much dust against this Mystery, and drew many Abettors to his faction; then the Catholic writters did declare the Mystery and defend it, and Berengarius was condemned by five Councils successiuly assembled against him and his Partisans: the Fathers who writ since that time speak so manifestly in favour of the real Presence, that you will hardly find any expression in their works whereat your understanding may stumble.  
It's most false what Mr sal imputes to Scotus, Ocham and other more modern Catholics, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation, it not contained in the Canon, nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council; they expressly teach, especially Scotus in 4. dist. 11. q 3. that the doctrine was believed before the Council, continually in the Church; but more explicitly declared by the Council, who for that end introduced the word Transubstantiation, which expresses better the doctrine believed, as the Council of Nice introduced the word Consubstantial, to signify the equality of the son with the Father: nay Scotus in that place brings for example the Creed of the Nicen Council which, says he, was no new doctrine of the Council, but a more explicit declaration of the sense formerly believed by the Church; so the Decree of the Lateran Council was but an explicit declaration of the sense that was held by the Church in all ages in this point of the real Presence. Suarez indeed tells us, that Caietan (but speaks nothing of Bassoly, so much you add of your own) spoke rashly of this Mystery, but tells us also that his expressions were censured by the Church; and all that Mr sal can prove by this, is that Caietan did err: and what then?  
But fayes he Bellarmin and the Roman writers do agree that in that text, this Cup is the new Testament of my blood, the word Cup, is taken by a Trope, not for the material Cup, but for the thing it contains; and why will we not also admit a Trope, in the words relating to the bread consecrated. Mr sal plays the Catholic undoubtedly under the mask of Protestancy, for this argument proves manifestly our Doctrine: we confess that in the text alleged, the word Cup must be taken, by a Trope, for what it contains, not for the material Cup; so we desire him that in this text the bread which I will give is flesh for the life of the world; the word bread, may be taken by a Trope, not for the material bread, but for what it contains which we prove to be in the Cup, the true blood of Christ (because of it, and not of the material Cup, it can be verified that it was shed for us) in the bread, the true flesh of Christ; for of it, and not of the material bread, that Predicat can be verified, given for the life of the world.  
He concludes with a discourse which shocks the Hierarchy of the Church of England. Mr Anderton has lately proved in his judicious treatise styled a Soveriagn Remedy against Atheism and Heresy, the Nullity of the Protestant Clergy and Mr Shall not sufficiently as yet engaged in the defence of that cause (as we may judge by his so weak opposition of our Tenets, and defence of theirs, that he has not as yet got so great advantages by his Revolt, as he expected, that should edge his wit to plead with more vigour) I know not with what design strengthens this Assertion with his following argument against our Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament. How can you (says he) give Diuin Adolration to the wafer! whereas in your own Principles you cannot be sure that Christ is there present: for in your Principles, That depends of the intention of the Priest who consecrats, and of his true ordination; this depends of the intention, and due ordination of the Bishop that ordained him; and this Bishop depends of the true ordination of others that consecrated him; and so upwards of endless requisits, impossible to be known certainly: consequently you cannot certainly know, that Christ is present in that wafer; how then are you so desperate as to adore it?  
Answer: its question less on both sides, yours and ours, that some things are essentially requisite for the validity of a Sacrament; the defect of which, or any one thing of them nullifyes the Sacrament: as, for the validity of Baptism, water is essentially necessary; and the form of words, I baptise you in the name of the Father son and Holy Ghost. This you believe as well as we, now who doubts, but that it depends of the free will of the Minister to vitiat the form; for since that the validity of the Baptismdoes not require, that he uters the form in aloud voice; he may pretend to speak the form, and utter some what else in lieu of it: or if he should pronounce some words of it with an audible voice; he may, with an under voice omit some word, or add some word, that would destroy the form; this may happen through malice or ignorance: and we cannot possibly be certain, that it does not, or has not happened; and consequently we can have no assurance (if Mr Sall's discourse be good) of the truth of any man's Baptism. The ordination of your Ministers depends essentially, in your Principles also, as well as in ours, of the jurisdiction of the Bishop (for if he be no true Bishop he can give no orders) and of the exact form, or words essentially requisite for a due ordination: the jurisdiction of the Bishop depends of the due ordination of the Consecrators (for he must be consecrated by the imposition of hands of true Bishops) and the uttering of the form of Consecration; the due ordination of the Consecrators depends of the like requisits in those from whom they received their Character: now since that the defect, either of the true form of the Consecration, or of the true Ordination of the Consecrators, nullifies your Hierarchy; and that there is no possible means for us to know certainly that neither of those two, was wanting, in any one of the whole train of your Ordainers; for if it was wanting in any all the Ordinations derived from him, are Null, what assurance have you, or can you have of the truth of your Hierarchy, and but that you are all buth mere laymen without any authority, or jurisdiction for preaching or administering Sacraments? Thus Mr Shall obliges his Church in opening a way to question the jurisdiction of the Clergy: let him make his peace, as he can, with his Church and Clergy, we will answer his objection thus.  
We can without hazard of Idolatry, and aught in conscience to adore the wafer consecrated, though we be not infallibly assured of the Priest's intention: for our obligation of adoring is grounded on, and guided by that General Principle of Faith (which is infallibly true) that Christ is really present in the wafer duly consecrated; this General Principle applied to this particular case of this wafer, consecrated by this Priest, obliges me to adore this wafer, though that application of the said general Principle be not infallibily sure, or I am not infallibly ascertained that it is applied in this particular case: it is sufficient for my obligation of adoring, that I am morally assured that it is applied. As in this case, this General Principle of Nature, Parents are to be honoured by their children, is infallibly true and just; and grounds an obligation in all children to honour their Parents: in virtue of this general Principle applied this particular Man and woman that are your Parents, you are obliged to honour them; but are you infallibly assured that these are your Parents? not at all: are not you not withstanding obliged to honour them? is it rashness or folly in you to honour them? for though the general Principle that Parents must be honoured be infallibly true and just, yet you are not infallibly assured, that this general Principle is duly applied to these in particular; but for your obligation that is not requisite; its sufficient that you are morally assured: this is our case in the adoration of the Host. And hence we cannot: but condemn your intolerable rashness in saying that, it's an intolerable boldness to aver, that there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host as there is for the adoration of Christ's Divinity; for if you understand our Doctrine, which is that there is as much reason for adoring an Host truly consecrated as there is for adoring the Divinity of Christ; it is most manifestly true, whereas Faith teacheth us that the Host truly consecrated is God and man, jesus Christ really present. If you do not understand our doctrine its intollerablerashness in you to censure what you do not understand.   

Half Communion.  
We will declare our Tenet by a comparison of the Communion, with the Sacrament of Baptism; both are commanded by Christ: if one be not born again by water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Io. c. 6. and in the same chap. if you do not eat the sllesh of the son of Man, and drink his blood you shall not have life in you.  
In the Sacrament of Baptism, you must distinguish the substance and essence of it, from the circumstances and manner of receiving it. The substance and essence of it consists, in being regenerated by water; for that is required by Christ expressly in the text; the manner how this regeneration is made, is by one total immersion of the Body in water; or by three distinct immersions; or without any total immersion, but by sprinkling some principal part of the Body with water▪ what concerns the essence of this Sacrament, to be by water, is indispensably requisite; cannot be altered: what concerns the manner of receiving it; Christ left that arbitrary to the Church, and did not oblige either to one total immersion, nor to three, nor to sprinkling but to either of the three ways. Hence it is, that though Christ did baptise the Apostles with a total immersion of their Bodies; as Ancient Authors do aver, (if by three or one immersion we know not) though this manner of Baptising by a total immersion was practised by the first age; and some ages of the Church; and that we do not read that Baptism should have been administered in those ages by a sprinkling of the Body with water; yet the Church in succeeding ages, for just reasons requiring it, has several times altered this manner; some time they ordained that Baptism should be given with three total immersions; in hatred of the Heresy of them that denied three persons in God; and to signify that there was in God, but unity as well in Person as in Nature, would not baptise but with one immersion. Some time, the Church commanded Baptism to be given with one immersion, in opposition of Heretics, that would not baptise but with three: to signify that the three Persons were of different Natures. Thus you will find that in the 50. Canon of the Apostles three immersions are commanded; in the 4. Council of Toledo, but One: S. Gregory writing to S. Leander, says it may be administered either of both ways: and lastly the Church in consideration that many Infants especially in the Northern Kingdoms through the Coldness of the Climate, died by the total immersion of their Bodies, commanded the Sacrament should be administered with the sprinkling of some principal part of the Body with water; and this manner is used, also by the Protestants; who do not rebuke the Church for omitting the triple immersion practised by the Apostles.  
Thus in the Eucharist we must distinguish the essence of it, from the circumstances: That consists in eating and drinking the Body and blood, either under Accidents of bread alone, or wine alone, or bread and wine together; this is indispensably requisite: to neither in particular did Christ oblige us, but left it arbitrary to the Church to determine as times, and just occasions required: and that Christ did not oblige us to any of those different manners: in particular, but left it arbitrary to the Church; first the text itself declares it, for when he gave the Cup, he did not absolutely command the use of it saying Do this in commemoration of me, but, Do this, as often as you shall drink, in commemoration of me; which is not a command of Drinking, but when we shall drink, to do it in commemoration of him. Secondly we have a positive example of Christ himself, that once gave the Communion in the accidents of bread alone, to his disciples in the way towards Emaus: we have no positive example in Scripture that Christ should baptise some times by sprinkling the Body with water, sometimes by one total immersion, and yet we confess, that Baptism may be administered any of these three ways, as the Church shall ordain; we have no positive example that Christ should have given the Eucharist, sometimes in Leven, sometimes in Azim bread; and yet the Church may give it in either: and having a positive example that he gave the Sacrament once in bread and wine, and once, at least, in bread alone, why cannot we conclude that the Church may do so also. Christ gave the Sacrament at night; is it therefore it cannot be given in the morning? Christ gave it after the corporal repast; is it therefore it cannot be received fasting? Christ washed his Apostles feet when he gave it, is it therefore needful to wash the receivers feet?  
That non obstante of the Council of Constance that so much surprises poor Mr sal, as if the Council had been presumptuous in prohibiting the use of the Chalice, having confessed that Christ and the Apostles gave it to the faithful, argues nothing of presumption; for as the Council knew that Christ and the Apostles gave the Cup to the Laity, so it knew also that sometimes they gave only the Bread, and thereby did understand that it was left in the power of the Church to give the Sacrament in either of both kinds. Upon this ground did the Council of Constance, and does the Church now prohibit the Chalice, just reasons moving them to it. First, that if the Cup should be given, that would hinder the frequent Communion, to which the Church doth exhort us much; for wherethe wine is scant and dear, and the Communicants thousands in number; the expenses would be great: secondly People would conceive a horror against the Communion, if they were obliged to drink out of the same Cup with sickly Persons, perhaps with contagious diseases. Thirdly the Communion would be morally impossible to many, that can not endure the taste of wine. Fourthly the danger of the effusion of some drops in a great multitude of Communicants, these and many other reasons have moved the Church to command the use of the bread alone.  
Hear indeed comes very pertinently Mr Sall's argument against the real Presence. The Communion under both kinds is not needful; neither for the verifying of Christ's words in the institution of the Sacrament; nor for the effects, which by it are conveyed unto us: not for the effects conveyed, whereas what Christ promised to the Receivers of the bread and Cup, he promises to the Receivers of the bread alone. He that eats this bread shall live for ever, Io. 6.38. which he repeats three times in that chap. is not this all that is promised to the Receivers of the Bread and Cup? not for the verifying of Christ his words, for that text Io. 6. (which is the strongest that our adversary's can allege) if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you. The particle and, which seems to require the taking of the Cup, as well as the bread, Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 25. and Suar. in 3. par. disp. 71. sect. 2. do manifestly prove that it must be understood disiunctiuly, and signify or, and the sense of the text is, if you do eat the flesh of the son of Man or drink his blood, etc. And that in the Hebrew or Syriach language, (wherein Christ did speak) it signify so, and that the Apostle S. john writing in Greek, retained the Hebrew Phrase,, Now that the particle and which usually is Copulative, sometimes in Scripture signify disiunctiuly, they prove it by several examples of Scripture, as when S. Peter was asked an alms Act. 3. he answered, I have no silver and Gold, meaning that he had neither silver nor Gold, otherwise the excuse was frivolous. Ex. 15. and 21. He that will kill his Father and Mother, let him die, the sense is Father or Mother, Psal. 1. the impious shall not rise in judgement, and the sinners in the Council of the Just. The sense is nor the sinners. So in that text if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man, and drink his blood, etc. The word and, must be taken in a disiunctive sense, and signify, he that will not eat his flesh nor drink his blood; which is declared by Christ his subsequent words, He that eats this bread, shall live for ever; signifying, that eating alone, and consequently, or drinking alone was sufficient.  
But say you Christ Mat. 26. after giving the bread, and commanding to Eat, gave the Cup and said, drink ye all of this. If the Apostles only, were commanded to drink, they only were commanded to eat, and so as the Laity is excluded from drinking, they must be also excluded from eating: and if the command of eating did reach to the Laity, the command also of drinking did extend to them.  
For to answer this Objection, you must observe the difference betwixt a sacrifice, and a Sacrament; a sacrifice is a worship of God by the oblation of some visible thing which we offer in homage of his greatness; so that a sacrifice is directed to God, and consists in an Action exhibited to his honour A Sacrament is a sensible sign given to a Creature for some spiritual invisible effect: so that the Nature of a Sacrament consists in the Reception of a visible sign by God's Creatures; and is directed to them for a spiritual effect▪ The Eucharist is a Sacrifice, a Sacrament. It's a sacrifice of Christ's body and blood under the Accidents of bread and wine, offered to God in representation of Christ's body sacrificed on the Cross; and that the representation should be full and complete, it was ordained in bread to signify his body broken for us, and in the liquid species of wine to represent his blood effused. This sacrifice is offered not only by the Priest, and for the Priests that consecrats but by and for the whole congregation; but because each Person of the multitude is not the immediate Minister of the sacrifice, but all do offer it by the hands of consecrated Persons, on whom Christ laid the commend of sacrificing, Do this in commemoration of me, commanding them to do, as than he did; it is not need full that each particular of the congregation should receive, either the bread or the wyne consecrated, as it is a sacrifice; but that the immediate Minister who offers it for all, should receive both. Hence I confess that Christ in the institution of this Sacrifice in the last supper▪ directed his commands of eating and drinking only to the Apostles and their successors; which he then consecrated Ministers of the Sacrifice; and that neither the word Drink nor eat in those texts extend to oblige the Laity.  
But the Eucharist is also a Sacrament, for that very body and blood of Christ, which he ordained to be a sacrifice to God under the accidents of bread and wine, he ordained them to be given under the same Accidents to man for the spiritual nourishment of his soul. I say under the same Accidents, not that both kind of Accidents of bread and wyne are needful for the perfect receiving of a Sacrament but either; for the Eucharist in the Accidents of bread alone, is a sensible sign containing the body and blood of Christ, which nourishes the soul and gives life everlasting, He that eats this bread shall live for ever therefore its a perfect Sacrament: whence I conclude, that since it is given to Creatures as a Sacrament, and not as a Sacrifice, its sufficient they receive under the sensible signs either of bread alone or wine alone; for in either its a perfect Sacrament; and only in both a perfect Sacrifice. If you ask where then (if not in the words of the last supper) was there any obligation laid on us to receive the Eucharist Sacramentally? I answer, Io. 6. if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man, etc.  
Mr sal concludes, that by Suarez his confession, 3. p. disp. 42. s. 1. the Accidents of bread and wine are the constitutes of the Sacrament: consequently by taking away the Cup, we deprive the Laity of the Sacrament. Suarez says, that the Accidents of bread and wine, and either of bread or wyne, are constitute of the Sacrament, and throughout the whole disput. 71. largely proves in three sections that the whole essence of the Sacrament is contained in either kind.   

Worship of Images.  
Mr sal says the worship of Images is expressly prohibited in the 20. Chap. Ex. which text also expressly prohibits the making of graved Images, or the lyknefs of any thing that is in heaven above, and on the earth, or under the earth or in the waters, and then adds in a distinct verse thou shall not adore nor worship them. If Mr sal will admit no interpretation of that text, but understand it literally; the Protestants are also transgressors, who make pictures of the King, Queen and several other things, and yet the text prohibits the making of the likeness of any thing. If he will interpret the text to signify, no image must be made to be adored; we say the text does not only prohibit the adoring of them, but the making of them; if notwithstanding he will still insist upon his interpretation; then he must give us also leave to give our interpretation, which is, that God prohibited Images to be adored as Gods, or as the representations of false Gods (which are properly I dolls) and then enters thequestion which of both interpretations, his, or ours, is the true one, which none can decide but an infallible living judge, to which we both must be bound to submit.  
That God did not prohibit the making of Images, or the lykness of things Divine and Human (as the letter of the text sounds) our adversaries must confess; for he commanded the Ark of the Testament should be made Ex. 25. the Brazen Serpent to be set up. Num. 21. which Christ says, (Io. 3.) was a representation of himself; That he did not prohibit all manner of worship and adoration of Images representations, and lykness of things, which are in heaven above and earth, it's also manifest; for he commanded the Brazen Serpent to be set up, that the people looking on it, should be healed; and though Mr sal would persuade us, that no adoration was to be given to it, yet certainly none can deny, but, That looking on it, was with an inward reverence and veneration, as on an instrument of God's merices to them: and Adoration or worship consists properly, in the inward affection of the mind. Besides, the Ark of the Testament, which Caluin himself, super Psal. 105. confesses to be an image of God Arca erat imago Dei was still religiously worshipped by the jews, none permitted to touch it but consecrated persons, carried often in Procession by David, Reg. 4.3. Reg. 8. and joshua 6. adored by joshua and the israelites prostrated on the ground be fore it; joshua 7.6. But what the Protestants will never answer; that the Lords supper is a representation of Christ his passion, a figure of his Body and is religiously worshipped by them, if they do what S. Paul requires 1. Corin. 11.28. by this we see, that the text must not be understood literally, prohiting all worship, but prohibiting to be worshipped as Gods, the world being then plunged in Idolatry, some adoring the very statues and Images as Gods, others adoring the statues and images, as the pictures of several things which they believed to be Gods, as jupiter Venus etc.  
Azor, says he, instit. Mor. to. 1. l. 9 c. 6. declares it to be the constant judgement of Divins, that the Image is to be honoured with the same worship wherewith that is worshipped, whereof it is an Image. Azor has no such words; and you add falsely that it is our constant Tenet. Our Doctrine is declared by the 7. Gen. Council which is Nicen. 2. (and after by Trent and others) that Council decrees Images must be adored, and, does not determine how that adoration must be called; but only excludes the Adoration of Latria, which is that, which we give to God. The Divins after this Council dispute, what adoration is it that must be exhibited to them: some say only a Relative, others, an Absolute Adoration, some say an Adoration of Latria improperly and for God's sake, to whom only a proper Latria is due; and these that speak of this improper Latria, are checked by others, because though by scholastical subtleties they may be understood in a Catholic sense, yet that expression sounds harsh to pious ears, and generally all Divins do censure any that should out of the school propose those subtleties to vulgar ears. But what they all agree in, and we believe, that they must not be adored with that Adoration, wherwhith God is adored, and we all say with Epiph. who was present at that Nicen Council: Act. 6. non indignas habemus imagines honore veneratione ac salutatione, debitamque adorationem illis dare debemus, sive igitur (observe these words) placebit adorationem, sive salutationem appellare; idem erit, modo sciamus excludi Latriam; haec enim est alia, a simplici adoratione. we judge Images worthy of honour and adoration, and we ought to exhibit it to them: call that adoration as you please, so it be not Latria, it's all alike what you call it: for Latria is different from an ordinary and simple adoration. Let some particular Divins therefore discourse as they please, it's not our obligation to excuse them, we believe with the Church an Adoration, but no Latria.  
Petavius, says he, agreat Antiquary, declares, that for the four first Centuries there was little or no use of Images, in the Oratoryes of Christians; I cannot imagine, to what purpose does Mr Shall bring these quotations of Petavius, Azor, jacobus de Graffys, if it be not to let his Auditory or Reader know, that he is versed in Authors. This proves that the Primitive Church, did use Images, though not so much as now they do: and Petavius gives in that very place Dogm: Theol. to 5. l. 15. cap. 13. the reason, why they were not more frequently used; because the world converted from Paganism, that believed in stocks and stones, and some of them, that their Gods were Bodies and not pure Spirits; to shun the occasion of a relapse into these errors, and to withdraw the people from any apprehensions of Corporality in God, Images were but little used, nay in some places where the danger was greater they were absolutely prohibited; and Sanderus l. 2. de cultu imaginum c. 4. says this was the reason why the Council of Elibert prohibited the use of Images. S. Gregory, whose words you cite, would have the people, kept from an Idolatrous worship of Images and pretended no more. Not only Nichephorus Calixtus, but many this day of the Catholic Church do hold it absurd to paint Images of the Father, son and Holy Ghost, as they are in their proper substance and Nature; nor does the Catholics use it as you falsely criminat them, but they paint the Father in the form of an Ancient Man, as he appeared to the Prophet Daniel, the son in human shape, and the Holy Ghost in the figure of a Dove as he appeared in the River jordan.  
Vasquez speaks not a word of Images in the place cited by you 3. p. disp. 94. but 3. p. Disp. 103.5.4. he says Images also, as well as Idols, are prohibited in the first Commandment: and what then? Vasquez was mistaken as well as you: but you far more; for he says in that place, it was not because the adoration of Images was in itself naught, as you say; for you say its Idolatry; but because it was obnoxious in those times to the danger of falling into Idolatry; and therefore prohibited: but this danger ceasing (as in the Law of Grace, Images may and aught to be adored, and not prohibited by that commandment: if he speaks consequently or no it's not my business to examine it. You say God commanded the Brazen serpent to be broken, because the people worshipped it: 2. Reg. 13.4. but the text will inform you well, if you set prejudice aside, that they began to adore it for God, as they did the molten Calf: and therefore it was prohibited. You say our people commits many disorders in adoring I mages; I deny any such abuses that may reach to Idolatry: and that the Authority which God has given to govern us, and which we are bond to obey, is to take cognisance of that, which when they do, and prohibit Images, we will obey them; in the mean time we will give you and your Church leave to bark at the Moon.  
But I must mind you of one mistake for to conclude this discourse, Clemens Alexandrinus, say you, Hom. 7. (I pray where have you seen, or any other, Homilies of Clemens Alexandrinus? but this is not the mistake that I am to advertise you of) and in his Paraenesis, speaking of Images in general declareth thus: we have no Images in the world, it is apparently forbidden to us, to exercise that deceitful art for it is written etc. you are mistaken Mr sal, and it cannot be but maliciously, if you have read his Paraenesis, for he does not speak of Images in general, but of Idols, and such as were adored for Gods by the Gentiles, to whom he directed that Paraenesis dissuading them from Idolatry, to the worship of one true God. This is a matter of fact, let the Reader peruse the Author himself, and he will find that you are mistaken.  
Hence we conclude that Images of Christ and his saints cannot be called Idols. For an Idol is a representation of a God that is not, or a Deyty that has no being; Images of Christ and the saints are representations of things that have a real Being: and to say that Christ his image is an Idol, is to say, that Christ, who is the Prototype has no real Being. we conclude that the making of Images was never prohibited; for God made man to his own Image, commanded many Images to be made; the Ark of the Testament, the Brazen serpent, and several others mentioned in Scripture: and the Protestants themselves make many Images of Kings, Queens, and saints. we conclude, that all worship to Images is not prohibited for we worship the King particularly, because he represents God's Power and greatness; nor all religious worship of Images is prohibited, for we give a Religious worship to the Holy name of jesus, to the Bible beyond all other Books, because it is the word of God, and the Protestants to the Sacrament, which they say is but a figure of Christ's body: Reason proves we ought to worship the Images of Christ and his saints; for it is apparent, that there is such a relation and connexion, betwixt the image and the thing whereof it is an image, that the honour or deshonor done to the image for being a representation of the Prototype, is esteemed to be done to the Prototype: as when a man is by public justice burnt in Effigy his person is branded by the execution done in his image, and no man but will think the injury done to his picture, an affront to his own person. we therefore must worship the Images of Christ and the saints, because they are their representations, and in this undoubtedly we worship them, for the relation and connection that is betwixt the representation and thing represented: this worship resteth not in the Image, but passes to the Prototype for whose sake we worship it. And therefore it may be called a transitive, or relative worship; The adoration of Latria due to God we deny to Images, and detest it as much as you: and when we declare our Doctrine and Faith so clearly, its malice and known prejudice, to accuse us of Idolatry, which consists in adoring as God, what is not God.   

Inuoeation of Saints.  
Mr Shall I hope does not forget that Maxim of the schools, argumentum multum probans nihil probat, that an argument which proves more than the disputant pretends, or can pretend to prove; proves nothing, but must be fallacious; and doubtless any Christian will say that an argument that proves directly against the Scripture, is but a Sophistry. Let us hear his argument against the Invocation of Saints. God says he Rom. 8.34. has appointed his son jesus to make intercession for us, who is more compassionate, better able, and more willing than any Saint or Angel to help us, and his prayers are efficacious; for, sayeth he, Io. 5.16. Whatsoever we ask the Heavenly Father in his name, he will give it us.  
This argument proves directly against Scripture; for it proves that we must not ask the Saints on earth to pray for us, nay it proves we must not pray for ourselves, but remit all to Christ; who knows ourwants, is more compassionate towards us than the Saints on earth are, nay than we are of ourselves; love's us better than they love us, or we love ourselves; is better able, and more willing to help us, than they are, and than we are ourselves; on the other side his prayers are more efficacious, why then should we ask the prayers of Saints on earth, or pray for ourselves. Yet Scripture commands us to pray for ourselves, and recommends unto us, that we should ask the prayer of our Brethren, and the Protestant Church also does practice it. Therefore this argument proves directly against the Scripture and against the practice of the faithful.  
It's certain Christ love's us better, than the Saints or Angels do, and is more able and willing; but it is also certain, that he love's the Saints of heaven, better than he love's us, poor sinners on earth; (I know not what opinion Mr sal may have of himself) and so what he would not do for us on earth, for our sakes; we may expect, he may do it for the sake of those that he love's most, which are the Saints and Angels in heaven. For we have examples in Scripture of some Blessings conferred on the living on earth, not for the sake of any living on earth, but of Saints departed. 3. Reg. 11.15. God shown mercy to Solomon, in differing the punishment which he deserved sor his Idolatry, not for Salamons' sake, but for David his Father's sake, (who was dead) 4. Reg. 19.34. God protected jerusalem against the Assyrians, nor for Ezechias the King's sake, though he loved him; nor for Isaias his sake that then lived, and was a Holy Prophet, but for his own sake and David's sake his servant. Thus we see, that though God love's us more than the Saints departed love us, yet he love's them more than us, and gives us for their sake what he would not grant us for our own.  
He brings the words of S. Peter Act. 4.12. that there is no salvation in any other, and no other Name under Heaven, whereby we may be saved; all which we acknowledge, and yet Protestants as well as we do ask the prayers of their Brethren on earth; and why may not we ask the prayers of the Saints in heaven? for what we expect by their intercession, and the value and worth of their prayers, is altogether grounded, and springs from the Merits of that name of jesus. This is all that Mr sal alleadges against this Tenet of ours, judged you what strong considerations moved him to desert our Church. He adds the folly of two Spanish friars that beyond all measure, even of the Catholic Principles, as he grants, pag. 75. exceeded in the praises of Saints, and he would be no longer a Catholic, since there were such madmen amongst us, and perhaps some Protestants will have the like encouragement for to leave that Church, since Mr sal is entered into their Congregation. But if, by your acknowledgement, these excesses are against our Principles; therefore you grant, that our Principles do not wrrant any excesses in the Invocation of Saints; why therefore did you leave the Church, whose Principles are sound? because some friars played the fool? a pretty reason.  
Now that I have answered your objections Mr sal; y pray answer me to this discourse; that the Saints in Heaven do pray for us, I prove it thus; and, if I be not mistaken, evidently in the Principles of Religion.  
The Saints in Heaven know evidently that there is a Militant Church on earth, for they evidently know that the Resurrection or general judgement is not as yet come; whereas they know that they have not assumed their Bodies; consequently they know the world is not ended, and that there is a militant Church on earth. Also they know evidently that this militant Church is in continual warfare, still assaulted by Satan with temptations, beset with spiritual dangers: for this is the Essence of a Militant Church; and in this it is distinguished from the Triomphant; that This, is out of all danger; That is in continual battle: by this it appears that the Saints in Heaven, are not altogether ignorant of our affairs on earth, as our Adversaries would have them to be. Now I proceed in my discourse, can it be imagined that the Saints in Heaven, knowing our temptations, and battles with so fierce an enemy as Satan, should be so devoid of Charity, as not to pray for us? I know not what you may answer, but I know what some answer: that they can not pray; for, being ravished with the possession of an acomplisht Bliss, they cannot mind any thing else, but the glory of the object which they see. But this is in credible, that the Devils in the bitterness of their torments should not forget us, nor the height of miseries should not allaytheir malice, but still tempt us; and the saints and Angels should abate their Charity in the greatness of their glory: specially that Christ (says S. Paul Rom. 8.) prays inessantly for us; the possession therefore of the glory, cannot hinder the saints prayers for us.  
But I prove that their glory obliges them to pray for us: you cannot deny, but that in the possession of that glory, they ardently desire, the exaltation of God's name, the increase of his glory, the confusion of his enemy Satan; and what greater confusion of Satan, what greater exaltation of God's name and glory, than the victory of men against Satan, the victory of those that are tempted by him, and finally mens salvation; undoubtedly then, whereas they evidently know that the Militant Church is in continual battle against that enemy, in continual temptations, and dangers of damnation; the very possession of that glory makes them desire ardently, and wish our victories, and salvation: this wish and desire of theirs, you cannot deny but that it is manifest to God; and what else, I ask you, is a Prayer, but a pious desire of a thing, represented to God? it is evident therefore that the saints and Angels pray for us to God.  
This discourse, you will say, proves that the triumphant Church, and each particular of it, knows the wants of the Militant Church in general, but not of each particular, or of any particular person of the Militant Church, therefore we particular Persons ought not to pray to any of the Triumphant Church, whereas they do not know if we pray, or any of our particular affairs.  
But the argument proves at least that the saints departed and Angels are Mediators for the Militant Church in general; and so all Mr Sall's discourse, for the only Mediatorship of Christ, falls to ground: more over I will prove by Scripture and reason that they know the temptations, and dangers of particular Persons of the Militant Church and consequently the former discourse proves, that they pray for particular persons, and hear their prayers.  
Lu. 15. it's said that the Angels rejoice at (and consequently know) the conversion of a sinner; the Devils know the state and condition of particular persons, and by their temptations allures them to sin: the glorious Spirits therefore, who in their natural knowledge are equal to, and in supernatural surpass them, do know no less; neither is it credible that God should permit the Devil to know man's condition to tempt him, and should not permit the glorious Spirits, especially our Angels keepers to help and defends us: the Protestants ought not to question this; whereas in their Common Prayer Book, they have this Collect on S. Michael the Archangels day the 29. of Sept: God who in a wonderful manner dispenseths the Ministeries of Men and Angels, grant, that as they do thee constantly assist in heaven, so by thy appointment, they may secure and defend us on earth. God therefore useth the Ministry of Angels to help men, and consequently Angels know men's particular affairs. That there are witches in the world may not be denied, if we will not condemn most Commonwealths of folly and injustice, which punish many for such, and if we will not laugh at Scripture which relates 1. Reg. 28. that Saul by the help of a witch raised the Spirit of Samuel; that the witches invoke and are heard by the Devils its out of doubt; and shall the Glorious Spirits be deaf to them that invoke them? lastly many examples are recorded in Scripture of the ministry exhibited by Angels to men. 3.19.6. Reg. 1. Gen. 48.16. and 16.4. Reg. 19.34.  
And that saints also departed know our affairs and do assist us, the Scripture doth witness it: Saul, all fraught with afflictions, finding no comfort in the living, betook himself to the Spirit of Samuel deceased, 1. Reg. 28. this proves that men in those days did believe that the saints departed know our aflairs, and can help us, and samuel's answer to him does evidence the same. Elias departed this world, that's to say all commerce with human kind, the 18. year of josaphas' reign, as appears 3. Reg. 22. and 4. Reg. 2. and 3. josaphat died about seven years after, which was the 25. year of his reign, as appears 3. Reg. 22. joram succeeded to josaphat, and Elias that departed from all human commerce seven years before, writ a letter to him, rebuking him for his wickedness, and threatening him with God's indignation. can there be amore manifest proof that the saints departed know our affairs, and do help us? S. Peter 2. epist. c. 1. tells the Christians to whom he writ, that his death was at hand, and that he would be mindful of them after his departure from life, and help them to be mindful of his Doctrine.  
Can it then be doubted but that we may prudently, and aught to pray to them, by whose means the Scripture assures us that others did receive God's blessings? either directing our prayers immediately to God, praying that for his B. Mother's sake, for S. Peter's sake, for David's sake (this prayer is often made by the ancient Prophets in Scripture, Propter Dauid seruum tuum non avertas faciem Christi tui. Psal. 131. Memento Domine David & omnis mansuetudinis eius. ps. 131.) he would have compassion of us? or directing our prayers immediately to the saints and Angels, beseeching them to help us, and pray for us; as jacob Gen. 48. prayed that God, in whose sight he walked, and the Angel, who delivered him from evils, should bless his children. This is it that's understood in that Article of our Creed, The communion of saints, that the saints of the Triumphant Church in heaven, of the Militant on earth, and the Patient in Purgatory, have a Communication of prayers and merits betwixt them, that those of heaven pray for us, and we by our prayers and suffrages, do help them in Purgatory.  
Mr sal thinks it extravagancy, that we call the B. virgin our Savioress and Redeemer; and if he be impartial he must call the Prophet David extravagant also, when he says (speaking of the saints) Psal. 81. I have said, ye are Gods, and the sons of the highest all: And perhaps he will not stick to blame God himself, who says to Moses Ex. 7.1. behold I have made thee a God to Pharaoh? we call the B. V so, because those names may be given in an improper sense to the chief Instrument of our Redemption, as she was, being the Mother of him who is truly our Redeemer. we build more Churches says Mr sal, and say more prayers to some saints than to God: we answer that all the honour we exhibit to saints is given to God, for whose sake we honour them. To them we build Churches for his sake because they are his great servants. He assures us in the Gospel that what we do to one of his little ones we do it to him; much more we may be assured, we do to him and for him, what we do to, and for his saints in heaven, whereas himself tells us, Io. 12 26. if any will serve me, my Father will honour him. Much more ought they to be honoured by us.   

Purgatory and Indulgences.  
Mr Shall rallyes about the situation of Purgatory and the nature of the torments that there are suffered, if cold, heat, rain, or tempest &c all which is to no purpose, for what is controverted betwixt Protestants and Catholics is not, what place is Purgatory in, or what are the pains inflicted there; but if there be any such thing as Purgatory: the Protestants deny any third receptacle of souls departed, but must go either to heaven or Hell, for where the tree falls, there it remains. The orthodox Doctrine is that there is a Purgatory, where souls departed with venial sins only, or that after the remission of their mortal sins in this life by the Sacrament of Confession, or by an act of Contrition, have not done sufficient penance in this life for their transgressions; must suffer until they satisfy God's justice to the last farthing. This is an Article of Faith; but the Church has not determined in what place is Purgatory; that is a school question: as for the Nature of the torments there inflicted; it's an Article of Faith that they are tormented with the privation, or banishment from God's sight: also it's of Faith that they are tormented by fire: but the Church has not determined, what kind of fire is that, or how it torments; and though Divins and Fathers speak of other torments, yet it's no Article of Faith, that they suffer this or that, of Cold, snow or tempest.  
To prove our Catholic Tenet, I will first prove; that there is some other receptacle of Souls departed besides Heaven and Hell of the Damned; secondly I will prove that there is a Purgatory.  
The first is proved by the Article of our Creed, he descended into hell, which cannot be understood to be the Hell of the damned, for all Christians abhor the blasphemy of Caluin that says Christ his soul suffered the pains of the damned: the Protestants give a most obscure interpretation to that clear text; by the word Hell, say they, is understood the Grave and the sense of the Article is, that Christ his Body descended into the grave. This is most absurd, for in the next word before this Article, the descent of his Body to the Grave is expressly declared, He was crucified, dead, and buried: to be buried what else is it, but his Body to descend into the Grave? and after telling us in the word buried, that his Body was put in the grave, would they again repeat the same in a distinct Atticle, when they pretended ro give us a brief abridgement of the article of Faith?  
S. Peter expounds that Article, 1. ep. 3.19. Being dead in flesh, he descended in Spirit, to the Spirits that were detained in prison, to preach to them that were incredulous in the days of Noe. Behold the Article of our Creed expounded; his Spirit descended after his death, surely it did not descend into the grave) to the Spirits that were detained in prison; (there was a prison therefore, where Spirits were detained;) and preached to them, (certainly he did not preach to them that were in the prison of the damned;) therefore there was some other prison besides that of the damned, where spirits were detained.  
We find Gen. 37.35. that jacob persuaded by his children that his son joseph was killed, and devoured by a Beast, lamented and said, I will descend mourning unto my son to Hell. Certainly he did not intent to descend unto him to the grave, for he was persuaded he had none, but was devoured by a Beast; neither can it be imagined that he intended to descend unto him, to the Hell of the damned, or believed that his son descended thither; jacob therefore believed that there was an other Hell, where his son descended, and he expected to go after his death. This shocks the whole fabric of the Protestant dostrin, of no Purgatory; grounded chief on the persuasion of no other receptacle of souls, but Heaven and Hell of the damned.  
Now that there is a Purgatory, I prove it: the Protestants deny it, because that if the sin be forgiven in this life, than all the punishment due of man for that sin is also forgiven, and so there is no Purgatory: if the sin was not forgiven, than it carries the soul to Hell, for in the other world no sin is forgiven. But I prove that though the sin be forgiven by the Sacrament, or Contrition, yet some temporal punishment is due of the sinner to God, to satisfy his justice, is it not the daily practice of Preachers, to exhort sinners, even the reconciled sinners, to do penance, for their sins? what penance did not Magdalen do, even after that Christ had told her, that her sins were forgiven? what great penance did not David, S. Peter, and other reconciled sinners do? this shows that the Faithful were always persuaded that penance must be done, though the sin be forgiven: and it is no aswer to say, that these austerityes practised by them were not for the sins they committed, and were forgiven; but for to arm them against future temptations; for we have many passages of Scripture which shows punishments inflicted by God on the reconcilied sinners, for their sins, after they were forgiven.  
For example original sin is forgiven by Baptism, yet the corporal death, which is a punishment inflicted on mankind for that sin, as S. Paul says Rom. 6. and 5. is not forgiven, but inflicted on all. The Prophet Nathan declared to David that his sin of Adultery was forgiven him, yet in punishment of that sin, the Child got by that Adultery, should die. 2. Reg. 12 jask, was that pwishment justly due of David after his sin was forgiven or no? If not, why should God inflict it for that sin? if it was due; let us suppose that David had died before that punishment was inflicted, (which might have happened, and daily happens to others; who die before they do any penance for the sins that by the Sacrament were forgiven) surely he must have paid that debt in the other life, before he could enter into Heaven; where no soul, guilty of any thing, can enter. Therefore there must be some other place where sinners, whose sins have been forgiven, and that have not done sufficient penance in life must be punished in the other world. A Prison I say where the last farthing may be paid, and that being paid, the prisoner may get out, for our Saviour mentions such a prison after this life. Mat. 5. and Luc. 12. but the last farthing cannot be paid in the Hell of the damned, for the debt is due there, for Eternity; therefore there must be some other prison for souls departed besides the Hell of the damned.  
Now if you read Mr Sall's discourse upon this subject, you shall not find that he brings any text of Scripture, that as much as seemingly says there is no Purgatory; and yet the Reformers did separate themselves from the Church of Rome, whereof they were members, upon pretext of errors (whereof Purgatory is one) which they would prove by clear Scripture to be errors, and contrary to Gods written word: and not one text does Mr sal, nor can he bring any clear text to prove no Purgatory; much less will you find any evident, or convincing reason in his discourse to impugn our Tenet: what he does is to answer some texts (the chief he says, but he is mistaken) wherewith Bellarmin proves it, and gives only Beauties own answers, and thus he would persuade us out of our Doctrine.  
But first allow those texts that Bellarmin brings, do not convince the existence of a Purgatory; allow that texts which I here allege, do not manifestly prove it: This, no man of judgement will deny, but that these texts and glosses upon them, have as much probability, as much appearance of truth, as any that you bring or can bring against Purgatory: that your answers to those texts are not evidently true, for they are Beauties own answers, for the most part at least, and he rejects them very plausibly, since therefore we were for so many ages in the actual belief of the doctrine, before you and your Reformers came to the world, why shall we be bet from it, if you cannot show stronger reasons or texts against it, than we have for it. Nay though we brought no reasons at all to prove our doctrine, but this that we received it as the word of God from so many precedent ages; is it reason that for you, or your Reformers pleasure, without a convincing text or reason to prove it false, we must disclaim it? allow that those texts do not clearly prove Purgatory, that's nothing; we are not Actors but Defendants, it's not our obligation to prove, but yours; we will defend ourselves against your proofs, and so hold our old doctrine.  
But now I prove that those texts, which Mr Shall judges inconclusive, do prove what Bellarmin intended the first is out of 2. Mach. 12. a collection being made, he sent 12000. drachmas of silver to jerusalem, to have sacrifice offered for the sins of the dead because he did consider that these, who received death with piety, would have a very good reward it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought, to pray for the dead, that they may be delivered from sins. This is the text though these Books were Canonical Scripture, says he, yet the text proves not Purgatory, for prayers for the dead, may be made for other ends, than that of drawing souls out of Purgatory; first because that God being still present to all spaces of Eternity, foreseeing now, what prayers will be made many years and ages hence, for persons that are now, at this present, dying, and being a good Paymaster that oftentyms gives before hand, the rewards of what services will be done for the future, may now give to the person dying the assistance of his grace and mercy, which he foresees will be in future times asked for them by friends that will pray for them: which Doctrine, says he, is taught by the Romish writers, and  to this Doctrine we may say, that the effect of those prayers made for the jews by judas Machabeus, was not do draw them out of Purgatory after thy were dead, but that God should have given them for reward of those prayers a Good death.  
Observe, Reader, what is it that Bellarmin intended to prove by that argument, l. 1. de Purg. c. 3. §. ad sextum dico he speaks thus. Our consequence proceeds not thus: they prayed for the slain; therefore there is Purgatory: but thus. They prayed for the remission of the sins of the dead: therefore they judged, that after their death they might be in Purgatory; that they might after death have some sins that needed expiation: and this praying for the dead, to deliver them from sin after their death, is commended by Scripture: consequently sins may be forgivin after death, consequently there is a Purgatory after death, otherwise the Scripture would have erred in praising, prayers for the remission of the sins of the dead. And what man of common sense does not see, that these conclusions follow out of that text. For what Bellarmin pretended and we pretend to prove out of that passage, is that it was the practice of the jewish Church, and the belief of the People of God (and consequently no new invention of the Catholic Church) that sins may be expiated and forgiven after death and that prayers were used to be made for the dead, not only for to praise God, for the rest of the Faithful departed, nor for the mutual comfort of the living in the death of our friend, nor for our spiritual instruction reflecting on our own mortality at the sight of death, but as this text expressly says, for the sins of the dead, that the dead may be delivered from their sins.  
That subtlety of the Catholic Doctors alleged by Mr sal, that God foreseeing the prayers that will be made, may, as a good Paymaster, pay before hand, is very good, but is not to the purpose: for allow those prayers made for the slain might have had that effect in this passage, but still returns the conclusion, pretended by Bellarmin, that the passage proves it was the belief and practice of the People of God, and praised by Scripture, to pray for the expiation of the sins of the dead. Moreover it might, and does, likely, happen that some die for whom no prayers are or will be made after death, which our foreknowing God cannot reward before hand, because they are not in Being nor will not; if those men die in venial sin, or without having done sufficient penance, there must be a Purgatory for them, consequently that subtlety proves not the non Existence of a Purgatory.  
Again, says he, that passage, though true, proves not Purgatory, because those Men died in mortal sin, whereas they were found to have under their coats things consecrated to the Idols. (As the text relates (nor is it true, says he, what Bellarmin says, that their sin was only venial, because it deserved God's vengeance and their death: as if a venial sin, did not the serve that punishment. Neither does Bellarmin say absolutely it was but a venial sin, but that perhaps it was no more, because it was committed through ignorance, or though it might be mortal, yet at the hour of death, especially dying for so pious and glorious a cause, they might have obtained of God an act of contrition. And whereas judas Machabaeus did not know certainly that they were guilty of Motal sin, he might have prayed for them.  
He alleadges other considerations why prayers might be made for the dead, though there were no Purgatory, first for to praise God for the rest given to the departed, secondly for our mutual comfort in the death of our friend, thirdly for our instruction to mind us of our mortality, and says that when in Ancient Authors we meet prayers to be made for the dead, we must understand, they were made for these ends, and not for the drawing of souls out of Purgatory. we confess that those considerations are very good, and that they were practised by the Ancient Church (as those words of the Commentaries upon job, futhered on Origen relat) and are still practised, but we deny that these are the only considerations for praying for the dead but also for the remission of their sins, as the former text doth evidence; for their ease and delivery from the pains they suffer after death: and in the Ancient Fathers we meet (contrary to what Mr sal avers) prayers for the dead to be made for this end: nothing more frequent: two examples only I will produce: S. Denis, Disciple of S. Paul Apostle, I. de Ecc. Hierar. c. 7. p. 3. the venerable Bishop approaching prays for the dead, and that prayer beseecheth the Divine Clemency, that he may forgive to the dead, all the sins that through human frailty he committed: and that he may place him in the light, and region of the living. Isidorus l. 1. de off. Diu, c. 18. if the Catholic Church did not believe that sins are forgiven to the Faithful departed, it would neither make alms, nor offer sacrifice to God for their souls. This is the unanimous Doctrine of all antiquity, to all which Mr sal will answer with Caluin, Gchinus and Peter Martyr that the Ancient Fathers erred: and this is all the answer we can expect.  
He values nothing the text out of Tobias 4. alleged by Bellarmin, yet it proves clearly what Bellarmin pretended, that it was the practice of the People of God, to offer alms for the dead. The words fire and water (says he) in the ps. 66.12. we passed through fire and water, but thou broughtest us out into a wealth place. signify tribulations and crosses of this life, and so that text proves nothing of Purgatory. Bellarmin aknowledges, it might be thus interpreted, and in other senses, but says Bellarmin, Origen Hom. 25. in Num. and S. Ambrose ser. 3. in Psal. understand by water Baptism, and by fire Purgatory. And you, Mr sal, should have told us, what you thought of Origen and S. Ambrose his interpretation. You will say what your Predecessors of the Reformation have said, that they erred.  
Bellarmin brings the words of Christ Mat. 12. that a sin against the Holy Ghost, shall not be pardoned in this world nor in the world to come. And says that S Augustin, S. Greg. Beda, and S. Bernard, draw from this text a consequence that some sins are pardonable in the other world, nay that this was the only text wherewith S Bernard did prove Purgatory. M● sal says that consequence does not follow, because, sayeth he, (he taketh this reason from Peter Martyr) a positive does not follow out of a negative, as from saying, the Duke of venice is not Earl of Dublin, it follows not, therefore some other is Earl of Dublin. See you Reader, which interpretation you like best if you will choose to stick to Mr sal, and Peter Martyr, or to S. Augustin, S. Greg. Bede, and S. Bernard. His example is frivolous. For it were a ridiculous proposition to say, the Duke of Venice is not Earl of Dublin, if there were not a Dublin extant whereof some one may be Earl; so it were ridiculous to say, this sin shall not be forgiven in the other world itself: if there were not an other, world where sins may be forgiven; therefore we say, that either we must acknowledge sins to be pardonable in the other world, or Christ his words to be sense less: as it were a sense less assertion, to say, pride shall not be punished in this world, nor in Heaven. When all the world is persuaded before hand, that Heaven is no place of punishment for pride or any other vice. So we also grant, that were we to consider the letter only of the text; out of the words of the Evangelist, Mart. 1.25. we ought to conclude that joseph knew Marie after her Chilbirth; but the Scripture interpreted by the Church expounds unto us by several other texts the sense of that text not to be, as the letter found'st; and Mary to have remained a Virgin continually; and so you bring that text to no purpose.  
Now Mr Shall I will prove, that not only  to the rule of Prudence, but also  to the rules of Faith and Logic, the consequence of Purgatory, is manifestly evinced out of that text: Thus says the text: He that will speak a word against the son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he that will speak against the H. G. it shall not be forgiven him, either in this world, nor in future. I argue thus: the text denies to a blasphemy against the H. G. what it grants to a blasphemy against the son of Man. But what it denies to That, is remission in this life and the other: therefore what it grants to This is remission in this life, and the other: The text says again in this place. Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, but a blasphemy against the H. G. Is it nor an evident sequel out this text, that as a blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable so all other sins are pardonable; but a blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable in this world, and in the future; therefore other sins are pardonable in both.  
You will reply, that this argument proves too much; for it proves that as a blasphemy against the H.G. is unpardonable in the other life, not only as to the punishment, due to the sin, but also as to the guilt, or fault; so other sins are pardonable in the other life, not only as to the punishment due to sin, which is what we pretend; but also as to the fault or guilt of sin; which is more than we pretend; for we teach that Mortal sins are not forgiven as to the guilt or fault, in the other world: therefore this argument proves too much. Answer: that a sin may be said unpardonable, its requisite that Nothing of it be pardonable; for, as the school Maxim says Negatio totum destruit: whereas therefore the text imports, that a blasphemy, against the H. G. is unpardonable in this life and the future, it follows, that nothing either the guilt or fault of it, or the punishment due to it, be pardoned, either in this life or the future. But that a sin may be said pardonable it suffices that some part of it at least may be pardoned; whereas therefore our argument proves, that sins are pardonable in the other life, its requisite that some part of it be pardoned or pardonable in the other life; either the guilt of sin, or the punishment due to it: Not the guilt or fault; as we believe and prove by many evident arguments: therefore the punishment due to it.  
He tells us the doctrine of Purgatory makes men negligent of true repentance, and satisfaction for their sins in this life, for the hopes it gives of the Remission of them in Pugatory. But this is incredible, that men being instructed of the bitterness of the torments of Purgatory, far exceeding all that can be suffered in this world, should be encouraged to omit the small penance and pains of this life, for to suffer the far greater and more excessive pains of Purgatory. It gives (quoth he) occasion to pitiful abuses of Simony in the valuation of Masses, of cruelty and injustice: and what is there in the world so sacred and Holy, but the malice of man may abuse? is it therefore all sacred things must be renounced and abolished? we condemn the abuses as well as you; but we must not therefore condemn the Doctrine, but correct the malice of man that abuses it.  
From this of Purgatory he descends to exclaim against Indulgences; which he pretends to be groundless because Suarez, l. de Defen. fid. c. 15. says that Indulgences is a remission of the pains of Purgatory, and most falsely avers that Suarez doubts, if this power be in the Church, whereas in that place he affirms it is undoubtedly certain the Church has it, and grounds this certainty on the infinitness of Christ's Merits, which even our Adversary's grant, and on the power given to the Church, Mat. 18.18. of binding and unbinding; which power says he, cannot be doubted, but it extends to the Remission of the pains of Purgatory; for which in that place he brings no other proof but the constant practice of the Church, which he says is an unquestionable proof; and remits the more ample proof of this doctrine to To. 4. in 3. p. disp. 48.  
Mr Shall judges the doctrine not sufficiently proved, because Suarez alleadges in this place no other warrant but the ancient custom of the Church, which Suarez and we hold to be an undoubted proof; This proof and no other does S Augustin bring to prove Infant's Baptism, serm. 4. de verbis Apost. c. 18. This, the Authority of our Mother the Church hath, against this strength, against this invincible brickwall, whosoever rusheth, shall be crushed in pieces. By the same he proves the validity of Heretics Baptism, l. 1. contr Crescon. c. 32. and 33. for which, he says, No examples is brought out of Canonical Scripture, but that which recommends unto us the Authority of the Church, who teacheth it. S. Chrysost. upon the words of S. Paul's 2. Thes. 2. Stand and hold the Traditions, etc. Hom. 4. speaks thus: Let us account the Tradition of the Church worthy of belief: it is a Tradition seek no more. And again S. August. Epist. 118. If the Church through out the whole world practise a thing; to dispute, whether such a thing can be done, is a most insolent madness. I conclude then that Suarez sufficiently proved the truth of the doctrine of Indulgences, having grounded it on the constant practice and custom of the Universal Church.  
You say the doctrine of Indulgence is not so Ancient: and that the first who began to give these Grants was Gregory the seaventh, to the Emperor Henry the fourth to encourage him and the Christians to war against the Saracens; as Baronius relates an. Dom 1084. if all this were true; it's older notwithstanding than Protestancy by many hundred years: But if you have no more skill in Divinity or Moral Theology, (your Treatise shows well what you know in Controversy) than you seem to have in History, you are but a fresh water scholar. That Indulgence you speak of, nor no other to any such purpose, was not granted by Gregory the seaventh, but by Vrban the second; nor to Henry the fourth, who made no war against the Saracens, but to Henry the Third; not in the year 1084 but 1095. Neither is this the first grant of Indulgences which you could meet, if you had read the Histories; Baronius related by you, tells us that Indulgences were granted by Leo the third the year 847. and by john the Eight the year 878. Nor is it a good argument; we do not read that Indulgences were given before; therefore the Power of granting Indulgences was not in the Church before.  
You add that private Bishops granted Indulgences for gathering of moneys to build Churches; that is very true, but if Nostre-Dame of Paris was built upon that account, is not so certain: by that you may see Indulgences are not so slightly granted as your Ministers do persuade their flock; but on Condition that the Receivers endeavour to put themselves in the state of Grace by true repentance of their sins, and that they exercise some pious works of fasting, Prayers, Alms, deeds, and such others as they, who give the Indulgence, require: and that the Alms which are enjoined in such cases (though by the malice of some they may be turned to sinister uses) are designed for pious uses. You mention some words of the 92. Canon of the Council of Lateran, under Innocent the Third, and that Council has but 70. Canon in all, nor does the Council speak any thing in any Canon of Indulgences, it's no new practice of your fraternity, to coin new Canons and texts as you want them.  
You cite S. Thom. and S. Bonaven. who relate, some were of opinion, that Indulgences were but a pious fraud of the Church to draw men to charitable Acts; its true those saints relate that opinion; but relate not who were the Authors of it; but only that some did say so, and they condemn it as impious, and injurious to the Church. S. Bon. in 4. dist. 20. q. 6. sed hoc est Ecclesiae derogare, dicendo eam sub specie mentiri, quod abhorret mens recta. Thus you only prove by this argument that there were some impious people that accused the Church of being a cheat. And do not you do the like? we embrace most willingly the advertisement of Bellar de amiss: Gratiae l. 6. which you relate (but nothing to your purpose) that in things depending of the freewill of God, we must affirm nothing but what he has revealed in his Holy Scripture; but you are mistaken in asserting that God has not revealed the Doctrine of Indulgence in the Scripture, for that text Mat. 18.18. whatever ye shall unbind on earth, shall be unbinded in Heaven signify the Power of unbinding from the pains of Purgatory; you say it does not; and you cite Durandus and Maior, who say it does not, and that Indulgences are not found expressly in Scripture; but I say that though they be not expressly found in scripture, they are implicitly found there; and you confess in the beginning of your discourse that we are bound to believe not only what is contained in Scripture, but the undeniable consequences out of it; out of that text, the Power of untying from the pains due to sin, is an undeninable consequence; the Church declares it and interprets the text so; to whose Authority Dur. and Maior must yield. And though there were no text in Scripture, that either explicitly or implicitly did import Indulgences in particular; yet by Scripture itself we are bound to believe it, it being the Doctrine of the Church, as S. August: said of Heretics Baptism l. 1. cont. Crescon. c. 32. and 33. observe his words, which comes very appositely to our present subject: Although verily there be brought no example for this Point (he means the validity of Heretic Baptism, for which he says there is no text in Scripture) yet even in this Point the truth of the same Scripture is held by us, while we do that, which the Authority of Scripture doth recommend unto us: that so, because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive us, who soever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, must have recourse to the Church Concerning it, which without ambiguity the Holy Scripture doth recommend unto us. By which sentence of S. Augustin, you find that we follow Scripture whilst we follow the Doctrine of the Church, which the Scripture commands us to hear and obey.  
You will perhaps infer out of this discourse a consequence, which may seem to you absurd, thus: therefore we are bound to believe as an Article of Faith, what Doctrine the Church proposeth to us, though that point in particular be not contained either explicitly or implicitly in any text of Scripture, only upon the testimony of the Church: This consequence is true: and the reason is; that the Church, being Gods infallible Oracle, cannot propose to us as a revealed Truth but only that Doctrine, which truly is revealed by God: God revealed all Truths of Religion to the Apostles as we have discoursed in the 6. Chap. the Apostles delivered all those truths to the Church, to be handed from age to age to Posterity; the Apostles did not deliver all those Truths in writing, as we have discoursed in the 2. and 3. ch. but part in writing, and this is Scripture, part by unwritten Tradition, and this is the Depositum that S. Paul speaks of to Timothy, the Church is the keeper of this Depositum, and as by the Scripture we know what written Truths the Apostles delivered; so by the Church we know assuredly what unwritten Truths they delivered. Now we say that the Church cannot propose to us as a revealed Truth, but what was delivered by the Apostles (who doubtless knew and taught to their Disciples all truths of Religion) to the Church, for we do not say nor believe, that the Church can coin new Articles of Faith, but only deliver the Old, that, through carelessness, came to be confusedly known, and almost forgotten; we do not pretend that the Church has new revelations of new Doctrine, which God did not deliver to his Apostles, but that she has the assistance of God's Spirit to know certainly, and find out the truths that were formerly revealed and taught by the Apostles, not only in writing but by word of mouth. what truths therefore the Church proposes unto us, we are obliged to believe them as revealed truths, though they be not in Scripture particularly mentioned; for if they be not there, they were taught verbally by the Apostles, they are of Apostolical tradition, and if the tradition be obscure or doubtful, the declaration of the Church renders it certain. Thus it matters not that Indulgence is not expressed, nay nor implicitly contained in Scripture; if it be not, it must of necessity have been taught verbally by the Apostles, since that the Church proposeth this Doctrine as a revealed Truth, and no truth is a revealed truth, but has been revealed to them, and by them delivered unto their Disciples.   

Public Prayer in an unknowen Language.  
Ex ore tuo te iudico serue nequam: your own position is the strongest argument I can allege for Public service in an un known language: you say thus: the purpose of Nature by speaking is to communicate the sense of him that speaketh to the hearer; but how can that be if the hearer perceiveth not the meaning of the words he speaketh. Therefore we must speak in a known language. I ask, to whom do we speak in the Liturgy, or Public service of the Church? Sure it's not to the congregation, but God: it's to him we direct our Prayers, for to praise him, and implore his Mercy. The Hearer is God properly, and not the Cougregation; and therefore where there is no Congregation present, the Psalms are sung in the Oyre and Public service done: if therefore we communicate our fence (when we say Mass or public service) to God, who is the hearer we satisfy the purpose that Nature intends by speaking, and whereas God understands our fence in whatever language we speak though unknowen to the Congregation; we may say the public Prayer in a language unknowen to them.  
Is not Prayer, say you, (you see how your arguments recoils against yourself) a raising up of our minds to God to praise him or ask favours of him? will it not be conducent and necessary for this to understand the Psalms and Prayers? But Sr do you think it necessary that a Polander, who presents a Petition to the King of England in the English language, aught to be blamed, because he does not himself understand that language? or is it not enough for his purpose, that the King doth understand it? cannot he prudently rely in the Faith and honesty of the Notary or Clerk that writ it, who being instructed of what he pretends gives him the petition drawn to be presented? If therefore Prayers, by your acknowledgement, are but our request to God for the obtaining of his Mercy, is it not sufficient for me that he understands them? and may not I rely on the Faith, and honesty of the Church, who gives me these Prayers, as so many petitions wherein my request is contained?  
You bring a text of S. Paul 1. Cor. 14.17. against this Tenet, and you will not have us to consider the object or end to which he directed his discourse; but the reasons and instances he alleadges: as if his reasons, or any man's reasons, could be of force to prove any thing, but in relation to the object, or subject of his discourse. To the contrary, for to understand the Apostles reason in the  fence, we must observe to what end he directed his discourse, and the subject he treated of; and no unpreiudiced man will read that Chapter, but will manifestly preceiue that he did not speak of Prayers to God, but of preaching and instruction of the congregation, which he some times in that Chap. calls Prayer, but the context shows plainly, that what he means is Exhortation, or instruction of the people: for all a long he disproves that Praying or speaking in an unknowen language; and gives for reason, because the Hearers did not understand it: does not this reason apparently prove that he meant what was spoken unto the people, which was what we now call Sermon or exhortation? For S. Paul could not condemn Prayers made to God in an unknowen language, and gives that for reason, because the Hearers did not understand it: for the Hearer of the Prayers made to God, are not the people but God, to whom the prayer is made; and of him, S. Paul could not say, that he did not understand: therefore he could not condemn speaking to him in an unknowen language.  
To be brief; I propose this syllogism. S. Paul in that Chap. condemned speaking in a language that the Hearers could not understand; this is evident out of the tetx. But in the public Prayer of the Church, we only speak to God, he only is the Hearer of those Prayers, for to him they are made and directed and not to the people, and he can understand in any language: therefore S. Paul did not condemn the public Prayer of the Church in any language. Again S. Paul condemned speaking in an unknowen language, that the Hearers, to whom one did speak, did not vndestand: But in the Church nothing is spoken to the people, but what is preached, or taught by exhortations, sermons, exposition of the Gospel, etc. then, and only then, the Congregation are the Hearers: therefore what S. Paul condemned was preaching exhorting, or expounding the Gospel unto the people in unknowen languages, because then the Hearers could not understand what was spoken to them.  
He tells us what great blessings the Protestants enjoy by having the Public service in Common language, how much it conduces for the increase of devotion and how unhappy the Catholics are in wanting this comfort; but, alas, we have but too great an experience of the contrary; that the putting the Lyturgy in common language, has caused the decay of devotion▪ the contempt of the public service, the desrespect of sacred things sullied by every Cobbler's mouth; your men of understanding and zeal are sufficiently sensible of this, and would wish that these sacred things were kept at a distance from the common people.  
The words of S. Augustin, l. 4. the doctr. Christ. c. 10. that he thinks do favour him, proves what we teach, what profiteth any excellency of speech, if not understood by the Hearer? (when we pray, God is the Hearer, and he understands any language: and when we preach or exhort, the congregation is the Hearers, and must speak to them in the language they understand) No cause being for speaking, if what we speak be not understood by them, for whose sake we speak, that they may understand what we speak. Can he speak in plainer terms of a preacher? to let him understand that he must preach in the language that his Auditory understands.  
The Antiquity of their practice (of praying in the Latin language) goes thus, says he: and when I expected he should tell us when it began; (for this would be to declare the Antiquity) he bids that task farewell, and only tells us the motive and cause why it was introduced; not because the Latin or Greek were more Holy than other languages, but because they were more universally understood: and do you approve that reason? if not why do not you say some what against it; if you do? why therefore do you check the practice?  
Now let us briefly show the lawfulness of praying in an unknowen language, (I say the Public Prayer of the Church as for private prayers, its confessedly lawful and commendable to pray in vulgar language) and the necessity of it. The lawfulness is proved The jewish Church had their Public service in the Hebrew language, which was not understood by the People, the common language was the syriak: And Christ having assisted sometimes at their Public service, as we find in the Gospel, though he reprehended often the abuses of that Church, never did he reprehend this, by what we may gather out of the Evangelists: nay he publicly approved it for when he hung on the Cross exercising the function of a High Priest in the sacrifice of his life for mankind he prayed publicly Eli Eli Lammasabacthani which being Hebrew, was so far from being understood by the people▪ that they thought he called for Elias. Therefore it is lawful in the public Sacrifice and Lyturgy of the Church to pray in an unknowen language. Moreover it's not necessary that the people understand the Priest or Minister who prays, as the public Minister of the Church, for the Congregation: how many of your Congregation that do not understand agreat part of your psalms, though they be in vulgar language? many Phrases of them being so hard and obscure, that the learned Men must have the help of Interpreters to find out their true meaning: And the Deaf, and such that are at so great a distance that they cannot hear, do not they reap any benefit by your public Prayers because they cannot understand what is said? And if a Huguenot of France came to Dublin, who did not understand your language, would not you admit him to your Communion and public service? by this you see its lawful of its self, to make public Prayer in an unkwnowen language.  
You will say, and I believe the Protestant Church will pretend no more, that it is not so convenient for the edification of the people; but more needful, it should be in the language that is commonly used. To this I answer that the Public Prayer of the Church may be in any language which is thought the most convenient for the glory of God, and spiritual profit of the flock; but I say also, that it is not you, or I, or this, or that kingdom or Province must be the judge to determine in which language is it most convenient it should be; God has given us a Church who will govern us, it's to her it belongs to judge what Rites, Ceremonies, and manner of Diuin worship we must practise, and as the particular subjects of each Kingdom, cannot question the Customs, Laws, or Decrees of the Government, so the Christian Kingdoms and Provinces must not question, nor judge of the conveniency of what Rites or practice the Church does establish; let us suppose that in relation to this kingdom of Ireland, it might be thought, and realy may be some what more advantageous for the flock, to have the Public service in English or Irish, is it therefore it must be lawful for this kingdom, without the approbation of the Church or suprem Pastor of it, to usurp that practice? no, but you are to represent that conveniency to the Church, and acquiesce to her resolution. But say you why would the Church of Rome stick on so inconsiderable a thing as that; but rather than to be a cause of Schism or separation, grant the public service may be in vulgar language? and I ask also, why would not you, or this Province, or that rather becontent to want that particular comfort which you propose to yourself in doing this or that which is not conformable to the approved practice of the Church, rather than to run in desobedience against the Church whose command and Authority, is a sufficient warrant for you to allay what scruples your reason may suggest against it? The Church ought not to condescend with you, and dispense with you in the observance of the public practice and Ceremonies; though they be but bcclesiastical and human institutions: for if it should grant you licence to say Mass in English, why should it not grant France leave to Communicate in both kinds, if France did ask it: and if Spain did ask to Christean with three immersions of the Body and not otherwise why should not the Church grant it; and if Germany did ask the validity of Clandestine Marriages, why should it be denied; and so (each Kingdom, desiring their respective privilege) the uniformity in Diuin service, Administration of Sacraments▪ and Ecclesiastical Rites so much commended in the Church, would be quite overthrown.  
It's the Church therefore must judge and determine in what language is it most convenient to worship God by Public Prayers▪ and we are to acquiesee to the Decree and commands of the Church. And therefore Luther, who under pretence of greater conveniency and spiritual comfort of the congregation condemned Public service, in vulgar languages, against the practice of the Church; schismatically separated himself from her; in which separation you continue by adhering to his Doctrine.  
The Church established Public service in the Latin language; behold why? because it is the common language of the Church: as in respect of England English is the common language, and spanish in respect of spain; so in relation to the Church spread throughout all Nations, the Latin is the most universal and common. Therefore it was convenient the Public Prayer of the Church, which is said in all parts, should be in the public and most universal language which is the Latin. And as each kingdom▪ has a language proper to itself, so the Church which is the kingdom of Christ, has its proper language which is Latin; which is so universally known. Secondly for to preserve uniformity in the manner of Diuin worship; if the Mass had been in English three hundred year agone, how different would the Mass be now from what it was then? the language being wholly an other, from what then is was: doubtless, it would have caused great alteration in the public service. Thirdly if the Mass were not in Latin or some language universally known throughout the world, but in the particular language of each kingdom, when Priests would come from their own Countries to ours in Pilgrimage, (or for other occasion,) they would not be premitted, (or not without great difficulty) to say Mass, and so would be deprived of that spiritual Comfort.   

Scripture prohibited.  
I pray Sr what do your People learn in their houses by reading the Bible? is it not Rebellion against their Church, and contempt of all Spiritual Authority, each one obstinately adhering to that sense, of the text which he judgeth the best, and thus your Church is divided into a numberless number of sects? this is small encouragement for us to permit to our common people the use of the Bible, judging it better to know to sobriety, as S. Paul counsels, than, by pretending to know more than behoveth, to run into those inconueniencies, wherein you have fallen. You accuse the Catholic Church for exposing Images to the adoration of the flock, for the danger of falling into Idolatry; and this is the reason that Caluin also gives: you have lived many years in Spain, where Images are in great veneration: you have been much acquainted with the Inquisition, as you would have us believe; you know the severity of that Tribunal against Heretics, jews and Idolaters; how many have you seen in spain, that by adoring Images came to fall into Idolatry? doubtless had there been any, the Inquisition would have taken holt of him; for though the Inquisition permits Images, it would never leave Idolatry, occasioned by the adoration of Images, unpunished. And not one, I dare say, did you ever see, or hear of, to have been punished on this account.  
Now consider, how many have fallen into Heresies, and errors quite opposite even to your Church, by the liberty granted for reading of Scripture; hence has proceeding all the Sects that are in our kingdoms and elsewhere. Does not this demonstrat, that there is far greater danger of Heresy in the usual reading of the Bible, than of Idolatry in adoring of Images? aught not you rather therefore, to decry the liberty of reading the Bible, than the adoration of Images?  
But, reply you, this proues that even the Priests and friars ought to be kept from reading it, for it's they that have abused it, and broached all heresies: and things must not be prohibited (that are in themselves good) because they are abused but the Abusers must be punished: And this good consideration, Mr sal, will not persuade you to admit the use of Images: we grant Mr sal that principle to be good, that things, in themselves commendable, must not be probited, because they are abused; when the use of then is absoluty needful, or convenient; and the abuses are not very frequent and pernicious; as in this case of reading the Bible; it's not needful, nor can it be proved to be very profitable for the common people; on the other side the abuses are most apparent, frequent, and pernicious; for thence comes all these sects and heresies; therefore it ought to be prohibited: but Mr sal, you must mind, what I advertised you in my discourse of Prayers in an unknowenn language, that it is not you or I nor any other, but the Church, that must judge of the conveniency or inconueniency, the advantage or desaduantage of reading of Scripture; she must declare that, and  what she judges, who is constantly directed by God's infallible Spirit in the government of the flock, must permit or prohibit it.  
This, your Church will not say, that the vulgar people are bound in conscience to read the Scripture; for many cannot read any thing; others do not read all Scripture, nor do they think that they sin, by not reading; others do never read any thing of it: what you can justly pretend is, that it is convenient and profitable, and therefore aught to be permitted: and here returns what I discoursed of Praying in an unknowen tongue. Let any unprejudiced man judge if it does not belong to the Church to determine, what is convenient, or most convenient; since that God has given a Church to govern us? Let any man judge, if a particular man, that against the established authority, under which he life's, and is bound to obey; should rise against that authority and make himself judge of what is convenient or inconvenient for the government, and under pretence of a greater conveniency that appears to him, should alter the established practices of the Commonwealth, should not such a man, I say, be esteemed a seditious Revolter, and be punished? what therefore shall we say of Luther? he lived under the authority of the Catholic Church; he was a private person, he found the use of the Bible prohibited, and public service in Latin; he did not pretend that it was absolutely necessary for salvation, to pray in known languages, nor to read the Bible; but judged it to be most convenient, and therefore condemned the Church for prohibiting it; is not this man to be esteemed a schismatic, that opposes himself to the public authority, and makes himself judge of the practices established by it? and must not we rang you with him that persists in the same rebellion?  
Priests and friars have abused Scripture, it's very true; but for one that has, thousands have not, and for one of the vulgar that has not, many have: besides priests and friars, being the Pastors of the Church, are obliged to read, and when a Priest or friar abuses the Scripture, its easy to punish him; but when a multitude of popular people abuses it, the remedy is not so near at hand. He quotes upon Mr Stillingfleets word, a Council of Bishops at Bononia, that prohibited the Scripture giving for reason that it discovers the corruptious of the Catholic Doctrine: but this Council must be of the same coin of the 92 Canon of the Council of Lateran, which we mentioned above, no such Canon of Lateran or Council of Bononia is, or was extant, but in Mr Stillingfleet and Sall's imagination.  
I conclude with these two Assertions: first its needful that the Pastors, Prelates, and Doctors of the Church do read the Scripture; and that the flock receive from them the sense of it, and the Doctrine contained in it. It's for this end that God placed in his Church some Prophet, some Apostles, some Evangelists, Doctors, and Pastors, to keep us in Unity of Faith by teaching what we ought to believe S. Paul Eph. 4. Act. 20.18. he commands the Pastors to watch over the flock, in which the H. G. hath placed them to govern the Church. It's therefore Christ laid his command on the Apostles and their successors, to teach all Nations, to preach the Gospel: and therefore says S. Basil. q. 25. Superiorum est ista scire, etc. it's the obligation of the Superiors (to say the Pastors) to know and learn these thing, which they may teach to others; but of the others, not to konow more, than behoveth them to know. And Leo Pope writing to the Patriarch of Alexandria epist. 62. and epist. 82. ad jul. You must have care that none, who is not a Priest of the Lord, may presume to usurp the authority of teaching or preaching, whether he be a Monk, or a layman though a learned man. And S. Aug. l. 1. de moribus Eccl. c. 1. what man of judgement doth not understand, that the exposition of Scripture, is to be asked of them, who by their profession are their Doctors. And if to proceed wisely, we must consult the Lawyers, for the true meaning of the Law, and that each Commonwealth hath men whose profession it is to study it, and deliver the true sense of it, to those that are not Lawyers by Profession, how much more, it is needful, that there be Doctors in the Church whose obligation is to study the Scripture, and find out by the Fathers and Interpreters the true sense of it, and teach it to the people.  
This and no more doth the authorities of Fathers produced by Mr Shall prove; the reading of Scripture is recommended unto us, says he, by S. Basil, S. Chrysost▪ and S. Augustin: it's very true; but to whom? to the learned men of the Church, whose obligation it is to teach the Doctrine it contains, and to the Laity no further, than to hold that sense of them, which the Pastors deliver to be the sense of the Church.  
The second Assertion, that it is not convenient, nor lawful for the Laity to read them further, than with a total submission of their judgement to the sense given to them by the Church. This is manifestly proved by the multitude of sects, wherein to the world is divided through the liberty assumed of reading the Scriptures, and understanding them, as the Readers think best. Secondly by the obscurity of Scripture which we have demonstrated in the 2 and 3. ch. S. Peter, says Mr sal, 2. Epist. 1.19. exhorts us to read, we have also a sure word of of Prophecy, whereunto ye do well to take heed etc. but S. Peter, by that sure word of Prophecy, means, not only the written word of God, but also the unwritten word, which is the Tradition, by which the Church delivers to us the true sense of the written word; which he bids us to take heed of. S. Paul recommends unto us the reading of Scripture Rom. 15. and 2. Tim. 3. as being written for our comfort and instruction. That is not denied; but the Apostle speaks to Timothy, and the Pastors of the Church; and so of the rest of the texts alleged by Mr sal; which are directed only to the Pastors and Prelates, or at most to such of the Laity, as are knowing in the Fathers and Interpreters, with a total submission to the sense of the Church. For if even the very learned themselves, are puzzled with the difficulties of Scripture, and often do wrest them to their perdition as S. Peter says 2. Epis. 3.16. what will the vulgar people do?   

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of the B. Virgin; and the Sacrament of Confession.  
IT's not my intention to discourse at large of the Immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin; but neither can I omit to speak somewhat of it, whereas Mr sal in the Conclusion or Third part of his sermon, accuses our Church of Tyranny in forcing the belief of this Doctrine upon the Faithful; they force them to the belief and defence of Doctrines repugnant to their judgement, and not established by Catholic Faith; as may appear in their violence in forcing all to believe and declare for the Conception of the Virgin Mary without Original sin, so many clear testimonies of Scripture being against it, as affirm that all Men did sin in Adam; that Christ was universal Redeemer from sin, and Saviour of all mankind. And pursues complaining that none is permitted to preach in Churches, or receive Degrees in universities, but such as will protest publicly for the immaculate Conception.  
I admire Mr sal that you so confidently aver that many clear testimonies of Scripture are against the immaculate Conception, and mention none, what did you expect we would believe a Bankrrupt in Religion only upon his bare word? you should have produced those clear testimonies; and if you call that a clear testimony against this Doctrine, which S. Paul has Rom. 5. all have sinned in Adam, as if the B. Virgin were also included in that universal Proposition All have sinned; it's rather a clear testimony of your little insight in Scripture, which if you had, you might know that very often such universal Propositions, admit exceptions, because they are not Logically universal signifying every Individuum or Particular of the kind; but Morally universal signifying the greatest part or number of the kind; That Proposition All men have sinned in Adam, is true, because generally men did sin in Adam, though Christ who is a Man, nor Mary did not. we could give many instances of the like Propositions in Scripture, these will suffice; Christ Io. 10. saying himself was the true Pastor, adds; all that ever came before me were thiefs and Robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. Does not this General Proposition admit no exception? was the Baptist, Moses and Elias thiefs and Robbers? when jesus was in the house of Simon and Andrew, the text says, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and possessed with Devils, And in the next verse. All the City was gathered together at the door. what think you? was there none, Man, woman, nor child of the whole town but was there? it's morally certain some was absent, yet the Proposition is still true, because that universal Proposition signifies that the Generality of the town flocked thither.  
Christ you say is the universal Redeemer from sin; whence you would infer, that the Virgin Mary was in sin, or could not be Redeemed: but you ignore, or affect to ignore that there are two manners, or ways of redeeming; the one delivering a man from the sin wherinto he has fallen, the other preserving him from falling into the sin. Marry was redeemed by the Merits of Christ from sin, because by his Merits she was preserved from falling into sin, wherinto she had fallen had she not been preserved by him; and this is the most noble way of Redemption, as it is a greater benefit, to save a man from being wounded, then to permit him to be wounded and afterward to cure him.  
Now Mr Shall to show you that our Church is not cruel in this Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, I hope you will not say its a sin to profess publicly that Doctrine, for at least you cannot deny but that it is very probable, though it be not an article of Faith; as it is no sin to profess publicly the Doctrine of the Thomists, or that of the Scotists: nor will you deny but that its lawful to any Community to require certain conditions, such as they think fit, so they be not unjust and sinful, from any that will pretend to be a member of that Community, or partake of their favours, or privileges; does not the College of Dublin require some conditions from them that are to be admitted to their Community; and is it cruelty to deny them admittance if they will not embrace those conditions? why then will you censure it to be cruel, that some universities will not admit to Degrees, nor Churches admit to preach but those that will protest for the Conception? why will not you also accuse of cruelty some universities which will admit none to Degrees but such as will profess and teach the Doctrine of Thomist? But say you they oblige men to protest for the Conception▪ against their judgement: and dare you to condemn this to be cruelty when the Church of England obliges to swear the spiritual supremacy of the King, which in opinion of Caluin (as I have shown above) is a Blasphemy, in the judgement of most learned Protestants is false, an in the opinion of Catholics, which you oblige to swear, is an Heresy? The opinion of the Immaculate Conception is notheretical, even in the judgement of those who appose it; and when an opinion or Doctrine is not heretical, a Spiritual or Temporal Prince, or any Community may lawfully oblige their subjects, for reason of state, and the peaceable government of their People, to conform themselves exteriorly and profess that Doctrine, leaving them the Liberty of judging interiorly what they please: and such as makes that exterior profession it's their part to correct their judgement, and conform it to their exterior profession, which they can lawfully do, when the Doctrine is not heretical or erroneous. why may not the universities and Churches exact the outward profession of the imaculat conception, which without heresy or error a man may inwardly judge to be true? and why can the Protestant Church exact the swearing of the spiritual Supremacy of the King from them, who cannot in conscience submit their judgement inwardly to that Doctrine?  
In the Conclusion of his Sermon also Mr Shall accuses our Church of cruelty in the exercise of the Sacrament of Confession▪ And I observe that he does not condemn the Doctrine of Confession which our Church believes to be a Sacrament, necessary for such as have fallen into sin; perhaps he was convinced to believe the necessity of it by that unanswerable text Mat. 18.18. what soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what soever ye shall lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, which words are also expressed Mat. 16.19. sins therefore may be bound or vnbound on earth by the Apostles and successors, and the text marks (observe well) that their binding, or unbinding on earth by them, must precede to their hinding and unbinding in Heaven, whence the necessity of Confession of sins to the Priests is absolutely concluded. But let us see wherein are we guilty of cruelty in the practice of Confession.  
First, says Mr sal, in obliging to the minute expression of the most loathsome circumstances of secret thoughts and deeds, which renders it the most heaure of Christian duties. The man would have a pretty sweet manner of Confession, to declare what each one is pleased, and no more. How? the Protestants did hither to accuse us that we did facilitat sin▪ and gave and easy way for forgiving it, by granting the Priest power of forgiving and now Mr sal accuses us, that we require too much? by this we may see which of us▪ Protestant's or Catholics, does encourage most to sin by an easy forgiving it: for the Protestant for to be reconciled from sin requires no more but a Lord have mercy upon me, for I am as sinner, and that betwixt him and God: the Catholic requires the declaring of each particular sin and circumstance to a Priest, with an act of sorrow for having sinned, a firm purpose of a mendment, the fullfilling the Penance that the Priest shall enjoin, and the restitution of what he has taken from his neighbour: this indeed is severe, but no cruelty; its needful and convenient: Convenient, because that severity justly deserved by sin, is a bridle which keeps us within compass, and makes us fear sin; and experience teaches that though some who confess, do persevere in their wickedness; yet generally such as make a good Confession are reclaimed, and those that frequent this Sacrament, are the most reformed in their lyues. Needful because that the judicature of consciences, and power of binding and unbinding being given to the Priest; how can he exercise that judicature, or know when, or what to bind, if the Penitent does not declare the state of his conscience, no more than a judge in a secural tribunal can give sentence, if he knows not the fact and circumstances of it: the fore said S. August. hom. 49. Nemo dicat, occulte ago paenitentiam, in cord meo ago, coram Deo ago, ergo sine causa dictum est quae solueritis super terram, etc. Let none say, I make penance privately, in my hart, in the sight of God; in vain than was it said, whatsoever ye shall unbind, etc. And S. August. also lib. de vera & falsa poenitentia: Consideret qualitatem criminis, in loco, tempore, perseverantia & varietate personarum. Let him consider the quality of the sin, reflecting on the place, time, continuance, and diversity of Persons. You see Mr sal, what a Confession S. Augustin requires, of the sin, of its circumstances. Which yet he more expressly declares, l. 2. the Visit. Infirmorum, c. 5. Astantem coram te Sacerdotem Angelum Dei existima, aperi ei penenetralium tuorum abditissima latibula, nihil obscurum dicens, culpam nullis ambagibus involuens, designanda sunt in quibus peccasti, loca, tempora, cum quibus personis, etc. Haec autem omnia si taceantur, aut dicta callide pallientur animam iugulant. Look on the Priest as on God's Angel: disclose to him the most hidhen secrets of your hart; not speaking obscurely, nor telling your fault with wheeling and winding expressions, declare the place, time, and persons with whom; these if silenced, or craftily palliated, kill the soul. Several other Fathers of the Church speak no less pertinently to this purpose, but S. Augustin suffices for all.  
The second thing wherein he accuses us of cruelty in the exercise of this Sacrament, is the reservation of cases not to be absolved but by certain Persons. Which is so far from being cruelty, that it appears to be most just, either because that every priest is not so learned as to be able to manage the consciences of all people and therefore are justly denied the exercise of that power; or because that some sins are so horrid that to withdraw men from them, it's very just to restrain the power of forgiving them, that by that restriction and difficulty men may be freightened.  
The Third thing wherein he accuses us of cruelty in this Sacrament, is that some Pastors make their flock believe they cannot confess but to their own Curates, and extort by sordid avarice moneys from them, for the Absolution. To this M● Shall himself answers, whereas (quoth he) this is the fault of some corrupt members, and he will not cast the dirt of the feet of the Church upon her face, and confess the Church to be so much an enemy to this practice, that there are Decrees of Councils and Pops against it. Mr Shall if you did know that the Church is not guilty of this crime, but some corrupt members, why did you therefore forsake the Church, but detest that abominable practice? because, he says, he did endeavour to reform the abuse, and the persons guilty were so haughty and headstrong, that he could not prevail: so that if he cannot reform what abuses he finds in some members of the Protestant Church, he must also forsake her, and he must be of no congregation, but of that which has no corrupt members.   

CONCLUSION. Against the Third Point of Mr Sall's discourse.  
MOnstruous errors you say, obliged you to a separation from the Catholic Church, (the vain pretext of heretics of all ages, whose Names she has crushed to infamy, still Triumphant against the Gates of Hell) and I must believe they were errors that obliged you; but imaginary only in her, and real in yourself we have asserted her unspotted; and what renders you eternally criminal, is, that you know in your own conscience, they were no errors of the Church, which you style by that name: I say you know it well in your own conscience; for you that was so many years a Catholic, and a Professor (as you say) in Scholastical and Moral Divinity in Controversies, and what not? You could not but know that the Pop's supremacy in temporal affairs over Princes, was no article of our Faith; but a School-question denied by many Catholics: you knew also the Pop's infallibility was but and opinion of some divins and that what we believe as an article of Faith, is not the infallibility of the Pope alone (of which only you speak) but of the Church Universal, as it is diffused, or representative in the Pope and Council together, was it not then known malice, and prejudice that made you reckon as errors of the Church, these points, which are not Church Doctrine? was it not wicked and damnable in you to separat from her for errors (if they be such) which are not her errors, but of some or many Doctors? which you could have denied, and not only remain a Catholic, but oblige Catholics in refuting them!  
But you had a mind to departed, and to render your separation more acceptable to our Adversaries, you took for pretence those two points, which though you know well they were no points of our Religion, yet you knew they were very odious to our Adversaries, and them you resolved to please upon any account. was it not therefore that you exclaim against the Church of Rome saying 'tis but a part of the Church, and not the Church Universal. pag. 24. as if you did not well know, that we do not plead for the Bishopric of Rome, and that we do confess it is but a part of the Church. Lastly you allege for a cause of your separation the forbidding of the Bible to the common people and the public Prayers in an unknowen language: in this your first Reformers erred damnably in departing, as you do, from the true Church for this cause; for nothing can justify separation from the Church but errors and practices inconsistent with salvation, which as well our Divins as yours do confess; and it is confessed by any man of common sense, that it is not needful for salvation, (whatever you may say of its conveniency) to read the Bible, or have prayers in a known language: therefore that could be no just cause of separation to them nor to you. But much more criminal are you than they in separating for that cause: for you had a sad experience (which they had not when they began) of the confusion and multitude of sects, occasioned by the liberty granted to all people for the reading of Scripture: and therefore you were obliged rather to condemn that liberty than to assert it. You were forced to forsake our Church, you say for her errors: but S. Augustin tells you (lib. count. Parmen. c. 11.) there is no just necessity to divide Unity▪ and epist. 48. It is impossible that any may have a just cause to forsake the communion of the Church. Our Church therefore, which was the only Church extant before, and in Luther's days, and is now the same that then it was, had no errors which might be a iustcause, or necessity for him, or for you to departed from her, and divide Unity of Religion. If her errors, whereof you accuse her, are fundamental errors inconsistent with salvation; then there may be a just necessity and cause to separat from the Church, which S. Augustin absolutely denies; if they were but small, inferior and not fundamental errors, as generally all sectaries say, then there is a just necessity also to separat from all Congregations and Churches in the world; since that in the opinion of all Sectaries, there is no Church or Congregation free from some inferior and not fundamental errors, the Protestants accuse the Catholics of many, the Presbyterians accuse the Protestants, the Anabaptists accuse the Presbyterians, and so of all the rest.  
And is it not a pretty jest that you would make un believe, it's the desire of security of your salvation, which forced you to separat from the Roman Church, wherein S. Thomas Aquinas died, who in the acknowledgement of your own Doctors is a Saint, where S. Bernard died, who in the judgement of your own Doctors was a Saint says your whitaker de Eccl. pag. 369. a very pious Man, says your Osiander cent. 12. a Saint of the Roman Church says your Gomarus in speculo Eccl. p. 23. one of the lamps of God's Church, says your Pasquil in his Return to Eng. pag. 8. could not you secure your salvation in that Church wherein S. Gregory the Great, died and lived a Pope, that Blessed and Holy Father, says your Godwin, in his Catal. of Bish. pag. 3. that holy and learned Bishop of Rome says Mr Bell in his Survey of Pop. pag. 189. these have been, as your Authors freely confess, of the Roman Church, and have been great Saints; and, I hope, you are not so impious as to deny that Xaverius that great Apostle of the Indies, S. Dominik, S. Francis, and S. Ignatius were Saints, nor so impudent as deny that they were of our Church. And can we believe that you were forced for to secure your salvation to forsake that Church, wherein these have not only be saved, but died Saints, for the Protestant Church, whereof there was never yet any Saint. Let us suppose, that both the Catholic and Protestant Church is a saving Church; yet for to secure his salvation will not any wise man, rather choose that Church wherein there are so many Saints than a Church which never yet afforded any? as you would choose to study in school, where many learned Doctors are bred, rather than in a school, where never any learned man was known what wise man, tender of his salvation, would not choose that Church and Religion▪ which generally all persons who know both Religions, do choose to die in? for, certainly, the election of that last hour, when men are most earnest to secure their salvation, and setting interest and Pleasures aside, end eavour to provide for eternity, is a great argument of the goodness of a Religion: that Church therefore wherein generally all men, who know both Religions, choose to die in, aught to be embraced by him who endeavours to secure his salvation; This is the Catholic Religion; for there have been many who being born and bred Catholic, flinched to the Protestant Religion; there have been many also who being born and bred Protestants, were converted to the Catholic Religion; and thus they knew both Religions; and what Man did you ever hear of, who becoming from a Protestant to be a Catholic, and lived so until his dying hour, that desired to die a Protestant, or called for a Minister to be reconciled to the Church? but to the contrary, generally all those who of Catholics become Protestants, and live so until their dying hour, than they call for a Priest, for to be reconciled to the Catholic Church, than they die, or desire to die Catholics and we know by many experiences, that the friends of those dying Persons do watch the doors, to hinder the access of any Priest: is not this a strong proof, that it is not devotion made them become Protestants, and that the Catholic Religion is the securest for salvation? did you desire to secure your salvation? why did not you observe what Counsel Christ gave us for to be saved with advantage, and then you would know which Religion to choose? Consider how much did Christ recommend unto xes voluntary Powerty, if thou wilt be perfect (said he Mat. 1921.) go and sell what thou hast, and give it to the poor. And in the same chap. exhorts us to forsake Estates, Lands, houses etc. for his sake; this has been practised by the Primitive Christians. Act. 5. in our Church Kings, Princes, Noble Men, and rich men have followed this Doctrine: I confess many of our Church do not follow it, but the quite contrary, but the Doctrine is not only practised by many, but the Church exhorts the Faithful unto it, and that to great effect, whereas our Conuents and Monasteries are in habited by many who changed their plenifull estates for powerty, their Silks end satins for rags, their  dishes for a friar's portion, their liberty for retirement, and their worldly pleasures for a continual mortification: you know this to be true, who knows the Order of the Carthusians, to speak nothing of other religious orders▪ how much the Protestant Church is a stranger to this Doctrine and practice, the world knows: what Protestant did you ever hear of, that forsook a plentiful estate to become a poor Minister? did ever any Minister or Preacher of your Church exhort his flock to this practice, or would not he be esteemed a Mad man, that would do it? How then Mr sal? did you for to secure your salvation, choose that Church, where this Counsel of Christ is neglected, and which laughs at us for following it? did you for to secure your salvation, forsake powerty which Crist recommended as a means to be saved, and to which you were by solemn vow obliged, and go to a Church where you may have, and does expect to be rich, Christ having branded Richeses as dangerous to salvation? This manner of securing salvation was ever yet unknowen to all Saints, who esteemed Richeses and Honours sworn enemies to the soul; they to secure their salvation, forsook Richeses and Honnors, and you to secure yours, you forsake powerty (Powerty I say to which you are obliged by solemn vow) and seek for Richeses.  
Had you changed the Catholic Religion for an other more austere we might believe, that your aim was to secure your salvation; for Christ recommended Austerity of life, and the mortification of our flesh and senses, as a most powerful means for to overcome vice. I doubt not but that there are many Libertins in our Church, who do indulge and cherish their Bodies too much to the prejudice of their souls; but look to the Doctrine and Maxims of the Church; Pennance, austerity of life, mortifications of the Body is not only taught, as good and advantageous to the soul, but is practised by innumerable Catholics of all sexes, ages and conditions in disclplins, hair-cloaths, fasting sleeping on the bare ground rising at midnight for to praise God, abstaining from  meats and wearing of Linen and several other chastisements of the Body; Christ has recommended this austerity of life, and Corporal mortifications by S. Paul 1. Cor 9.17. the great Baptist did practise them Mar. 1. the Prophet David ps. 148. S. Paul himself, and all the saints of the Primitive Church; and the Church did ever yet esteem these means very powerful for to purchase virtue and overcome vice; and you to secure your salvation, you have forsaken the Church, where this Doctrine is taught, and practised, for the Protestant Church; did you ever hear of any Protestant, who disciplins himself, who sleeps on the bare ground, who ryses at midnight to sing psalms to God, who abstains from wearing of Linen? I do not wonder that many Libertins of your Church, should set these exercises at naught, but that the whole Body of that Church by their Doctrine and Principles should condemn them, as fruitless, Idle, nay and injurious to Christ's Passion: is this the Church Mr sal, which you have chusen for to secure your salvation? a Church whose Doctrine is so carnal, which will not smart the flesh, but cherish the Body? it's likely indeed that your aim was, in your change of Religion, to secure your salvation; when you left a Religion where you in particular, were obliged to Austerity for a Religion, which obliges you to none, but to enjoy pleasures; a Religion where you were by vow obliged to Powerty, for a Religion where you expect to be, and may be rich; a Religion where by your Profession you were incapable of Honours, for one where you may have Preferments. No Mr sal, you will not persuade the world, that it was any advantage to your soul which moved you: your resolution will appear to any impartial man, to be unjust and damnable; and attended particularly in you, by innumerable sins; for though the Precepts of the Church, of fasting, annual Confession and Communion, and keeping Holy days, reach not to oblige Protestants who are such by education; but it's out of controversy that they oblige you, to whom her Power for commanding, and your obligation of obeying, is sufficiently known; wherefore there is not a fasting day which you infringe, an Annual Confession which you omit an Easter Communion that you neglect, or a holy day Mass, but you commit a heinous sin. Reflect on these monstruous effects of your resolution; and amuse not yourself with the hopes that you will be of the number of them, who at the last hour will be reclaimed, and call for a Priest to be reconciled. It's our duty to beseech God he may be so merciful unto you; but it's yours not to abuse God's patience, lest that in punishment of not answering now to his inspirations, you may hear then those dreadful words of the Proverbs ch. 1. v. 24. I have called and ye refused-ye have set at naught my Counsels, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh-Then shall you call upon me, but I will not answer, they shall seek me earnestly, but they shall not find me, for that they had knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord.   
FINIS.