evident 1. Because the Apostles proposition Faith comes by Hearing is vniversal vnlimited to any time or place 2. God sent his Apostles Disciples to Preach the Ghospel without any expresse command to vse other signes or write bookes indeed most of those written were casual 3. The Apostles sent their successours on alike errant with alike Commission we find in S. Irenaeus that Faith was long preserved in some countryes without any written word 4. Faith by the Apostle called milke is still by Parents Nurses such persons instilled into the Tender minds of Infants even before they are able to reade And if they conceiue it ryghtly beleiue it strongly they haue tru divine Faith 5. The same of several Persons at men's estate who for Poverty or other employments cannot reade the scriptures 4. Scripture may seeme an exception from that general rule Faith by Hearing but it is not so Scripture it selfe being only an jmage of what is spoken therefore belongs to the same Sense that words do Hence S. Austiu l. 2. de Doct. Christ c. 4. Quia verberato aere statim transeunt verba nec diutius manent quam sonant instituta sunt per litteras signa verborum ita voces ostenduntur non per seipsas sed per signa quaedam sua By reason that after a little motion of ayre the voice presently vanishs is assoone lost as the sound is past Letters were invented as signes of words by which meanes words are shewed not by themselues but by their signes Thus S. Austin Which was elegautly exprest by a French Poet Brebeuf en sa Pharsale C'est de là que nous vient cet art ingenieux De peindre la parole de parler aux yeux Et par les traits divers des figures tracées Donner de la couleur du corps aux pensées Hence that ingenious art did first arise Of painting words speaking to our eyes Where with the pen doth by mysterious draught Both colour giue Body to a thought J doe not cite this as building my assertion vpon it but as a neate expression of what I meane The ground on which J rely is scripture whereof a greate part is evidently a description of speeches For 1. a greate part of the Ghospel is a Relation of our saviours Admonitions Sermons Reprehensions Justructions c. 2. The Acts of the Apostles containe their speeches 3. the Apocalypse is a representation of visions Prophecyes revealed to S Iohn 4. S. Luke in his preface declares that he writes what he had Heard 5. S. Mark writ what S. Peter preacht Marcus Discipulus Interpres Petri says S. Hierome juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat rogatus Romae a Fratribus breve scripsit Evangelium Mark the Disciple Interpreter of Peter at the request of the Brethren in Rome writ in a short Ghospel what he had heard Peter preach My last cheifest proofe is from the words of Abraham to the glutton Luck 16.29 They thy Brothers haue moyses the Prophets let them heare them Et verse 31. If they heare not Moyses the Prophets nether will they be perswaded though one rise from the dead Here those are sayd to haue Moses the Prophets who haue their writings 2. Moses the Prophets are sayd to Speake in their writings seing others are sayd to Heare them Hence I conclude that the jnstruction we receiue from Scripture it selfe is reduced to Hearing SECTION IX 1. All Senses never contrary to Faith 2. Hearing is to correct the other senses 3. A conclusion of this digression THe two first points are cheifely aimed at in all this Preface will serue to cleere the mist which Humane Reason casts before our eyes that we may not discerne Truth from falshood but may embrace a Cloud for Iuno leaue the substance for a shaddow Thô some Senses may yet all can never be contrary to Faith this is my first conclusion The reason is Faith must be conveyghed into our mind by some Sense wherefore that Sense at least is not contrary to Faith Which is evident by the ordinary course of Providence teaching vs by Hearing Preachers Missions c. Of which S. Paul Rom. 10. Now if God doth at any time by particular inspiration instruct some that is nothing against this Truth seing those thoughes so inspired are conformable to what others Heare by consequence not contrary to all Senses 2. My second Conclusion is in matter of Faith Hearing is preferred before all other Senses The 1. reason is because Hearing is more capable of conveyghing revealed Truths than any other Sense nay than all the rest together it having more significant signes then all the rest together as is evident by the multitude of significant words The second reason is because God doth actually vse Hearing no other Sense to communicate to vs his Faith For our whole Duty to God our neyghbour what we are bound to beleiue practice is all delivered ether by living words in Catechisms Sermons or in Bookes by dead representations of those living words Wherefore when senses interfere in their depositions concerning any object of Faith we must recurre to Hearing adhere to that For example Other Senses represent Christ to vs as an ordinary man Hearing says he is The only begotten son of God full of grace Truth we must beleiue this silence the rest The rest say water only washes from dirt the surface of the Body this says it purges the soul from the staine of sin we must beleiue this Why then should not this rule acknowledged by the Zuinglians in other things to be good hold in the Blessed Eucharist So that althô the tast tell vs it is bread wine we may subscribe to our Hearing with S. Cyril nay with the whole Church say It is the Body Bloud of Christ But what if Reason takes the part of the other Senses Answer I will say still we must stick however to Hearing For example Reason says the same substance cannot be One three Hearing says the same Divine substance is one in nature three in Persons Our duty is to beleiue God to be so to silence all reasons to the contrary This is what S. Paul vnderstood by Pulling downe imaginations every thought contrary to his Doctrine bringing vnderstandings vnder the subjection of Christ I haue here delivered as by a digression such grounds as if well vsed will be sufficient to resist all the Attacks of God his spousés enemys Yet they are soe cleere that J think few can deny them without rejecting Christianity in some very material points Yet I haue not wandred in this digression out of the syght of my learned freind D. Morley if he retaines his treatise in his company in passing over these few sections he will easily obserue there is nothing but which relates to it J now returne to him
England with 130. l. returning with as much as if he had the blessing of the Israelits in the desert whose cloths did not weare out his serving his Majesty the Q. of Bohemia without putting them to any charge but his diet his catechising their servants preaching to them his journy to Collen returne to the Hague c. what is the publick concerned in all this Vnlesse it be to helpe an Hystorian to write his life But of heroical men even the Cradles Rattles Hobby horses are venerable Pag. viii He says he did not convene with the french Hugonots because if They did not encourage yet they did not at least had not condemned the rebellious proceedings of their Presbiterian brethren in England against the K. Church Which implyes only their being idle spectators of that Tragedy in which many think they were Actors for the worse side many English women in Geneva who followed their husbands thither at the end of the wars were proofe enough I will relate here what I find in Grotius his Discussio Rivetiani Apostolici pag. 88. 89. where having sayd that the publick Peace is disturbed by that Doctrine Licita esse pro Religione subditorum in Reges arma he adds Hoc vir nobilissimus Plessiacus Mornaeus tanquam pietati consentaneum testamento etiam suo inseruit Hinc ille motus Ambaxianus cum Reformatus Renauderius quosdam sui similes in privatum conclave convocasset dedisset eis potestatem Ordinum Regni Hinc Beze conciones pro classico Hinc Rupellensis Conventus impudentia qui omnes in Regno Pontificios deinde etiam Reformatos Regis auctoritatem sequentes declaravit ab honoribus omnibus muneribusque publicis dimovendos praefecturas autem per omne Regnum distribuit quibus voluit◠talium consiliorum auctorem sibi fuisse PETRVM MOLINEVM testatur Theophilus Mileterius vir nobilis illis qui reformatos se dicunt optimè volens Thus he This booke hath beene printed neere these forty yeares never any thing alleadged against these matters of fact that I could heare of How will Monsieur du Moulin Prebend of Canterbury reconcile with this Counsil of his Father that letter which he printed in his fathers name 4. These treatises having beene composed on emergent occasions without any setled designe haue no other order than that of the time they were composed in amongst those of the same language J designed once to draw the matters handled in them into some method which would helpe to their vnderstanding But because that would make my Answer to D. M. lesse satisfactory a thing mainly aimed at I tooke the easier way to follow my Authour as he leades me step by step without omitting any thing material I omit in my Revision the letters of the Regular Preist as not grounding the judgment in matters of Religion of D. M. as also D. M. his letter to Trigland as containing nothing to our purpose For it treates only two points the 1. of Fact that his majesty really was a Protestant To which no answer is necessary The second of Policy that his Majesty was to be restored to his Crowne by an Army of the states To this I cannot answer as never having commenced Batchelour in Policy Yet J will say that God himself found a way to restore his Majesty put an end to the troubles of the State without Armes contrary to the expectation of D. M. And J hope at least it long hath beene is shall be my constant Prayer that the God of Peace put an end to these contentious disputes in the Church that we all may come to compose but One sheepefold vnder One sheperd John X. 16. I thought once to omit his letter against F. Cressey as being cheifly personal yet finding besides a too severe charg on him some Reflections vpon his whole holy Order I tooke leaue to review the grounds of both yet past it lyghtly as entring vpon it vnwillingly That the Reader may with lesse trouble see what the Doctor says to what J answer I giue his owne words commonly at large at least their full sense J marke the page where they are to be found This makes my Revision somewhat longer but that is compensated with the ease of discovering the Truth which both sides pretend to but only one side contends for sincerely the other opposes with all his Power God grant to all a sincere loue of Peace Church vnion then all these disputes will cease Post script What is contained in my fourth Booke pag. 111. that Factious men were prosicients in the Art of promoting mischeife was written in march last 1683. I little dreamed to see my conjecture confirmed so soone in such a notorious manner as it was by The Rye Plot Blunderbusses God hath miraculously both disappointed discovered those Ruffians J beseech him to grant that the Roote at least the pretext or occasion of all these traiterous Practices The hatred of jnnocent men loyal subjects may cease SOME FAVLTS TO BE CORRECTED Pag. 15. line 23. received Read revived Pag. 28. line 26. againe Read against Pag. 44. line 3. it Read him Pag. 86. line 28. Et. Read And. THE FIRST BOOK A REVISION OF THE CONFERENCE BETWIXT D. MORLEY AND F. DARCY AT BRVSSELS THE PREFACE THE first Treatise which occurr's in this collection is the sum of a short Conference with a Iesuit at Brussels I leaue others to judg whether it be an Historical or a Poetical narration or whether it contains only sincerely what was or what might be as not thinking it worth the while to enquire especially when we consider that certainly the greatest part possibly all those present who could inform vs are dead Those who haue been acquainted with F. Darcy know his great abilityes in controversy consider how weakly he is made to answer are apt to guess that our Authour Poet-like brings him others on the stage as he pleases there makes him speak what is easiest to be confuted I rather incline to the contrary that really there was such a Dispute such things in substance alleadged pro con Yet I must beg leaue to say that J beleme the Doctor did not subtract any strength from his own nor ad any to F. Darcy's discourse it being but ordinary that things are so disposed in such relations as the Knight may kill the Gyant Hence I regard little what that Father is reported to haue sayd but attend cheifly if not only to what the Doctor alleadges against the Church which I will defend to my power We shall find his D. Morley's cheife Argument drawn from the Communion os Infants by which he endeauours to proue that the Church can erre seing it hath erred which Vicount Falkland brought against the credit of our Traditions Which hath been already answeared thô this is not taken notice of But let vs hear the Doctor speak SECTION I. 1. The
being vncyp hered by their actions the best interpreters of them Wherefore F. Darcy's argument remaines in force that it is safer to joine with the Catholicks than with the Protestants as it was safer to avoyd Treason to joine with the king than with the Parliament there being no sin in remaining in the Communion of the Catholick Church two great sins Schism Heresy in joining with the Protestants You say that this Reason would proue that in S. Austin's time it was safer to joine with the Donatists than with the Catholicks seing both sides agreed that the Donatists could be saved the Donatists denyed that possibility to the Catholicks Answer you are here grossely mistaken pardon that word for S. Austin never sayd a Donatist remaining such Could be saved nay a great part of his workes against them is employed to proue that they cannot be saved that their Baptism avayles them nothing but serues for their greater damnation Let me beseech you only to open any leafe any page of the several bookes written against them there is none which will not correct that mistake What you should say is only that both sides owned tru Baptism amongst the Donatists which these denyed amongst Catholicks Which argument the Donatists not only myght but did make vse of to pervert Catholicks as you may see in S. Austin L. 1. de Bapt. cont Donat. c. 3. l. 2. cont Petilianum c. 108. else where To this I answer that such a reason from a Donatist to a Catholick is of no force he having no good ground at all for that reason to rely on therefore denying Baptisme in the Catholick Church only out of a peevishnesse of nature Religion it was by them sayd with no more cause than Quakers had to say Thou art damned when they had nothing else to say Where as Catholicks proue that Assertion of theirs with jrrefragable reason drawn from those two crying sins Schisme Heresy of which we accuse the Protestants these do not nay cannot sufficiently cleere I haue all ready explicated these reasons That those of the Donatists were frivolous is evident for they sayd some Bishops of the Catholick Communion were Traditores had delivered the sacred bookes to the Persecutors that all Catholicks by communicating with them did contract the same guilt had lost the Holy Ghost And hence they inferred there could be no valid Baptisme in the Catholick Communion for those who haue not the Holy Ghost cannot give him to others To which the Catholicks answered 1. that those Bishops accused of that shamefull compliance with the jmperial Edicts against Christians were jnnocent of that crime which was never sufficiently proved vpon them no man ought to be condemned vnlesse the crime be evidently proved against him 2. They answered that althô the persons accused were really guilty yet their personal guilt could not prejudice all Catholicks communicating with them because another man's sin cannot prejudice me vnlesse J make it my own by commanding or perswading approving defending or imitating it Now the Catholicks were so far from being accessory to that pretended sin in another that they detested the sin always condemned it in all persons who were really guilty of it but never could find sufficient grounds to pronounce those accused by the Donatists guilty of it as those would haue them doe They answered 3. that supposing not granting that the Persons accused were really guilty that guilt had infected the whole body of Catholicks by communicating with them yet their Baptism myght be valid this not depending on the Personal sanctity of its Minister but on the justitution promises of Christ the operation of the Holy Ghost Hence S. Austin sayd he did not regard Peter when he Baptizes nor Paul nor Iohn nor Iudas but he considered the Holy Ghost who is the Baptist who ever he be who washes the body pronounces the words as Minister of that Sacrament You se how frivolous the reasons of the Donatists were to deny the validity of Baptism in the Catholick Church Shew that ours are as frivolous J will grant the parity but this you can never doe So our Reason stands good against you that of the Donatists against vs falls to the ground It seemes not discreet in an English Protestant to mention the Donatists there being so great a resemblance betwixt these two schismatical Churchs that they may seem sisters the later to haue copyed the other which appeares by these paralel points 1. Donatists were no where out of one corner of the world Africa Protestants of the Church of Eng. that is such as agree with her in points of Doctrine Hierarchy no where out of England 2. Donatists sayd theirs was the only perfect vnspotted Church you say yours is the only Apostolical Church perfectly reformed c. 3. Those endeavoured to justify their separation with some pretended faults of particular men you to justify yours alleadg some indiscreet devotions of old women and vnwary words of some otherwise pious Authours 4. Those appealed to some parts of scripture which you vse against vs And the Fathers proved against them the Vniversality of the Church the necessity of Communion with her out of the same texts which we vse against you 5. Donatists called Rome the seat or Chair of pestilence you call it a Pest-house letter to her R. H. P. 17. the seat of Antichrist 6. Those had their Circumcellions who thought to do God good service in murthering Catholicks you haue some of the same perswasion as appeares by their workes Yet I own a great difference betwixt the old Circumcellions the new ones Those when the toy took them would ether break their own necks or force others to cut their throates the new ones in this do not imitate them they loue too much their mothers sons 7. Those had the Maximianists who left them for the same reasons they had broken off Communion with the Church these haue the Presbiterians others who will not conforme with them vpon the same grounds for which they refuse to conform to the Catholick Church 8. And lastly the Non-conformist donatists made evident to the world that the Donatists had no real ground to break the Catholick Communion by forcing them to solue their owne Objections against the Church of which S. Austin l. 2. Retract C. 35. And your Non conformists with the same successe force you to answer all your pretences against vs breake those weapons with which you haue hitherto fought against the Church Those who will take the paines to examin further the Donatists principles will discover more points of agreement betwixt them you These are sufficient to shew that what is now hath been before will be that as the Church sticks constantly through all ages to the same Faith ways of defending it so Factious spirits seditious Brethren break her Communion turn Schismaticks
wisdome but in demonstration of the spirit of Power Althô it doth not sufficiently appeare whither the words themselues contained that manifestation of the spirit or the Person who spoke or both 5. All this was confirmed by Miracles which may properly enough be called the Broade seale of the King of Kings for as a Broade seale is a publicke Attestation of the Truth of a Patent or Proclamation to which it is annext solikewise a miracle is an Attestation of Almyghty God of a Truth delivered in his name Divina potentia etiam factis loquitur says S Austin Epist 49.9.6 Men speake by words God also by deedes And Origen contra Celsum l. 2. says the same This language of God by miracles is soo cleere that even the most stupid vnderstand it yet so hard that none can speake it but he who is Almyghty Hence Mar. 16 God is sayd To haue confirmed the words with the signes following it And Heb. 24. To haue borne witnesse with signes wonders divers miracles gifts of the Holy Ghost So when Christ our Lord Mat. 9.6 sayd That ye may know that the son of man hath Power on Earth to forgiue sins he sayd to the sick of the Palsye Arise take vp thy bed goe vnto thy house it was to call God to witnesse that Truth that he had such a Power And God by doing the miracle did virtually say I attest that he hath such a Power And who seing this could doubt whither Christ had such a Power without doubting of the divine veracity Yet we must not hence inferre that Miracles are the formal object of our Faith For as the only motiue why a Proclamation is obeyed is nothing else but the King's will commanding the Broade seale serues only to assure vs that is the King's deede Soe the sole motiue of our Faith is divine veracity authorizing what that man S. Paul for example preached the miracle confirmes vs in the perswasion that man delivers divine Truth SECTION VIII 1. 3. Faith by Hearing 2. Words are the best of signes 4. Scripture the object of Hearing Where of the invention of writing 1. THe Doctor of the gentils who laboured with greater successe in conversions than all the other Apostles seemes in a particular manner to speake of the Hearing as conducing to the propagation of Faith in a singular way His words are these Rom. 10. a versu 14. How shall they call on him in whome they haue not beleived how shall they beleiue in him of whome they haue not heard how shall they heare without a Preacher And how shall they preach except they besent And concludes so then Faith comes by Hearing hearing by the word of God Which words confound all enthusiasts others who vndertake to preach without being lawfully called or sent by the Holy Ghost But our present businesse is to examin why Faith is so particulary resolved into Hearing Nothing like this being any where sayd of any other Sense 2. This will be easily vnderstood if we remember that as is abouesayd Faith is an Assent giuen to an otherwise vnknowne Truth on the credit of another This cannot be done without the others thought be made knowne to me to effect this some outward signes must be vsed for men cannot speake to nor heare one another as Angels do by an immediate communication of thoughts but are forced to make vse of outward signes to which some signification knowne to both partyes is annext Now of all signes none more easy or significant than articulate words which with their signification are by the Hearing conveyghed to the mind of the Hearer who by that meanes comes to know what the other averres giues his Assent to it And so Faith comes by Hearing Yet because there are other ways to communicate our Thoughts particularly by the eyes hearing may be thought not to be the only way to beget Faith Men may speake to the eyes by gestures or motions of Head Hand or other parts of the Body if some meaning be annext to them And in this sort of language the ancient Mimi Greekes Romans were excellent Now that mute way of speaking by gestures of the Body to the eyes is much out of vse almost forgotten As to other senses they can reckon but very few significant signes so Hearing surpasses all senses in this by reason of articulate sounds which it receiues passes to the mind Which I learne from S. Austin l. 2. de Doctrinâ Christianâ Cap. 3. Tuba Tibia Cythara dant non solum suavem sed etiam significantem sonum Sed omnia signa verbis comparata paucissima sunt Verba enim inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi quaecumque animo concipiuntur si ea prodere quisque velit Several musical instruments giue not only a sweete but also a significatiue sound But words are the Princes of all signes as well for their number variety as for their efficacy in signifying Suppose I know a Truth vnknowne to another would bring him to beleiue it how must I do this 1. I choose words proper to signify my mind to him 2. J vtter those words 3. he heares them 4. beleiues the thing to be as I sayd because he is perswaded I am not deceived nor would deceiue him Thus is propagated Humane Faith Now to Divine That God can speake without vsing any words to the mind immediatly is an vndoubted Truth seing the greatest part if not all Revelations were originally made in that nature to some one Person who knew certainly not only what was sayd but that it was God who spoke it But whither this Evidentia rei attestante Deo this cleere knowledge of God affirming it is consistent with Faith or transferres that knowledge to another species of science Vision Theiologi certant adhuc sub judice lis est But this is certaine 1. That it is not necessary to Faith otherwise the mission of Preachers would be superfluous 2 That God did not vse it to all men to exclude pretences to Enthusiasmes of Fanaticks prevent the jllusions of the devil 3. That God seemes in propagating his Faith to accommodate himself to the ordinary way of men A King sends his Embassadors whither he goes not in person with jnstructions what to say credentialls to procure beleife to what they say their words are looked on as the words of the King their master So God sends the Apostles as his Embassadors 2. cor 5.20 he giues them their instructions to teach what they had learnt of him for their credentials he gaue them Power t s worke miracles Hence The words they spoke were not received as the words of men but as they truly were the words of God 1. Thes 2.13 And the Faith giuen to their words was Divine Faith 3. That this was is to the end of the wold will be the ordinary way of conveyghing Faith is