why God gaue men their senses if it was not to be directed wholy by them in iudging euen of mysteries of Faith And though God tells us that the euidence of sense is fallacious when it agrees not with his word as it proued when Eue tasted the forbidden fruit yet Heretiks despising that truth and imitating her example prefer the serpent or the priuat spirits suggestions and their own appetit before Gods reuelation and interpret the Scriptures after a new manner contrary to the testimony tradition and practise of the Church in fauor of liberty and sensuality Heresy hauing thus slighted Ecclesiastical authority and the supernatural signs or Miracles of the Roman Catholik Church as fables or frauds of interested persons and finding no signs or seales of a Deity in any other Congregation it begins to doubt of Gods prouidence and after many windings and turnings from one Sect to an other deuoring most gross absurdities euen against the Diuinity of Christ and immortality of the Soul it growes at length to be a Dragon which armed with scales of obstinat incredulity and wingd with unbridled liberty and pride flyes at the Deity itself like that seuen headed Beast of the Reuelations So that Atheism is nothing but ouergrown Heresy as the Dragon is an ouergrown serpent Both agree in making sensuality the soul of man and the rule of Faith The Heretik by submitting his Faith and Soul to euidence of sense against Gods warning and word the Atheist by maintaining men haue no Faith or soul but sense This last error seemes to som the more iudicious it being most euidently certain that if there be a spiritual Soul it must be superior and ought to command sense curbing its inclinations as foolish and correcting its euidence as fallacious Against this vermin and venom of Atheism and Heresy I haue prepared the Antidot I heer present you with its chief ingredients are strength of reason and supernaturality of Miracles it is as natural for reason to submit to Miracles as it is for sense to submit to reason For what greater violence can be offered to Reason than to rebell or resist against authority signd by Gods hand and seale Miracles Or to deny a Deity and spirits because they com not under the Kenning of our senses Is it not against the first principles of reason and morality to iudge otherwise of things and persons than they seem to be when neither the word of God nor any thing else appears to the contrary Though we do not see spirits or the Deity yet we see effects aboue the sphere and power of bodyes and Nature which can not be attributed to any other causes but Spirits and a Deity So that we must grant the existence of these or maintain an impossibility which is that there can be an effect without a cause Vvhat effect this Antidot will work upon the minds of the Readers God only Knowes I haue endeuored to express my thoughts in the cleerest termes I could and in ordinary English the highest mysteries of Christianity Others may excell in the quaintness of expression I desire no such commendation neither is that manner of writing so proper in matters of Faith which limits our vvords as well as our opinions And though the latitude were greater I should choose those expressions which are best vnderstood my design being to inform all sorts of people Yet I would haue our vvits Know and I hope they will find it so by experience that Atheism and Heresy how new and subtile so euer may be solidly confuted in ordinary and old English A SOVERAIGN REMEDY against Heresy and Atheism Fitted for the wit and want of the British Nations CHAP. I. OF THE EXISTENCE VNITY and Trinity of God Q. Is there any such thing as God I knowthere is such a notion and that men fancy when they speake of God an vnlimited being including in it self infinit excellencies and all perfections My question is whether this Deity of all and infinit perfections be only a meer notion or a real obiect A. it is a real obiect Q. How proue you that for we haue notions not only of things that do not exist as Vtopia but of things that can not possibly exist as Chimeras Centaures c. How therfore wil you make it appeare that the notion of an infinitly perfect Deity is not the bare notion of an impossibility A. Many proofes there are of Gods real existence but in my opinion the cleerest of all must be grounded vpon the experience euery man hath of his own nothing For the only thing we know cleerly euen of our selues is that we do exist and are our selues and yet that there was a tyme we did not exist nor were our selues or which is the same that we were nothing From hence necessarily follow these conclusions 1. that we can not haue our being or existence from our selves because that which at any tyme hath bin nothing or did not exist can no more giue a being or existence to it self then nothing can produce somthing 2. that there must of necessity be somthing which did alwayes exist otherwise nothing did produce all things 3. that the somthing which did alwayes exist must include all and infinit perfections because hauing its being or perfection only from it self as none could giue it a being but it self so none but it self could set a limit to its being or perfections and that thing must haue bin naturaly auers to it self and by consequence not it self which would wave hinder or enuy its own happiness or its hauing all perfections 4. As it is impossible that a thing which hath its being from it self should want or waue any perfection so is it impossible there should be two or more distinct things infinitly perfect Because that which is the source of its own being must necessarily include in it self all being or all perfections seing there can be no cause or reason why it should haue one perfection and not all vnless you wil fancy that a thing before it exists or is any thing can limit it self or out of a pik to it self would pick and choose out of infinit perfections only such as Atheists attribute to that which they call Nature If therfore all perfections must be included in that one thing which hath its own being from it self no other thing of infinit perfections can be as much as fancied to be distinct from it Therfore it must be the same and consequently there can be but one thing or one God including in it self or identifying with it self all perfections So that you see how little wit Atheists do shew in denying a Deity of infinit perfections because they must either grant it or confess that we men or any thing els when we did not exist and were nothing did or could produce our selues Or that this world with all its imperfections is God or that the world before its existence when it was nothing was also somthing and so against the
and plausible an appearance of true miracles to confirm any false doctrin as we see in the Roman Catholik Church Therfore if the miracles of the Roman Catholik Church be not true Gods infinit veracity as also his goodness and prouidence may be questioned This may be explained to the vulgar sort by a similitude Suppose there were in som shire or town of England or Scotland a company of men acting in the Kings name as his priuy or great Councell with all the formes and formalities therof as a Lord Chancellor or Commissioner Tresurer Secretaries members of Parliament Clerks c. and that a considerable part of the Nation obeyed their orders and commands as men authorised by the King who is not ignorant of these publik proceedings and by consequence can not be rationaly thought auerse but rather seem to approue of them especialy if he be able without danger of disturbance to hinder and humble this pretended Councell by declaring them to be but a counterfeit Assembly of Cheats and Rebells and by punishing them accordingly A King I say that might hinder such a counterfeit Parliament or Councell from abusing himself and his subiects by so seeming a legal authority and yet would not can not be thought to haue any truth goodness or iustice because by his conniuance at those impostures which he might haue discouerd without trouble or inconueniencies he doth countenance and confirm that Councell as commissioned by himself This may be easily and aptly applied to the Roman Catholik Church which is inuested with so many miraculous marks of Gods authority and therfore doth act by a warant so seemingly Diuine that Gods bare permission of such a cheat as Protestants suppose the Roman Catholik Church to be would conclude his want of prouidence goodness and veracity and by consequence there can be no excuse or rational hopes of saluation for Protestants or any others that will not submit their iudgment to a Church and doctrin so publikly commissioned and confirmed by Gods great seal Miracles as yet shall more particularly appeare in the ensuing sections SECT I. VVHETHER THE CREDIBLE and constant report there is of true miracles vvrought in the Roman Catholik Church be a sufficient euidence to conuict of damnable obstinacy and heresy such as stight them or vvill not heare of them Q. Is it then vpon this ground of not belieuing the Roman Catholik miracles which are recounted by the ancient Fathers or others Roman Catholiks say that we Protestants are obstinat heretiks and that such of vs as dye not members of your Church are damned Is not this a foolish and vncharitable opinion A. One of the grounds of that censure is the Definition of Heresy which is an error in the understanding and obstinacy in the vvill against any truth or authority that is sufficienly proposed as Diuine Now the great appearance and moral euidence there is of the Roman Catholik Church together with its tradition doth sufficiently propose or declare its doctrine and authority to be Diuine For though it be not demonstratiuely euident that the Roman Catholik miracles are true miracles nor that its tradition and testimony is infallible yet it is moraly euident and by consequence sufficiently euident that its doctrin is Diuine and that God is Author of the same it being confirmed by such Miracles and that by them he doth authorise that Church as Princes do their officers by letters patents under their great seale Miracles being the great seale wherwith Gods Ministery and doctrin is made authentik Q. Vvhat is moral euidence of a miracle A. Moral euidence of a miracle is so credible and so constant a report therof that to deny or doubt of the fact reported argues imprudence in the dissenter and renders his caution of not belieuing both rash and ridiculous because it destroyes at least all historical and human Faith Q. May not a man belieue History and rely vpon human authority though he belieues not the stories of the most authentik Roman Catholik miracles A. No if he discourseth consequently and according to the rules of reason wherof one principal is that the same cause produceth the same effects and the same authority the same assent or belief If therfore the same ancient Fathers or Authors vpon whose testimony or tradition you rely for belieuing a miracle of Christian religion in genral or of the Trinity or Incarnation in particular recount the like miracles of Transubstantiation prayer to Saints or Purgatory you are rash and irrational in contemning that same authority which you credited in as difficult a subiect and as much aboue your comprehension for you ought to belieue both the miracles and mysteries or neither Q. Is moral euidence of true miracles sufficient to conuict of damnable obstinacy and heresy all such as slight that euidence and will not examin the grounds and effects therof A. Yes The reason is 1. because they are a sufficient euidence that the doctrin confirmed by them is Diuine 2. because Christs miracles were only moraly not demonstratiuely euident as miracles for if they had bin demonstratiuely euident as such none of the Iewes could deny them to be Diuine or could think they were wrought by the power of Beelzebub And though it was but moraly euident that Christs miracles were true miracles yet that moral euidence was sufficient to conuict the incredulous Iewes of damnable obstinacy and heresy Q. I desire to Know what it is you call damnable obstinacy A. Damnable obstinacy is a setled resolution of remaining in your own opinion of religion or a neglect of inquiring into the grounds of any other notwithstanding the prudent doubts you haue or would haue had if you had not bin carless of being saued in the way wherin you haue bin educated or made choice of Q. I do agree with you that if one doubts of the truth of his own religion he will be damnd unless he inquires into it or som other untill he doth what he can to be satisfied but I can not be persuaded that a man is bound to doubt of that religion wherin he hath bin bred because he heares of miracles wrought in an other unless his own be so absurd or inconsequent that he must doubt of its truth whether he will or no. A. There are two sorts of doubts 1. is a doubt which occurrs to ourselues by our own observation 2. is a doubt not started by ourselues but by som other more learned in matters of religion and as much to be credited and as litle to be suspected of hauing any design but our saluation in our change of opinion as he whom we most confide in Doubts of our own obseruation are very ordinary being grounded vpon the most obuious occurrences as a publik change of Religion either vpon the score of conscience or interest this last is as suspicious euen to the dullest comprehensions as the other is edifying Not only the change into a thriuing religion but constancy in a persecuted one doth
Christ as offered vpon the Cross is a general fountain of graces and pardons and the foundation of the sacrifices of the old as well as of the new Testament wherof they all were but types or figures therfore that Diuine and bloudy sacrifice of the Cross can not be so peculiarly attributed to the law of grace as to be called the proper sacrifice of the Christian and Catholik Church Q. Is not the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass the same sacrifice A. They differ not in the substance because the same Christ is offerd in both and Christ himself is the chief Priest in Both. But they differ in the manner for in the sacrifice of the Mass Christ is offered vnder the species or appearance of bread and wine and in the Cross he was offered in his own shape Q. If the substance of the sacrifice be the same what need is there of that of the Mass is it not sufficient that Christ offered himself vpon the Cross once for all A. It is a general rule grounded vpon reason and the concurrence or custom of all Nations which euer professed any Religion that euery particular Religion must haue its sacrifice peculiar to itself because Religion being Diuine worship and sacrifice being an action professing the Diuinity of that which is worshipt it inuolues a contradiction to say Religion and no sacrifice or to say that a religion can continue and the sacrifice therof not continue Seing therfore the Christian and Catholik Religion doth continue and that the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross or Christs passion doth not continue the sacrifice of the Cross can not be the proper and peculiar sacrifice of the Christian Religion and Catholik Church Q. It is not sufficient that the effects of the sacrifice of the Cross continue in the Church though Christ suffered but once for the cause may be sayd to continue in its effects A. It can not be properly sayd that the cause continues in its effects Otherwise it might be properly sayd that the Priestood and sacrifice of Noe after the deluge chap. 8. Gen doth yet continue because the effect therof viz. the assurance of not suffering an other deluge doth and will continue vntill the end of the world Q. If all the sins of the world be pardoned or at least be sufficiently satisfied for by the sacrifice of the Cross what vse is there for the sacrifice of the Mass or how can it be a propitiatory sacrifice in virtue wherof sins are pardon'd and satisfied for A. It is not against the sufficiency or infinitness of the sacrifice of the Cross that sins be forguien and satisfied for by the sacrifice of the Mass not only because the same Christ is offered in both sacrifices but because the sacrifice of the Mass is a commemoration of that of the Cross and doth apply the sufficiency of the same to the pardon of particular sins that were not committed before Christs passion as we say of Baptism and other Sacraments And if the sacrifices of the old testament were propitiatory in virtue of Christs passion before he came to the world there can be no ground to deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is a Propitiatory sacrifice in virtue of the same passion after that he sufferd CHAP. IV. OF THE CHVRCH OF GOD and of Diuine faith Q. Though I know that they who worship God as he commands are his Church yet there being so many Congregations of Christians pretending themselues alone to be those worshipers and the true Church or at least a part therof I would willingly know whether there be any certain and cleer signes wherby the true Church and its members may be discerned from all false and heretical Congregations and what signes these are I am satisfied that any two or more Congregations dissenting in any doctrin can not constitute that Catholik Church out of which there is no saluation because such Congregations can not haue either vnity or verity in that doctrin wherin they disagree and by consequence seing God who is truth itself and infinitly auers from falsood can no more countenance or confirm with supernatural signs the least than the greatest falsood that Church or Churches which propose contradictory Tenets whether fundamental or not fundamental can no more be the Catholik or part therof than God can forfeit his veracity or incline and oblige men to belieue contradictory points wherof one must needs be false A. That there are certain and cleer signes wherby the true Catholik Church of God may be discerned from all false and heretical Congregations is as euident as Gods veracity and his inclination to truth or as it is that God did not institute a Church wherin there could be no peace concord or order but all must haue bin disorder confusion and dissention For if the testimony of euery of those Congregations were as credible by supernatural signs of their being the true Church as they are confident in their pretentions of being so the most learned and prudent men might liue and dye safely in the state of perplexity and all the world at best must haue bin seekers or sceptiks and there being no reason in such a case to belieue why rather one sect than an other should be the true Church Therfore God being the Author of truth peace order and vnity his Church can not be a Congregation of dissenting or perplexed people changing from one faith to an other for want oâ— discernable and supernatural signes which none but the true Church ought to haue to the end all men may find it out and therby be directed to embrace the true Diuine worship and doctrin These signes must be supernatural that is signes aboue the sphere and power of natural causes at least they must seem so not only to the vulgar people but to the wisest men and greatest Doctors after a diligent scrutiny and mature consideration of all causes and circumstances because they must be such as produce in us an euident obligation of belieuing that God alone is the Author of the Doctrin proposed as Diuine and that he hath authorised that Church to propose the same The signs must not only be obseruable but obuious to euery vulgar comprehension and perceptible euen by our senses The reason is because many of the mysteries which are to be belieued with Diuine faith exceed human capacity and therfore as well the learned as the ignorant are to be instructed therin by the Church and must take its testimony for a sufficient proof of their obligation to belieue without doubting that God reuealed those things which it proposeth in his name and they can not comprehend though they be credibly reuealed Now to belieue that things so difficult as many mysteries which the Church proposeth are true and reuealed by God and that any man or Congregation of men is authorised by his Diuine authority to propose and press such things vpon our vnderstandings this belief I say can not