be a prudent or pious act without seing seeiming supernatural signes so obuious to all kind of people that they may if reflected vpon exclude all prudent doubts of our being mistaken because they must dispose us to fix our thoughts so firmly vpon Gods goodness and veracity that we assent with greater assurance to what the Church sayes and its signes shew than if we had seen it not because the Church sayes it or because the signs confirm its testimony but because we rationaly iudge it impossible that God would permit such an appearance and testimony to be falsly fathered vpon himself or permit vs to be deceiued by signs so likely to be supernatural Q. How can a certainty only moral of God being the Author of the commission and doctrin of the Church be a solid and sufficient ground for acts of Christian faith wherby we belieue without the least doubt and by consequence with more than moral certainty or assurance that God is Author of the commission and doctrin of the Church How can any prudent act of our vnderstanding assent to more than it doth see or assent with greater assurance than there is appearance of the truth An intellectual act or assent being an intellectual sight of the truth of the obiect To say therfore that by acts of faith we assent to more than we see or with greater assurance then there is appearance of the truth is as much as to say that by acts of faith we see more than we see and belieue more firmly than we can A. The answer of this obiection is that assent being no more than an interior yeelding a thing to be as dissent is an interior denying it to be the assent of the mind is not alwayes an intellectual sight of the truth of its obiect It is not alwayes the same thing in the soul to say a thing is so and to see it is so For if these two were the same the soul could neuer assent or rely vpon authority nor be mistaken in any assent because it is neuer mistaken in its sight of the truth Besides this opinion that confounds the assent of faith with the sight of the truth whether it be in proper causes or by its connexion with the euidence of Gods reuelation takes away the obscurity liberty and merit of Christian faith because à cleer sight of the truth by whatsoeuer means it coms is not compatible with those attributes St Paul tells vs that faith is an argument of things not appearing and surely if they do not appeare by faith they are not seen by an act of faith More A great proportion of the supernaturality of faith and of its merit consists in ouer comming the difficulty we find not only in examining the motiues and in adhering with the will but in assenting with the vnderstanding to the truth and to the existence of its reuelation as to that of the Trinity Incarnation c. But if our assent of faith were an intellectual sight of the truth or of the existence of Diuine reuelation of those mysteries such an assent could not inuolue nor we find therin any intellectual difficulty for what intellectual difficulty can there be in saying inwardly it is so if we see it is so There is rather a necessity in such a case of saying it is so Faith is so far from being an intellectual sight of the verities belieued or assented vnto that the less cleerly you see the truth or the reuelation credited so it be prudently credible the greater your faith is Therfore Christ reproacht St Thomas for not belieuing the Resurrection vntill he had seen with his eyes Christ resuscitated â—oan 20. And told him they were happy that belieued and did not see what they believed Now the reason why faith and sight or knowledge are so opposit is because the nature and notion of faith is to supply and by consequence it doth suppose the want of sight or knowledge Hence it is that many say faith and knowledge are no more consistent one with the other than the want and not want of the same thing And indeed this notion of faith is well grounded because experience doth conuince and all confess our human nature to be so imperfect that it stands in need of Christian faith to supply the want of knowledge touching Diuine mysteries And euen in worldly affairs we must in most rely for want of cleerer knowledge vpon the authority and testimony of lawfull witnesses and take their word for legal euidence which as it is a sufficient proof of what they testify so is it a demonstration of the imperfection of our vnderstandings and that most of our human assents and iudicial sentences are not intellectual sights of the truth itself but humble submissions to the authority and knowledge of others which we belieue though for ought we euidently know we may be misinformed by their mistake or malice But the supernatural signes of the Catholik Church do shine so cleerly vpon the same that not any who reflects vpon them and relyes vpon Gods veracity can prudently entertain the least feare or doubt of being mistaken in its authority or misled by its doctrin notwithstanding that we do not cleerly see the Diuine trust of the Church or the infallible truth of its Tenets But though the assent of Christian faith be not an intellectuall sight of the truth reuealed or of the Diuine reuelation it doth suppose at least in our Predecessors sensations or an intellectual sight of som seemingly supernatural signs which being credibly reported to us by Tradition are sufficient to gain so much credit and authority for the Church wherin they appear'd as that whoeuer doth not belieue its testimony and assenteth or yeeldeth not to its doctrin as Diuine is iustly condemned by Christ himself in his last words to the Apostles Marc. 16. v. 16. and therfore tells them that his Church shall haue visible and supernatural signes wherby it may be easily discerned from all heretical Assemblies som wherof he specified as power to cast out Deuills to cure diseases to speak vnknowen languages to rid people of serpents These besides others related in Scripture as the Conuersion of Nations to Christianity the continual succession and sanctity of Doctrin and Doctors the spirit of profecy and many such miraculous marks ioyned with profound humility and eminent virtues are so far aboue all heathens and heretiks pretended morality and sanctity that when their saints are compared with canonized Catholiks they appeare to be but hypocritical sycophants puff'd vp with that secret pride so proper to all sectaries preferring their own priuat interpretation of scripture before the publik sense and practise of a visible and miraculous Church Vve conclude therfore that an assent of Christian faith is not an intellectuall sight of the truth reuealed nor of the reuelation and yet the faithfull do assent to both with no less assurance than if it had bin a cleer sight of both because euery
blindness in faith is to pretend a cleer sight of its rules infallibility The Catholik Church acording to St Paul and the Scriptures is a Congregation of men who do not see what they belieue and are led and directed by the holy Ghost in matters of doctrin This Church is euery particular mans immediat Guide because we follow it and hold fast to its testimony and tradition but this Church also hath a Guide the holy Spirit which leads it as Christ sayes into all truth by continualy directing it and assisting in its definitions and decrees Vvhen the four first general Councells defin'd the Diuinity of Christ and of the holy Ghost they did not cleerly see nor demonstrat against heretiks the truth of that doctrin or that God reuealed it For if they had the heretiks could not haue continued heretiks in their iudgments It s therfore fufficient that in the Catholik Church there be Doctors and arguments to demonstrat that all Dissenters or heretiks by not submitting to its doctrin and authority go against reason and the obligation all men haue to embrace that religion which is most likely to be Diuine in regard of greater appearance therin of supernatural signs which Christ sayd his Church should haue than in any other To ground therfore the certainty of Christian Faith or of its rule vpon any euidence which faith itself declares to be fallacious and fallible as it doth declare the euidence of our senses and sensations is in the article of Transubstantiation is to destroy Christianity and therfore Tradition as receiuing its certainty from our sensations can not be a sufficient ground for the certainty of Christian faith Q. I pray resolue your Catholik faith vnto its motiue A. That is don by answering questions Thus. Vvhy do you belieue the mystery of the Trinity or Transubstantiation Because God who can not deceiue nor be deceiued reuealed it How do you know God reuealed it If you speake of cleer knowledge I do not know that God reuealed it But if you will speake properly as a Christian or as a man that vnderstands what we mean by Faith you must not ask how I know but how or why do I belieue that God reuealed it Then I will answer that the testimony or tradition of the Church confirmed with seemingly supernatural signs testifying that God reuealed those mysteries makes it euidently credible he did reueal them But because I know my vnderstanding is so imperfect that I can not pretend to infallibility and my senses are so fallacious that by our sensations we are often mistaken and that faith itself tells us so in the article of Transubstantiation I cant no assent to this article or to the mystery of the Trinity or to any other pretended to be euidently reuealed by virtue of self euident Tradition and infallible sensations with that certainty which Christianity requires vntill I reflect and rely altogether vpon Gods veracity and apply it to the aforesaid testimony and Tradition of the Roman Catholik Church which declares that itself is authorised by God and shews for that authority seemingly supernatural signs to propose as reuealed by him those mysteries and all the other particulars of our Faith Vvhen I compare and apply the Diuine veracity to this testimony of the Church authorised by those signs I assent to all shee proposeth as reuealed by God by this act Notvvithstanding I do not see any cleer euidence or infallible connexion betvven the testimony or signs of the Church and Gods reuealing its doctrin yet because Gods veracity and his auersion from falsood is infinit I do belieue as certainly as I do that God is infinitly inclined to truth that he neuer did nor neuer vvill permit the least falsood to be so authenticaly proposed as his reuelation or vvord as I see euery point of the Roman Catholick doctrin is proposed by the tradition and signs of that Church This general assent is applyed to euery particular article Heer you see that the motiue of our Chatholik Faith is not the Tradition or testimony of the Church but only Gods veracity You see also that the tradition of the Church is the rule of our Faith because it helps and directs vs to reflect and rely more vpon the motiue which is Gods veracity than upon Tradition itself Lastly you see there is no impossibility in assenting by an act of faith with more assurance than there is appearance or euidence of the truth assented vnto because the assurance is not taken from nor grounded vpon the appearance but vpon Gods veracity and his infinit inclination to truth Hence followeth 1. That whosoeuer denyes any one article of Faith whether fundamental or not fundamental belieueth none at all with Diuine or Christian Faith because he slights the motiue therof which is Gods infinit inclination to truth and auersion from falsood to that degree as to be persuaded the Diuinity can permit falsood to be so credibly fatherd vpon itself as the Roman Catholik Church doth its doctrin with so seeming supernatural signs and so constant a Tradition The motiue of Faith being thus once slighted none that so slights it can belieue any thing for its sake or upon its score 2. It followeth That the Tradition and Miracles of the Catholik Church do not make it cleerly euident to us that God reuealed any one article of Christian Faith nay not that fundamental one of the Diuinity of Christ For though Tradition makes it cleerly euident to us there was such a man as Christ and such prodigies as his Miracles and that him self say'd he was God yet that Tradition and those prodigies do not make it cleerly euident to us as it did not to the Iewes that Christ was realy God For if this had bin cleerly euidenc'd to them or us neither Iewes nor Socinians or any other ancient heretiks could haue bin obstinat or heretiks in their iudgments against Christs Diuinity Q. If I do not see an infallible connexion between the assent or rule of Faith and Gods reuelation I must needs see there is no infallible connexion and may say the assent of Faith may be false seing Tradition which is the rule of that assent is fallible On the other side I must sa yt he assent of Faith can not be false So that if Tradition be not so self euident as from it to conclude cleerly the impossibility of Faiths falsood it must be granted that I see Faith is and is not infallible and that Tradition is and is not an infallible Rule A. Though I do not see any infallible connexion between Gods reuelation and the Tradition of the Church or any other rule directing to belieue what he realy â—eueald or which is the same between the assent of Faith and the rule of Faith yet it doth not follow that I must see or say there is no necessary connexion between them For at the same time I do not see that necessary connexion or infallibility I do belieue there is that
connexion though I see it not nay t is therfore I can belieue it because I do not see it Faith requiring that what is belieued be not seen It would indeed be a contradiction to say I see and do not see the infallibility of Tradition or of Faith but t is not any to say I do not see and do belieue that infallibility It may be as well sayd a man who is blind and infallibly or securely led by a knowing Guide through a dangerous way doth see his ruin or danger because he doth not see his own safety or the infallibility of his Guide though he belieues himself secure from all danger Q. Is it not cleerly euident that God can not permit falfood to be so authenticaly proposed in his name as the Roman Catholik Church doth her doctrin by so continued a tradition and so surprising signs as her miracles sanctity conuersion of Nations c. A. Though I am of opinion God can not permit such an appearance of Diuine truth to be a mistake yet our vnderstandings being so imperfect it would be presumption in vs to define or pretend to demonstrat what God can do or not do Vve only know he can not sin But we do â—ot know scientificaly whether he may not 〈◊〉 to punish the sins of some permit the Church to err and the world to be deluded by their cleerest and most frequent â—ensations wherupon as our Aduersary sayeth the certainty of Catholik Tradition is grounded And though both Scripture and Tradition say the Church shall neuer fail or err yet we do not pretend to cleer euidence that either Scripture or Tradition is Gods word SVBSECT HOVV A MAN MAY ASSENT in matters of Faith vvith more assurance than there is appearance of the truth Q. If it be not cleerly euident to us by the tradition of the Roman Catholik Church nor by Gods veracity that he reuealed its doctrin how can we assent or belieue with infallible certainty or assurance that God reuealed it Is it in our power or euen in Gods power to make vs affirm inwardly and certainly any thing we not knowing whether it be so or no How therfore can we affirm inwardly and certainly the truth of the Trinity or that God reueald it if we know it not cleerly either by Gods veracity or by the tradition of the Church A. Assents grounded vpon authority differ in this from assents grounded vpon cleer knowledge that the certainty of these are deriued from and measured by the cleer sight and euidence we haue of their truth or of the obiects being as they are affirm'd to be But the certainty of assents grounded vpon authority is not deriued from or measured by any cleer euidence or sight of their truth but by the persuasion we haue of the persons we belieue his knowledge and inclination to truth Now all men who admit of a God being most certainly persuaded that he is infinitly inclined to truth they may and ought to assent with the greatest assurance and certainty imaginable that God did realy reueale all that which the Church proposeth as Diuine doctrin for though wee do not see this truth in the mystery or matter deliuered by Catholik tradition nor in that euidence which our sensations giue to tradition itself yet by reflecting vpon Gods infinit auersion from falsood and vpon our own persuasion of his infinit veracity and seing so great an appearance of his being deeply engaged and concerned for the truth of a Churches testimony that lookes so like his own affirming the doctrin to be Diuine we are bound in conscience to belieue without the least doubt or at least we are bound to endeauor to belieue without doubt which must be a rational endeauor seing our obligation of endeauoring is so euident to us that God is the Author of the Roman Catholik doctrin and hath reueald it for if he had not he would neuer permit the same to be so plausibly and probably proposed as Diuine by Miracles and other signs of the Church that prudent and learned men must sin in being obstinat against its doctrin and testimony And this is that we mean when we say that we apply the Diuine veracity to euery particular point of faith not by seing the reuelation itself in the tradition or testimony of the Church for then we could not deny its doctrin was reueald nor be heretiks but by hauing so much veneration for Gods veracity that whensoeuer it seemes to be so publikly engaged and prudently belieued as we see it is in the Roman Catholik Church God speakes or reuealeth what it proposeth as his word Q. Methinks the veneration we haue for God and his veracity ought rather oblige vs not to assent to any doctrin as spoken or reuealed by him vnless it be cleerly euident to vs that he spoke or reuealed it for if we do otherwise we expose his holy name to contempt and ourselues to damnation by uenturing to father what we fancy vpon God when perhaps he neuer sayd or reuealed what we imagined A. It s a prerogatiue due to soueraignty and a fortiori to the Deity to speake and command by Ministers and inferior officers which beare the badges of the royal authority And it is not only a disrespect but obstinacy and rebellion not to obey lawes and commands so authenticaly proposed So likewise it must be not only a sin of disrespect and contempt but of heretical obstinacy not to belieue that God speakes or commands by the Roman Catholik Church when its testimony and tradition of hauing Gods trust and authority to declare that he speakes or reueales its doctrin is authenticaly proposed by signs so supernatural in appearance that no human authority is so authentik and no other Church can or dares pretend to the like The more soueraign is any superiority and veracity the greater obligation there is in subiects not to exact for their obedience therunto or belief therof cleerer euidence of its commanding than is usual and sufficient in human affairs when Princes proclaim or command And the more infallible the veracity of him is who claimes the authority if this be authenticaly proposed the greater is the obligation of assenting inwardly therunto without cleerer euidence that it proceeds from the infallible Author of the same than such a moral certainty as the signs of the Church create this being the cleerest that is consistent with the nature liberty obscurity and obsequiousness of Christian Faith Q. Ought there not to be in the true Church an euident and conclusiue argument against heretiks and Pagans to let them see their obstinacy by shewing cleerly to them that God reuealed what they deny to be true or to be matter of Faith A. If men were to be saued by Demon. strations or cleer knowledges deduced one from the other what you say were fit and necessary But God hauing decreed to saue men by Faith rather than by science by a meritorious and free rather than a necessary or
Diuine And if Transubstantiation the Mass Intercession of Saints worship of Images Purgatory c. be not sufficiently proposed as Diuine doctrin by the testimony of the Church and these Miracles of St Bernard and other Roman Catholik Saints and in a coniuncture that the same doctrin was as much questioned by the Henricians Aug. l. 22. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. ad sanctuÌ„ Martyrem orare perrexerunt c. He that belieueth in me the vvorks that I do he shall do and greater Ioan. 14. Nazian in Epitaph Gorgoniae Orat. II. saith Prostrating herself before the Altar and calling upon him vvho vvas honoured and vvorshipt therupon O admirable thing she presently felt her self deliuered from her siâ—ness and so she returned eased both in body and mind c. as now it is by Protestants neuer any doctrin hath bin yet sufficiently proposed as Diuine nay not the doctrin of Elias nor of Christ himself because neither hath bin confirmed by greater Miracles than ours I need not repeat others more ancient as that which St Austin sayes he was witness of when Palladia recouered her sight by praying to St Steuen or that vvhich St Gregory Nazianzen recounts of his sister Gorgonia recouering sudenly her health by adoring the blessed Sacrament vpon the Altar or that of the Image of Christ erected by the woman he cured of her flux wherof see Eusebius hist lib. 7. c. 14. or that of the Crucifix in Berito alleged in 2. Concill Nissen act 4. or that recounted by Optatus l 1. contra Donatistas to confirm the reseruing and taking the Communion in one Kind as also the holy oyle or Chrisme or that of the person raised from death to receiue the extreme Vnction mentioned by St Bernard in vit Malach. Or that of Confession related by St Bede hist l. 5. cap. 14. These and innumerable others are superfluous seing those of St Bernard are sufficient to conuince that no Protestant who hath so much sense as to belieue Gods goodness and veracity can be saued if he denyes any one particular of the Roman Catholik doctrin when he is credibly informed that this authority is confirmed by such Miracles as those of Saint Bernard and other Saints of our Church which are related in the publik Acts and Process of their Canonization AN HVMBLE ADRESS To the Honorable House of Commons MAy it please you Honorable Sirs who are the Preseruers of our liberties except the chief which is that of conscience to take in good part that the meanest of his Maiesties subiects humbly beg of you to consider whether it be not a damnable sin to persecute Souls for professing the Religion of your Christian Ancestors confirmed by so many credible signs of Gods approbation and protection that the wisest and wariest men of the whole world both in this and former ages were conuinc't they were true Miracles and yourselues haue no reason to belieue the contrary but that preiudice wherunto the principles of your education from your infancy and the interest of your Teachers led you before you could discern the truth of their doctrin or the intricacy of their design Reflect I beseech you upon the frailty of your Ministers and the fallibility of your Church and weigh with yourselues whether it be not more credible that your English Congregation seasoned with two such Ingredients as frailty and fallibility may be mistaken in mysteries of Faith than that God would permit the whole Catholik world and such men as Saint Bernard and the other Roman Catholik Saints to be deluded and seduced by the Deuils lying prodigies and that in a conjuncture when Gods veracity and honor Iay at the stake in a publik trial of true and false doctrin Vvould any of yourselues stand by in such an occasion as an idle spectator or unconcerned person and permit a Rogue or a Fool clad in your liuery produce counterfeit letters and deliuer seditious orders in your name Vvould any of you suffer poor people who wish you well to be destroyd by such wicked practises Vvould you condescend so far with your greatest Ennemy as to wink at his malice and at the uniust meanes he applied to ruin your well meaning Tenants or friends Certainly you would disclaim in the fourbery and neuer wink at a fraud so preiudicial to the people and as contrary to your noble inclinations as to the principles of honor and truth which you profess Be pleased then to haue as good an opinion of Gods inclination to honor and truth as of your own Let not the first impressions vpon your tender undiscerning years grown at unawares into a settleness through education and custom blind your riper and more manly iudgments to be persuaded God can permit such Miracles as we haue recounted to be only mistakes of the Roman Church and human or Diabolical artifices or that he would suffer his greatest Enemy to seduce innocent Souls by cheats so like supernatural seales of the Diuine doctrin and ministery that such prudent learned and conscientious men as the Roman Catholik Church hath had in all ages could after a seuere scrutiny conclude to be the work of Gods omnipotency and aboue the power of all natural causes This well considered will I hope make you more Kind to your Roman Catholik Kindred and Neighbors and to the Religion of all your Ancestors before Queen Elizabeths reign But if you slight this humble aduice grounded vpon so cleer euidence I feare that God who is a jealous God and no less concerned for his honor and veracity than infinit goodness and an infinit auersion from falsood inclines him to be will visit you in the fury of his iustice and deny to you in your greatest need that mercy which yee deny to tender consciences he will heare the loud cryes of innocent bloud which penetrat the Heauens when they find no relief vpon earth God direct you in all your wayes and resolutions and make us either thankfull for your moderation or strengthen us with constancy and patience against your persecution FINIS AN APPENDIX HOVV RATIONAL IT IS NOT to exact more then moral euidence in matters of Faith The Author of Sure footings doctrin în that particular explaind by himself and vindicated from the Censure of the deceased Author of Religion and Gouernment Q. No body questions but that Gods reuelation and authority if it appeares sufficiently applyed to the Church proposing and deciding matters of Faith doth oblige all men euen the most scrupulous and subtile Doubters and Dissenters to submit their iudgments and inward assents therunto My doubt is whether the Diuine reuelation and authority can be sufficiently applyed to the Church unless we see that application proued by cleer and conclusiue euidence As for your often repeated Parallell between God and Soueraings there is a uast disparity between the Royal and Diuine authority as to the sufficiency of their proposal The Royal authority is sufficiently proposed as such by a moral euidence of its
application to such as claim to be the Kings Ministers and Messengers because a King can not giue to his subiects greater euidence then moral that he trusts and employs such men with declaring his pleasure and commands But God without any inconueniency to himself may giue cleer and conclusiue euidence to euery indiuidual person that himself reueald the doctrin which the Church proposeth as Diuine And therfore it seems to be uery agreable to reason that in the Church there be som Doctors who may demonstrat or proue by conclusiue euidence against the wittiest Doubters that he hath don so de facto by virtue of Tradition seing cleer knowledge is not only the surest but the most connatural way for rational Creatures to arriue to the happy end we all ayme at by our Faith and actions A. If God can iustly oblige the wittiest men of the vvorld underpain of damnation to content themselues with moral euidence when they haue no greater of such and such men being their Princes and Parents and in consequence therof to submit unto them and their Ministers or Messengers their outward actions of greatest importance sure he may justly oblige under pain of damnation the same men to content themselues with a moral euidence if he be pleased to giue no greater for submitting their iudgments by a most certain belief to his reuelations and authority claimd by the Church and shewing for it marks so supernatural of the Diuine trust and truth that they can not be prudently questioned as counterfeit For as the imperfection of our human nature and Knowledge as also the Prerogatiue of Soueraignty and superiority makes it uery reasonable and natural enough to us to be subiect and directed in our outward actions by a sole moral euidence when we haue no greater so the same imperfection and Gods infinit Excellency doth demonstrat that it is most reasonable and natural to us to be directed in our inward acts and assents by supernatural moral euidence when God is pleased to giue us no greater seing we haue no right or reason to exact it in truths which are obscure to us and the Knowledge of them is aboue our merit and capacity Such are not only the mysteries of our Faith but the Diuine reuelation of them or vvhich is the same Gods communication of his thoughts and Councells to such slaues and pittifull Creatures as we are Christ told the Apostles Ioan. 15. he called them his friends because he communicated to them all vvhich he had heard from his Father And euery Catholik Knowes that Gods friendship or fauor is a supernatural gift which human nature could not expect as due to it We haue no right or reason therfore to exact or expect that God would not haue us belieue whatsoeuer the Church proposeth with moral euidence as being reuealed by him unless wee see the Diuine reuelation applyd to that proposal by cleer and conclusiue euidence Moral euidence is sufficient to damn us if we deny to proceed therupon in order to a most certain though not cleer assent of the truth of the mystery Marc. vlt. as well as of the existence of the revelation As for what you say concerning the nature of Tradition viz. that it may with conclusiue euidence manifest and demonstrat if the dispute be managed by a witty man an infallible and cleer connexion with the Diuine reuelation of the Roman Catholik Faith because it leads us from age to age and yeare to yeare up along to Christ who is God and preacht our Faith to this I answer two things 1. That the Tradition of the Catholik Church whether we speake of it as it is a Congregation of Knowing and honest men before we believe or suppose it assisted by the holy Ghost or whether we speake of it euen after we suppose it to be so assisted it can not demonstrat or proue by conclusiue euidence that God reuealed any one article of our Catholik Faith though it may proue by conclusiue euidence that Christ did because that Tradition only proues that Christ sayd he was God and that the Apostles belieued so but goes no further in prouing Christs Diuinity than by testifying his Miracles which do not demonstrat or euidently conclude his Diuinity though they demonstrat our obligation of belieuing it 2. I answer that though Tradition doth not demonstrat or euidently conclude Christs Diuinity and by consequence can not demonstrat or cleerly conclude that his reuelation of our Faith was Diuine yet it is a conclusiue argument ad hominem against Protestants and all who confess Christs Diuinity that God reuealed all the articles of the Roman Catholik Church because they confess Christ is God And in this sense the Author of the sure footing of Faith vindicated c. argues unanswerably against his Aduersaries for the conclusiue euidence by virtue of Tradition of Gods reuealing supposing Christ to be God euery article of the Roman Catholik Faith And therfore seing he hath as I am credibly informed thus explaind himself he deserues rather great commendation than that seuere Censure which the Author of Religion and Gouernment giues of his doctrin thinking he agreed with Manicheans and Protestants in making cleer euidence the motiue and rule of Christian belief For the Author of sure footing utterly disauowes and abhorres as leading to Heresy and Atheism this Proposition which som imagined he maintained as following out of his Principles No Catholik or at least no learned or vvitty person is bound to assent or belieue vvith Christian Faith any article the Catholik Church proposeth as reuealed by God unless it be demonstrated or concluded by cleer and euident reason that God reuealed the same article Q. Do not som Catholik Diuines teach that cleer Euidence of the Reuelation is consistent vvith our Catholik Faith A. No. Som of them teach the Angels before their fall and Adam in the state of innocency had and euen the Deuils now haue euidence that it was God who reuealed to them the supernatural Mysteries they belieued and few extend this priuilege to the Prophets and Apostles inspired immediatly by God without outward preaching See Fr. Dominic Bannes 2.2 q. â— a. 1. Estius in 4. lib. Sentent lib. 2. dist 23. paragr 6. But not any one Diuine I could see or heare of sayes that cleer euidence of God reuealing our Catholik Faith which according to Saint Paul Rom. 10. coms by hearing Fides ex auditu and the preaching or testimony of the Church is consistent with the same OF THE DIFFERENCE BETVVEN certainty sprung from the sight of Truth and certainty grounded upon Trust The later excludes cleer enidence of the truth and is the certainty required in Christian Faith Q. I find it uery reasonable if possible all men should belieue with the greatest assurance and certainty imaginable that God reuealed euery article both great and smale which the Church doth propose as reuealed by him though there were no cleerer euidence than moral for such a
reuelation But how is it possible that scrupulous and acute Wits or Doubters can assent to Gods reuealing the articles of Christianity or to any truth with greater assurance then there is appearance and euidence of the same Is not euidence and assurance or certainty the same thing in our intellectual assents At least are they not so connected with one an other that they can not be separated or one be greater then the other A. Any thing which is uery reasonable must be possible because reason can not lead to or approue of an impossibility How possible and feasible it is to assent with infallible assurance and the greatest certainty for so we must assent in matters of Faith with only moral euidence is cleer in the scriptures especialy Iohn 20. where Christ our Sauior reprehended St Thomas for not belieuing with the assurance and certainty of Diuine Faith the mystery of the Resurrection though he had but moral euidence for it the testimony of the Apostles not as yet confirmed in grace Christ also Marc. ult reproacht with obstinacy and incredulity against Faith the Apostles themselues for not being content with that sole moral euidence of the Resurrection which they had from the testimony of the three Maries and the two Disciples of Emaus And certainly Christ would not find fault with St Thomas or the Apostles for not doing an impossibility It s possible therfore to belieue by an assent of Faith with more assurance and certainty then there is appearance of the truth or euidence of the Reuelation I confess it is uery difficult to shew how this is don But if wee distinguish the assurance or certainty we haue of truth by seing the truth in itself from the assurance or certainty we haue therof by putting our trust in an other or relying upon his knowledge and integrity we shall find this point much more easy then hitherto hath appeard to most both Diuines and Philosophers The assurance and certainty of our intellectual assents which is produced by the sight either intellectual or sensual of the Truth itself inuolues cleer euidence therof But the assurance and certainty of the Truth which is an effect of the Trust and esteem we haue of an others Veracity integrity power and wisdom is so farr from including a cleer sight or euidence of the truth that it excludes it For Trust is no more consistent with our exacting the possession sight or cleer euidence of that vvherwith vve trust an other than it is vvith doubts cautions and suspitions of his integrity or power Vpon this notion and the true nature of Trust excluding sight or cleer euidence of the thing trusted is grounded that saying I le trust such a man no further than I see him that is I vvill not trust him at all This supposed We may easily comprehend how its possible to belieue or to assent by an act of our Christian Faith with more assurance then appearance or euidence either of the truth or of the Diuine Reuelation Because to belieue or to assent by an act of our Christian Faith is to trust God for his reuelation as well as for the truth reuealed for we belieue God did reueal the mystery and so we must trust him for the reuelation also But if we see the reuelation euidently applied to the mystery reuealed we can not trust him for either seing the truth of the mystery is inseparable and necessarily connected with Gods reuelation therof and we can not trust God for the truth of one of two things that vve know are necessarily connected unless vve trust him for both Therfore if the reuelation be cleerly euident to us by Tradition vve can not trust God for it nor for the truth of the mystery we know is necessarily connected therwith Hence doth follow 1. that seing vve can not trust God for the truth of the mystery reuealed unless vve trust him also for the reuelation vve can not belieue either or any thing the Catholik Church proposeth as matter of Faith if vve exact for that belief conclusiue and cleer euidence that God reuealed the same It followeth 2. That by exacting cleer or conclusiue euidence of the Reuelation to belieue the mystery or matter proposed by the Church we do not only mistrust Gods veracity and goodness but preferr the vvord and veracity of euery honest man before his as it is proposed to us by the Church For vvhen vve heare any honest man speak though vvee do not see the truth of his vvords nor any thing else necessarily connected vvith that truth yet vve belieue him and take his bare vvord for our assent and assurance of the truth But vve will not take Gods word deliuered to us by the Church unless vve see his reuelation which is necessarily connected with the truth of the mystery proposed And in this consists most of the obstinacy and malice of Heresy It followeth 3. That the obstinacy of Heresy is not alwayes grounded upon the passion or inclination of men to sensual pleasures and those nices which Christian Faith shocks and condemns but takes its rise also from the difficulty we find in assenting to any thing without euidence or in trusting euen God for the truth of things vvhich seem to be unlikely Christs Resurrection vvas a thing much desired by Saint Thomas and the Apostles and by consequence they vvere willing enough to belieue it And yet because they thought it an unlikely matter St Thomas vvould not belieue the other Apostles nor these the Disciples of Emaus and the three Maries vvhen they assured them Christ vvas resuscitated And this is the reason why there haue bin so many speculatiue heresies as that of the Arrians against Christs consubstantiality and that of the Greekes against the procession of the holy Ghost c. True it is that the Lutheran and other modern Heresies haue their principal source from sensual pleasures and lendness of life yet no liberty is more bewitching then that of opining euen in speculation and therfore the Church hath bin troubled with confuting many speculatiue heresies in former ages I conclude this Appendix with this aduertisment that many mistakes among Controuersors are occasioned by their not being vvell grounded in School Diuinity especialy in that part of it which treates of the Nature of Faith and Heresy Som confound the Motiues of Faith vvith the Motiues of Credibility as they do the euidence of these vvith that of the Diuine Reuelation and the euidence of this with that of our obligation to belieue it and fancy that the Authors who pretend to demonstrat Christianity or the truth of the Roman Catholik Religion intend to demonstrat God reuealed those mysteries and doctrin vvheras they go no further than to endeauor to demonstrat the reasonableness and obligation of belieuing the same by the euidence of the Motiues of credibility Some of late as Fisher Rushworth and others in England haue attempted to demonstrat or cleerly conclude the euidence of the Diuine reuelation by the certainty of the human Tradition of the Church and therupon ground the certainty of Diuine Faith As their zeal is to be commended so they are to be aduertised that the certainty of Faith must be supernatural and by consequence must haue a higher and more infallible Motiue than the euidence of human Tradition grounded upon that of our senses as all Diuines confess and euen these modern Authors seem to grant I heare a bold Spaniard went further and pretends that Christian Faith is science because the reuelation is euidently concluded from the Motiues of credibility Miracles c. and because St Paul sayes Scio cui credidi certus sum This is but a Spanish conceit Perhaps Saint Paul in his rapt to the third Heauen might haue euidence of the Diuine Reuelation But vve heare of no others that went so far to find out that knowledge I see there are Escobars and Dianas in speculatiue Theology as vvell as in Moral and I think speculatiue errors are more dangerous than large cases of conscience because these carry a certain horror and discredit a long vvith them but erroneous speculations if new seem to vulgar comprehensions especialy of the weaker sex to sauor of wit and many would fain seem witty upon any score euen in matters of Faith wherin the greatest wits must submit to authority and be commanded by the vvill piously affected and supernaturaly assisted to belieue more than we see or comprehend Yet the Spaniard is consequent enough in his error by saying Faith is science For if it be euident that whatsoeuer God reuealed is true and it be euident that God reuealed the Trinity or Transubstantiation it must needs be euident and by consequence Science that these mysteries are true and therfore no man who penetrats these termes can deny their Truth For my part I wish this opinion were true it would be a great ease to all Catholiks vvho find much difficulty in belieuing the articles of Faith So that the Authors and Abettors of Traditionary euidence haue this aduantage of their Aduersaries that we desire they may haue the better of us in this Dispute and if they haue not it must be want of Reason on their side not any preiudice or obstinacy on ours But vve haue this aduantage of them that we may with more ease conuince heretiks euen the wittiest of heresy and obstinacy than they can because its easier to demonstrat or euidently conclude that a man is bound to bilieue God reuealed a mystery of Faith than it is to demonstrat or euidently conclude he did actualy reueale it as it is easier to proue you are bound to belieue this man is your Father than that realy he is so And if we conclude euidently the first we convince the wittiest Diffenters or Disputers in the world of heresy and obstinacy if they do not submit their iudgments and belief to that of the Church
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
assent of Christian faith is grounded vpon and directed by this truth Gods goodness and veracity will neuer countenance falsood with miracles nor permit errors in a Church whose authority and testimony is confirmed with such marks of his Diuine ministery and fauor as the Congregation of the Roman Catholiks is This shall be in the ensuing section more particularly proued SECT VNICA OF THE RESOLVTION AND RVLE of Catholik faith and vvhether this or Heresy be consistent vvith a cleer euidence of Gods revelation Q. Notwithstanding you haue told me that the assent of faith is rather a submission or yeelding of our vnderstanding to the Diuine authority than a sight or euidence of the same authority or reuelation yet other Roman Catholik Authors hold the contrary because they say that the tradition or testimony of the Church is the rule or motiue of Catholik Faith Now this tradition affirming that the faithfull deliuered to one an other from age to age from yeare to yeare the same doctrin in euery particular which the Roman Catholiks now hold and that they deliuered that doctrin not as the doctrin or opinions of men but as the word and reuelation of God it is as impossible we should not see this doctrin to haue bin reuealed by God as it is that a tradition so vniuersal wherin euery man was so particularly concerned and which hath bin conueyed by such euident sensations as that of hearing preaching seing practising and professing our faith by the most significant words and actions can be fallacious or false or that such multitudes could forget or would alter the doctrin of this year which they had receiued as Diuine the yeare before A. I know that the Author of sure footing hath writ with great zeal som Treatises vpon this subiect and hath so confounded those who assert only a moral certainty in Faith that they can not vindicat themselues from the Atheism wherunto their principles and bare probability of Christianity leads and wherwith the aforesaid Author doth vnanswerably charge them But because he took or reuiued this way thinking that by no other the certainty of Christian faith can be made out nor the Socinians argument against the possibility of assenting by an act of faith with more assurance than appearance of the truth answered and that I belieue both these difficulties may and ought to be solued otherwise I make vse of other principles for the resolution and rule of faith Q. Vvhat is the resolution of faith A. It is an orderly retrogradation from the assent or act of faith to its first motiue or to that which moued or made vs assent Q. Vvhat is the Rule of faith A. It is that which directs vs to that motiue and to assent or belieue as Christians Q. Is not the rule and the motiue of faith the same thing A. Many confound the one with the other But they are diferent things The motiue of faith is Gods veracity The rule of faith is the Testimony or Tradition of the Church Faith doth not fallow the nature of its rule if it did we could not call it a Diuine virtue because the testimony or Tradition of the Church which is its rule is human It s called Diuine faith because it is specified by and relyes wholy vpon Gods veracity and therfore is a Diuine virtue Q. Ought not the rule of faith be an infallible direction to the motiue of faith Ought it not also be of such a nature as to manifest cleerly its own infallibility to euery one that will examin the nature of Tradition which is the rule of faith A. It ought to be an infallible direction in itself otherwise it might lead vs out of the way but that infallibility ought not be more manifest to vs than the infallibility of faith itself The reason is because a Rule as such is but a direction and one may be infallibly directed though himself doth not Know it as a seaman who obeyes the Pilot commanding him to steer his ship by such and such land marks It is no necessary part or property of a Rule to euidence it s own infallibility unless the thing wherunto we are directed be self euident and uisible as we see in the rules and instruments of Mecanik arts But if the truth of that obiect or act wherunto a Rule directs us be of its own nature obscure and not obuious to our senses but rather aboue the reach and sight of our understanding then the truth or infallibility of the Rule ought not to appeare cleerly to us for if it did the Rule hauing a necessary connexion a parte rei with the act or obiect wherunto it directs it would cleerly discouer to us the truth of that obiect or act which is supposed to be obscure This is explained by examples A man that is purblind or trauells by night may be safely and infallibly directed or led between precipices or through an vncouth and vnknown path though he doth not see his own safety nor the skil of his Guide or the certainty of his way T is sufficient for his satisfaction and encouragement to beare patiently the incommodiousness of his iourney that being credibly informed he belieues his Guide is skilfull and honest T is so in our iourney to Heauen Vve do belieue that the rule of our faith which is Catholik Tradition is infallible by virtue of Gods particular assistance and protection though we do not cleerly see or know it is so Vve belieue also that euery assent of Christian Faith is infallibly true though we can no more see its infallibility than we can the truth of its obiect v. g. of the Trinity Diuinity of Christ Transubstantiation c. So that there ought not be greater or cleerer euidence required for the infallibility of the rule of faith than for the infallibility of the truth of faith this being the end and the other but subseruient to it Tradition therfore euen as it is sealed with all the signs of the Church doth not make cleerly euident to us that God reuealed any article of faith or any point of Christianity nay not that fundamental one of Christs Diuinity for though Catholik Tradition and the signes and miracles of the Church may make it cleerly euident to us that Christ reuealed our faith and doctrin yet they do not make it cleerly euident to us that Christ was God or that God reuealed Christianity witness all the heresies of witty and learned men in all ages against Christs Diuinity and euery one Knowes that against cleer euidence their can be no heresy Q. The Church being our Guide of faith if som Doctors therof do not see cleerly the way how can we be led to heauen How can they induce heretiks to follow them or assure them that the saying of our sauior will not be verified in us si caecus caecum ducat or that our Doctors are not like the Scribes and Pharisies caeci estis duces coecorum A. The greatest
in ouercoming this last great difficulty consists chiefly the supernaturality which is most peculiar to the act of Faith Heretiks therfore may be conuicted of obstinacy and heresy though they do not cleerly see nor we euidently conclude by tradition or any thing else that God reuealed what they deny or doubt of and the Church proposeth as reuealed by him For heresy doth not consist in an impossibility but it would be one if it were requisit that learned heretiks be obstinat against a cleer and conclusiue euidence of God hauing reuealed what they deny or doubt of How can any passion or pride blind a learned heretik if it depriues him not wholy of his wits and then he can not sin or be an heretik so far as to make him deny or doubt of what he sees euidently concluded God sayd or reuealed That were to deny God is God or the existence of a Deity A learned heretik therfore can not be better or more cleerly conuicted of heretical obstinacy than by our euidently concluding against him that he is obliged in conscience to auoyd the threatned danger of damnation if he doth not belieue the Church whose testimony is confirmed with Miracles to assent to that doctrin as Diuine which is deliuered by Catholik Tradition and confirmed by the motiues of credibility though it be not cleerly euident that its doctrin is Diuine or its tradition infallible More of this hereafter Now I will proue the euident obligation all men who are informed of our Faith haue to belieue the doctrin of the Roman Catholik Church as Diuine as also how they are obliged in conscience to inform themselues therof CHAP. V. HOVV THE MIRACLES OF THE Roman Church euidently conuict all its Aduersaries of damnable obstinacy and hovv a credible report of them obligeth all men to inform themselues of those miracles and doctrin confirmed by them and that of all Christian Congregations the Roman Catholik alone is the true Catholik Church Q. Supposing the Catholik Church can not be composed of all or any two Congregations dissenting in the least point of doctrin as hath bin proued in the precedent Chapter I desire to know which of them all is that one true Catholik Church we ought to belieue according to that article of the Apostles Creed I belieue in the holy Catholik Church and out of which there is no saluation A. You know the true Catholik Church is only that Congregation of Christians which hath the signs Christ sayd Marc. 16. should follow the true belieuers and that those signes are the casting out of Deuills not by coniuring but in the name of Christ the gift of tongues the conuersion of Nations to Christianity the curing of diseases raising of the dead and other supernatural marks of Gods trust and truth committed only to the ministery of that Church and by which marks iâ— must be discerned from all false Congregations pretending to be either the whole or a part of the Catholik Church Q. Out of your discourse I gather that all the markes of the true Catholik Church are reduced to miracles because supernatural sanctity the conuersion of Nations to Christianity the gift of profecy c. are as great miracles as the casting out of Deuills curing diseases raising the dead and the gift of tongues But it is a common saying among Protestants that miracles are ceased in the Church and som Catholiks grant they are so few and wrought in those remote regions of Iapan and China that you can hardly meet with one who did euer see a miracle How therfore can miracles be the marks wherby euery man may be directed to know the true Catholik Church if few or none see them A. I grant that all the marks of the Catholik Church must be miraculous otherwise they were not fit motiues for prudent men to submit their iudgments to the testimony or ministery of that Church as to the Church of God But miracles are not ceased nor confind to those remote regions of Iapan and China There is not a Catholik Nation in the world which doth not shew som things at least so like supernatural miracles that as wise and wary men as any in Christendom belieue them to be so And such Protestants as pretend they are not can not with any probability shew that the matter of fact is false or that the manner of working them is fraudulent or natural seing therfore Christ himself assures vs that supernatural miracles shall follow the true belieuers and that vntill the end of the world there will be true belieuers and by consequence a Catholik Church we are bound in conscience to belieue that only is the true Church wherin we see or at least heare credibly reported there are true miracles or things so like true miracles that as wise and as wary men as any in the world after a seuere scrutiny and serious study mistake them for true miracles notwithstanding they know that vpon their not being mistaken in so important a matter doth depend their euerlasting happiness or misery Dr Dovvnham in hiâ— Treatise of Antichrist l. 1. c. 9. pag. 111. saith neither Turks nor Ievves nor any other Churches of Christians but only the Pope and Church of Rome do vaunt of miracles Q. Is there but one Congregation of Christians that pretends to such miracles A. No. Q. Vvhich is that A. The Roman Catholik Q. If all other Christian Congregations be against the Roman Catholik and that in euery Christian Congregation there be as wise and wary men and as willing to be saued as any Roman Catholiks why should any man be bound in conscience to belieue the Roman Catholik miracles are true when as great or a greater number of wise and learned men do maintain they are not true miracles A. Vvhen learned parties agree in the fact of an accident so extraordinary that no natural cause therof after diligent scarch can be knowen but seemes to be aboue the power of all natural causes and human industry doubtless the party which belieues the fact to be supernatural or a miracle deserues to be credited before all which contradict the same and can giue no good reason for their contradiction 1. Because in som Christian Congregation or other there must be true miracles otherwise Christs words Marc. 16. can not be verified And seing no other Christian Congregation but the Roman Catholik pretends at least vpon so publik and probable grounds to haue true miracles the Roman Catholik is to be credited in this point before all others 2. It is not consistent with Gods infinit veracity to permit so publik and probable an appearance of true miracles for confirming falsood as the appearance of miracles in the Roman Catholik Church is For that veracity is an inclination to truth and an auersion from falsood and by consequence the Diuine veracity being infinit inuolues an infinit auersion from falsood But an infinit auersion from falsood is not consistent with Gods permission of so probable
be no excuse before that dreadfull Iudge who takes no other euidence but that of our own conscience This only we must consult in matters of Eternity and not think that a Clergy or Religion established by a temporal law is lawfull though it should be called legal by an Act of Parlament Q. Sir I haue seen the Registers of Lambeth you would haue me suspect as forged I assure you I see no sign of forgery in them And as for Bishop Iuels not answering Doctor Harding demand concerning the first Protestant Bishops and particularly Parkers Consecrator perhaps he thought it an idle question and underualued so weak an obiection A. Forged Registers are often the most formal all counterfeit ware standing in need of being set forth with great artifice Vve haue seen Registers and Records of publik Courts of Iudicature so artificialy changed and corrupted that nothing but their not being produced many years before when they were called for could conclude the forgery Doctor Harding called for the Registers of the first protestant Bishops Consecration as well as for the Consecraters name Neither did B. Iuel contemn this demand as you imagin He went as far in the answer as he durst He answered 1. that the first protestant Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign were consecrated in due form by Archbishop Parker their Metropolitan But being again pressed by Harding to name Parkers Consecrator he put off that impertinent question wherof the whole controuersy and the credit of the Church of England depended by a wild digression and long discourse of the ancient Bishops being consecrated without aquainting the Pope But sure Mr Iuel might aquaint Doctor Harding with the name of him who consecrated Parker as well as he named Parker for Consecrator of the other Bishops and certainly would if Parker himself had bin realy consecrated by a Bishop If you do not belieue my relation read Doctor Hargings bookes against Iuel and Iuels own Apology for the Church of England where they treat of this particular Q. Gentlemen I would to God you did agree among yourselues and not break the Layties heads with your disputes You haue put so many doubts into mine that I can hardly belieue any thing On both sides you seem to bee honest and learned men therfore I think my best way is to continue in the Church of England and trust in God that I shall not be damn'd for not being of that of Rome untill I be better satisfied that the points wherin it differs from ours are necessary for saluation And this requiring longer time the particulars being so many than I am like to liue t' is not credible God would oblige me or any other illiterat person to spend our dayes rather in controuersies than in prayer and good works and in the end be as litle satisfied with ourselues as our and your Clergy are with one an other Yourselues grant that implicit Faith is sufficient for such ignorant people as I am that Faith I am sure I haue for I do belieue all that God reuealed though I do not know what it is he reuealed or whether he hath apointed the Church of Rome rather than that of England to instruct the world and inform us of his reuelations And truly I belieue a man may be saued without troubling himself to know which of them it is that God hath apointed for our instruction prouided we be redy to be members therof when that shall be made cleer to us by better arguments than I am able to inquire after A. This is so dangerous doctrin that I iudge it worth my pains to shew yet further the obligation the most illiterat men haue to search after the true Church and how easiâ—y they may find it out by visible signs and how you may without any help but that of common sense be satisfied of the truth of euery particular point of doctrin wherin Roman Catholiks differ from Protestants And all this in the space of less than two houres time Q. Nay Sir if you perform your undertaking I deserue to be damn'd for all Eeternity if I will nor hear you for so short a time as two hours I pray Sir proceed CHAP. VIII HOVV EVERY ILLITERAT PERSON may easily and in the space of two houres find out the true Church and the truth of euery point of doctrin controuerted betvveen Catholiks and Protestants VVHen the people of Israel were most diuided in matters of Religion 3. Reg. 8. the Prophet Elias made a motion to them of cleering the truth by that famous dogmatical Miracle of burning an Ox upon the Altar without kindling the fire under it This cleer and compendious way was hugely approued of by the multitude as suting best with their capacities for they needed not learning to dispute their eyes were sufficient Iudges and they had so much common sense as to know that God would not permit a falsood to be confirmd by a miracle in so publik a trial wherin his Veracity was so particularly concerned The Prophets therfore of Baal durst not refuse so fair an offer as Elias made in their presence and I hope the Protestant Clergy will be ashamed to refuse mine Let us not delude the people with school subtilities or obscure texts of scripture If the Church of England or Scotland or any other reformed one be the true Church and its doctrin the true doctrin let that be tried by miracles I shall try ours of Rome by that test I challenge then all the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and all others of the Reformation or all the Protestants of the world to work or mention any one miracle euer yet wrought by any Protestant to confirm any one point of doctrin wherin they differ from the Roman Catholik Gentlemen summon your Sinods search into all histories profane and sacred set your heads together and produce at least som probable testimony of as much as one miracle to grace your Reformations And if you can not find undoubted miracles at least shew som thing that lookes like a miracle som thing that may be mistaken for one wherof the falsood or fraud hath not bin as yet discoured such as you say many of ours are Perhaps you will pretend that your Protestants are not so easily foold with false miracles as our Roman Catholiks But this must be a gift and priuilege of your priuat spirit for the Spaniards Italians and French are not by nature so dull as our Northen Protestants and are as loath to be cheated out of their moneys by Masses Miracles Pilgrimages and other pretexts of deuotion as you are And yet they belieue such Miracles as haue bin motiues for the Popes or people to Canonize our Saints and those also wherby Heathens and heretiks haue bin conuerted to our Religion Q. I doubt not Sir but that the Catholiks are as unlikely and loath to be imposed vpon as Protestants therfore I would fain heare som of those undeniable miracles
world to be a cheat or any thing less than his own great Seal wherfore at the sight therof all men are bound under pain of damnation to belieue God alone is the Author of Christs and the Roman Churches Miracles and doctrin iust as subiects are bound under pain of death to obey the King and Magistrats Orders when signed and sealed with the usual and authentik marks of their supreme authority They are bound I say to obey though they haue only moral euidence that he is King and that his Seal and Orders are true and not conterfeit Q. Methinks this argument may be retorted against your self For if notwithstanding the moral euidence we haue of such persons being our Parents or lawfull Kings and of their seales and Orders not being counterfeit we are bound only to honor and obey them in our outward actions but wee are not bound to assent inwardly without any Kind of doubt that such men are our Parents or our legitimat Kings or that their hands and seales are not counterfeit If I say this moral euidence can not oblige us to such inward assurances and assents how can the moral euidence of Christs and the Roman Churches Miracles being true and supernatural Miracles oblige us under pain of damnation to belieue vvithout any Kind of doubt Christs Diuinity and the Roman Catholik doctrin At least this much followeth from hence that the moral euidence of the aforsaid Miracles and signs of the Church can only exact from us an outward conformity to its decrees not an inward assent to its doctrin A. The extent of euery authority ought to be measured by its appearance If its appearance be only human or natural it reacheth no further than to regular those outward moral actions which are necessary for the gouernment and peace of the Commonwealth it hath not any thing to do vvith directing the soul by inward acts and undoubted assents to its supernatural end If the appearence of the authority be supernatural and moraly euident to us by prodigies profecies or other visible signs that it is so then it claimes a iurisdiction ouer the soul and may exact from it such inward acts and assents as are proportionable to that supernatural end for vvhich God hath instituted his Church and adornd it vvith those Diuine marks and miracles vvhich Christ himself mentions Marc. 16. and haue bin visible in the Roman Catholik euer since the Apostles This undeniable Maxim being layd as a foundation there can be no difficulty in seing the disparity there is between the human authority of Commonwealths and the spiritual and supernatural of the Church by virtue of their different appearances the miracles and signs of the Church making so supernatural a shew as to declare God alone is the Author of its doctrin and authority is extended to the soul and to the inward acts and assents therof regulating them as it is fit for the saluation of mankind No human or natural authority of Kings or temporal Princes can reach so far because the appearance therof is only natural Q. Vvill not the appearance of Anti-Christs Miracles be supernatural Did not those of the Magitians of Egipt look like supernatural and indiscernable from those of Moyses How then can a supernatural appearance or a moral euidence of prodigies being true Miracles exact or pretend to any authority ouer our inward acts of the will and understanding shall we submit our iudgments to Anti-Christs doctrin because his Miracles will seem to be supernatural If not why should we submit our iudgments to the Roman Catholik Church because it s most authentik Miracles seem to be supernatural A. This argument only proues that true Miracles euen those of Christ do not cleerly euidence or conclude their own supernaturality or their being true Miracles It is so hard a matter to distinguish between true and false or Anti Christian Miracles that our Sauior sayes euen the elect would be seduced by the last if for their sake and by Gods particular prouidence those dayes would not be shortned and therfore he warnes his Disciples and all the faithfull to beware of Anti-Christs Miracles for ressembling so much his own and giues certain signs wherby men may discouer that he who works them is Anti-Christ Christs Miracles therfore as those also of the Church being first and as it were in possession of Gods authority by being his great seale and confirming his doctrin do by that precedency and Christs prediction of conterfeit Miracles manifest their supernaturality in a different manner from Antichrists and all other lying prodigies which haue bin or will be wrought to confirm any doctrin contrary to that of the Catholik Church Out of all which we conclude that euen Christs Miracles and à fortiori those of the Church if taken without his prediction and their own precedency do not cleerly euidence to us that they are true Miracles and by consequence can not cleerly euidence to us the Diuinity of Christ or that God reuealed the articles of Christian Religion And the same must be sayd of Catholik Tradition euen as it is confirmed by these Miracles of the Church So that this Tradition is not the Motiue but the Rule of Faith vvhich directs us infallibly though not cleerly to Gods reuelations and therfore doth not demonstrat or undeniably conclude that euer God reuealed any one article of that Faith though the same Tradition as confirmed by the signs of the Church doth demonstrat or at least undeniably proue that we are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue and that most certainly that God reuealed euery point which the Roman Catholik Church doth propose as an article of Faith This much of Miracles in general Now let us return to Saint Bernards and consider it in particular St Bernard makes the same proposal to the Henricians and people about Tolouse that Elias made to the Iewes and Baalists He appeald to Gods omnipotency for the manifestation of the truth And spoke with such confidence of success as if the attempt of the miracle had not only bin consulted with God but had bin commanded by him Consider now I pray whether it be credible to any person that hath common sense or whether it be consistent with Gods infinit veracity and goodness that vpon so publik a trial of both and wherof depended the damnation or saluation of so many Souls God would play the Neuter and permit the Deuill abuse the sincerity and sanctity of Saint Bernard to seduce the poor simple people by working Miracles which saint Bernard himself and the wisest of that age took to be Diuine and were in appearance as much aboue the power of nature as those were which Christ wrought If this be as inconsistent with common sense as it is with Christianity not one illiterat Protestant in the world who hath any sense can be excused by inuincible ignorance from damnation no learned Protestant from heresy For heresy is obstinacy against doctrin sufficiently proposed as
first and cleerest notions and principles of mankind it must be sayd that nothing hath not only proportion with somthing but also that nothing and somthing haue the same properties and work the same effects and by consequence that there is no difference or distance between such contradictions as nothing and somthing being and not being existent and not existent Q. I see that the existence and vnity of God is much more cleere than Atheists pretend but me thinks the same argument wherby you proue Gods vnity concludes the impossibility of the Trinity for if there can not be two or more things infinitly perfect it must be granted that either the Father son and holy Ghost are not things or beings distinct one from the other or if they be that they are not infinitly perfect A. To this question or obiection there are two answers The first and best is that God were not infinitly perfect if such imperfect creatures as we know our selues to be could comprehend his excellencies and mysteries And though as rational creatures we ought euen in what we belieue be directed by reason yet that reason which is our guide can lead us no further in many things than to persuade vs submit to credible authority which is the testimony of a Church or Congregation authentikly authorised by God to beare witness that he reuealed such and such mysteries Though the truth of these mysteries be not intelligible or visible to our human vnderstandings it were want of vnderstanding to doubt of them or to deny them because there is not any one truth more cleer to vs nor more obuious by vndeniable experiments to all mankind than this that there are many truthes wherof our human vnderstandings can giue no reason Now if this be so in human and ordinary things why should we presume or pretend that the mystery of the Trinity is not true because we forsooth can not comprehend its truth The second answer is this the Father the son and holy Ghost haue but one being or nature common to all three and therfore they are equaly powerfull equaly wise equaly good and eternall and by consequence but one God But because this diuine nature or essence hath three different manners of being and that euery one of these three manners is identified with and inseparable from the Deity though distinct one from the other there must be three distinct persons the first is called the Father the second is called the son the third is called the holy Ghost This may be explained by two similitudes 1. is that of a body which hath three dimensions longitude latitude and profundity distinct one from the other but not from the body 2. is that ordinary example of our soul which is but one being though it hath three different manners of being the first manner is to know the second is to wish or wil the third is to remember Though these three manners or modes of being are very different in themselues yet they are not things distinct from the soul Q. But how can this be applyed to the Trinity A. Thus. It must be granted that in the Deity we may consider and truly t is so the Diuine nature first as hauing from itself alone all knowledge and all perfections 2. this same Deity may be considered as knowing or reflecting vpon its own knowledge and perfections 3. it may be considered as infinitly louing itself and its infinit perfections The Deity therfore or the Divine nature as it is the fountain of infinit fecundity and the original principle or giuer is called the Father The same Deity as it is considered not the fountain but as if it were the riuer that flowes from that fountain or the chanel that receiues its own knowledge and perfections is called the son The same Deity as it is infinitly beloued by the Father and the son is called the holy Ghost which holy Ghost proceedeth as wel from the son as from the Father because each of those two persons equaly loue one an other and the Deity whence it followeth that the Greekes error of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father alone and not from the son is not only blasphemy but nonsense because it is impossible that such a Father should not loue such a son and that such a son should not loue his Father they both hauing the same nature and the same perfections This is sufficient of so sublime a mystery the truth wherof though it can not be cleerly comprehended by so imperfect creatures as we are yet our human reason may with some probability and proportion shew that the vnity of the Diuine nature doth no more exclude the Trinity of persons than the vnity of a body doth exclude its three dimensions or the vnity of the soul it s three faculties CHAP. II. OF THE IMMORTALITY of the soul Q. Is the immortality of the soul an article of Christian Religion A. Yes because in the Creed we belieue the life euerlasting Q. May this article be proued by natural reason A. yes if you will admit there is any such thing as reason in man For reason is that faculty wherby a man finds himself naturaly directed and inclined to raise his thoughts aboue and beyond the reach of his senses and to correct and contradict his own sensations when he discouers that they are as false and fallacious as dayly experience doth manifest in familiar examples v. g. of oares that seem to bend or break in the water of sophisticated wine that seemes to be natural of false colours of mad dreames and imaginations that in our sleep or in a melancoly humor seem to be rational discourses and real obiects and other innumerable mistakes which are rectified either by reflexions of our own or by the rules of perspectiue philosophy and other sciences inuented by men to discern the difference that is between the true existence and the false appearance of things Q. How do you inferr that the soul is immortal because reason which is the soul or a faculty therof doth direct and incline men to correct the fallacy of their sensations and to raise their thoughts aboue and carry them beyond the reach of our senses A. Sensation being a cooperation or a ioynt operation of the body and soul through the organization or ministery of our senses if the soul or its faculty of reason doth correct and contradict som of these sensations and finds them to be false or fallacious it is manifest that the soul may and sometimes doth operat not only independently of the body but contrary to those appearances which seemd to be real whilst we were in it and were directed by them or belieued our senses and by consequence the soul is immortal because the immortality of the soul is nothing else but its independency of the boby in acting and existing and if it acts against our sensations when it is in the body questionless it may act without them or independently of
demonstratiue assent of him self being the Author and Reuealer of the Christian doctrin it is so far from being fit the Doctors of his Church should conuict Pagans or heretiks by cleerly euidencing to them God reuealed the sauing truthes that it is not possible For though som Diuines haue sayd Faith is consistent with cleer euidence of God hauing reuealed the truth of its obiect because forsooth though the belieuer doth see the truth and by consequence can not doubt of it or be an heretik yet he doth not see it in its proper causes but only in Gods reuelation notwithstanding I say this vnwary opinion of som schoolmen themselues can not well reconcile with it the merit obscurity liberty and obsequiousness of Christian Faith nor shew how 't is possible for any learned Catholik or other man to be an heretik in his iudgment because the malice of Heresy this being an error in the understanding as well as obstinacy in the will consists in doubting or denying inwardly that God did reueal such an article of Faith but if euery learned Catholik doth see by virtue of tradition that he did realy reueal it he can not see nor say the contrary in his mind and by consequence can not be an heretik And yet it s granted on all sides that any learned man without forgetting any part of his learning or knowledge may be an heretik Besides the assent and certainty of Christian Faith doth not enter further vpon its obiect than to say it exists or that the act of Faith is true it medles not with why it exists or with any of its proper or particular causes that is with any reasons why the obiect exists or why the act of Faith is true it is grounded only vpon Gods reuelation and this sayes no more than it is so all other reasons and causes are impertinent as to the nature and vse of Faith Faith being an imperfect knowledge and a total relying vpon the Diuine authority and not vpon the knowledge of proper or any other causes Now it is impossible that the obscurity and nature of Faith can be more or so much destroyd by subsequent euidence impertinent to its end and nature than by an euidence that immediatly and directly opposeth and is inconsistent with its motiue its merit and nature If the act of Faith be not consistent with the cleer sight or euidence of its truth in the proper and particular causes notwithstanding those causes are not its motiue nor considered or toucht by the act or assent of Faith how can its merit obscurity or nature consist and continue with a cleer sight of its truth or of its motiue or which is the same with euidence of the Diuine reuelation This sight or euidence being as destructiue of the obscurity and difficulty wee meet with in assenting to the mysteries and of the trust we repose in God by belieuing which is no less essential to Faith than its truth as it is directly oppofit to the state of obscurity wherin we must be if we trust his word deliuered to vs by the Church as also to the darkness and desguise he must speake to vs in if he will haue vs trust him and merit by Faith or indeed belieue him at all for men do not belieue when they assent to a truth they see or can not deny And it is impossible for them to see that God who is truth itself speakes or reuealeth any mystery without seing also t is truth he speakes or reueals Our aduersaries seem to make the Montebanks saying seing is belieuing the rule of Diuine Faith Q. Vvhy should not the merit of Faith be consistent with the cleer euidence of the truth therof in its proper causes or with cleer euidence of Gods reuealing the mystery belieued Is it not sufficient for a meritorious assent that the VVill applyed the vnderstanding to cleer the difficulties which might retard or suspend the act of Faith before its actual assent Must this assent also meet with obscurity and ouercom a difficulty in saying and not seing that God reuealed what it assents vnto after all our former pains taken in finding out the rule of Faith and examining the nature of Catholik Tradition A. The chief merit of Christian Faith consists in ouercomming the difficulty we find in assenting to more than we see or with more assurāce than wee see there is euidence of truth If we did see or certainly know that God reuealed what we assent vnto by the act of Faith we could not haue that difficulty in assenting to the mysteries therof which we find by experiēce for what difficulty can there be in saying inwardly God reuealed the Trinity or the Trinity is true if we see that God reuealed that mystery and by an immediat consequence that it is true Therfore the proper and immediat merit of an act of Faith as such doth consist in ouercoming the difficulty of actualy assenting that God reuealed the mystery or matter we belieue he did reueale though we see not his reuelation nor any necessary connexion between it and the doctrin tradition or testimony of the Church As for those other difficulties antecedent to this and to the act of Faith which we ouercom and are rather dispositions to make our selues fit to belieue by remouing the obstacles of education and custom or by examining the nature of Tradition and the motiues of credibility than immediat acts of Faith the merit that results from ouercoming those difficulties is not the proper and immediat merit of Faith itself because it is antecedent to it for after all our aforesaid inquiry and examination of the rule and motiues of Faith we find still a great difficulty in assenting actualy or belieuing that God reuealed what Tradition affirms he did this our own experience doth demonstrat and it may be proued by diuers places of holy Scripture as that of Luc. 19. when one hauing bin credibly informed and perhaps seen how Christ wrought many miracles he desired Christ to dispossess his son of a dumb Deuil Christ told him if he could belieue he would deliuer his son from that spirit Vvithout doubt the Father found great difficulty in the very act of Faith whereby he belieued Christs power for though he sayd I do belieue yet he cried out adding Lord help my incredulity And yet this man was very well disposed and informed of Christs power and miracles before he brought his son to him otherwise he would not have taken so much pains to follow him and present his son before him And indeed incredulity as obstinacy also doth suppose as much information and euidence of the motiues of credibility and of the rule of Faith or Tradition as is requisit for the actual assent of Faith otherwise none could be called incredulous or obstinat for not belieuing The faithfull therfore merit and ouercom a great difficulty by the very act of Faith after that all other difficulties precedent to it are cleered or ouercom And
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
declared by the Parliament of Q. Mary a bundel of Cranmers errers and priuat opinions which himself and som few others inuented or borrowed from Luther and Caluin and other Innouators who had resolued to make themselues popular and powerfull by setting vp their own priuat interpretations of Scripture and opinions for points of Religion So that though all England or a greater part of the world than England is should embrace that Reformation and submit their iudgments to that Church their protestant Tenets are still priuat opinions and the submission of their iudgments to the same doth still inuolue that pride and preference of their own choice of a nouelty or new interpretation of Scripture before the ancient doetrin and against the publik testimony of all precedent English Parliaments as also against the tradition of the Catholik Church As for Queen Elizabeth shee accommodated her religion to the times untill shee got the Croun and then shee made use of the new Faith to serue her turn and secure her interest Indeed Iohn Fox his Martyrs were great but foolish sufferers their ignorance was proportion'd to their obstinacy they cast themselues into the fire without Knowing wherfore And yet Iohn Fox sayes those Tinkers Tanners and silly women confuted the Bishops that endeuored to saue their liues which themselues had forfeited acording to the ancient lawes of the land And though they dyed not Martyrs yet they dyed like Englishmen that is with as litle concern and as great courage as if their cause had bin better But this is no miracle in England though the foolish partiality of Iohn Fox his pen doth endeuor to make his Protestant Readers mistake those proud mad fellows for pious Martyrs Q. Though I do approue of your difference between heretical obstinacy and Catholik constancy yet I must still condemn your application therof to protestancy and popery for an other reason which is that Protestancy is so far from inuoluing pride that the Church of England doth not as much as pretend to be infallible in its doctrin neither doth it exact from its children a submission of their iudgments to itself but only to Scripture And I hope there is as much humility I am sure there is more safety in submitting our iudgments to Gods written word as to the tradition of the Roma Catholik Church A. As I commend the Church of Englands modesty and ingenuity in acknowledging its fallibility and in dispensing with the submission of your iudgments to the same no fallible Church can exact or expect a submission of iudgment in any points of doctrin so must I continue in my opinion of the pride and obstinacy of protestancy 1. Because you will not belieue any thing inculcated to you by God vnless it be deliuered to you in writing as if the Diuine maiesty had not as much right to command by orders intimated to us by word of mouth as by his writing All the true belieuers of the world vntill Moyses his law were gouernd by the testimony and tradition of the Church without any writing or Scriptures neither is any thing written in the old or new Testament wherupon Protestants may with any color of probability ground their pretended priuilege of not belieuing any thing but Scripture and this doth in many places tell them they are as much obliged to belieue Tradition or Gods unwritten word as the written Now why Englishmen and som Northen people alone should refuse to obey the Catholik Church vnless it shewes for euery particular Gods order in writing is not intelligible themselues and all other Nations owning the contrary to be prudently practised in all human gouernments This must be pride and obstinacy 2. The pride and obstinacy of this their pretended priuilege which is the life and fundation of all Protestant Reformations is further discouered by the practise of aprinciple wherin all Protestants agree which is that not one of them thinks he is bound in conscience to submit his iudgment to any of their own or any other Congregations sense of Scripture in controuerted texts if that sense agreeth not with his own priuat interpretation If that of his Church agree not with his own sense he may stick to his own and reiect the other And this is the reason why Protestants are diuided into so many sects How this principle and practise may be excused from heretical pride and obstinacy I know not For they stand at a defiance with all Churches and will as litle submit their iudgments to their own as to that of Rome Euery Protestant is by the fundamental Tenet of the Reformation his own Master and a supreme Iudge of Gods written law Doth not this demonstrat how those Reformations are founded vpon pride and obstinacy Can there be greater than that simple men and silly women should presume to be Masters and Iudges of those Diuine and incomprehensible mysteries That they should preferr their priuat iudgments before that of their own Church and of ours vnto which the greatest Doctors in all ages haue submitted Vvhat a proud foolish insolent and obstinat people would the English conclude any other to be wherof not one would acquiesce in the iudgment or sentence of the Courts of Iudicature but euery one assume to himself the power of deciding his own law suites and of appealing from the Chancery or euen from the Parliament to his own priuat opinion and iudgment Let euery Protestant know this is his own case in matters of religion He appeals in what concerns Faith and the sense of Scripture from his own Church and the Catholik and general Councells to his own proper iudgment Doth he think that Christ would institute so absurd a spiritual gouernment Can any man of sense imagin it agrees with Scripture To what purpose then should the Scriptures and St Paul bid us be of one belief peaceable and humble Is any of these virtues or that of Catholik Faith consistent with such pride obstinacy and dissentions as this principle must inspire and we see in all the reformed Churches and in that of our own Countrey You see therfore that your reformed Churches and interpretations of Scripture haue so litle in them of the vnity obsequiousness and humility of Christian Faith so much recommended to us by St Paul that they seeme to the most learned Roman Catholiks not only to sauor of heresy but to be the very source of heretical pride and damnable obstinacy so far are they from hauing the least smack of the fundation or fruit of Christianity SECT III. SOM INFERENCES FIT TO BE considered by all Protestants and vvhether any may be saued if they dye in that persuasion IF Protestancy doth inuolue that pride and obstinacy which I haue endeuored to proue and deduce from its principles without doubt he who dyes a Protestant is damn'd But Because som are called Protestants and yet know not what protestancy is I will deliuer my opinion how far their ignorance may excuse them from being
Protestant Reformations that the Authors therof were not Bishops and by consequence could not transmit either that caracter or that of Priestood to their successors as they did their doctrin This defect they endeuored to supply by persuading such as belieued them that no indelible caracter or visible ceremony of imposition of Episcopal hands was necessary for a Minister of the Ghospel And euen the Church of England was necessitaded to approue of this desperat doctrin in the 25. of its 39. articles of Religion because it was then well Knowen the Consecrators of her first Bishops were no real Bishops though they were called so for reason of state One is that the constitution of English Parliaments requiring Bishops as one of the three estates of the Kingdom and their votes being a considerable addition to the soueraigns authority of which alone their nomination dependeth Q. Elizabeth in this particular of Episcopacy went against the principles of other Reformations and would needs Keep vp the name of Bishops in her Church But it happened very cross to her design that none of the Catholik Bishops of England no others were then there liuing would lay hands upon or consecrate any of those new ones which she named to that dignity See the cōmission and dispensation in Doctor Bramhall the Protestant Bishop of Derry his vindication of the Episcopacy of England See the statut 8. Eliz. 1. Therfore she was forc't to issue forth a second commission for that purpose and therin to dispense by virtue of her supreme spiritual iurisdiction vvith the very state and condition of the Consecrators And this power and practise hauing bin publikly excepted against by Catholik Authors in print as null and ridiculous it was confirmed and declared by Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. 1. that whatsoeuer had bin don untill then in making of Bishops Archbishops c. by the Queens commission under the great seal of England should stand as ualid whether the Consecrators were Bishops or no Bishops any person or persons vvhatsoeuer hauing bin declared capable of giuing that caracter to any other prouided they were authorised therunto by her Maiesties commission under the great seal This occasioned great disputes between Doctor Haiding and Doctor Iuel one of the first Protestant Bishops Doctor Haiding in his printed bookes desired Mr Iuel to name the Bishop that consecrated him Parker and the rest of Queen Elizabeths first Bishops and was content to submit to Iuel and own the validity of his and the other protestant Bishops consecration if he would name Parkers Consecrator A man would think this was no such intricat matter nor strong argument if euer Parker had bin consecrated by a Bishop And yet Iuel hauing bin thus prouoked by his insulting Aduersary could neuer name Parkers Consecrator of whose consecration depended that of the rest nor produce Registers of that consecration when Harding called for them though som 50. years after appear'd in print a very formal Register of Parkers consecration copied forsooth out of Records Kept in Lauander at Lambeth The unseasonable appearance of this new found Register occasioned much laughter and new disputes which haue continued vntill these times And indeed it can not well enter into any considering mens heads that Parker Iuel and the first protestant Bishops who were called by Catholiks no Bishops in print for want of a right Consecrater and challenged to name the Bishops that consecrated them or Parker their aduersaries setting their stress vpon that only argument would not take the pains to see and search their Registers of Lambeth for a Bishops name that imported them so much to name if any such Bishop had euer bin or any such Records had bin then extant Besides sure their memories were not so short as not to remember without the help of Registers and Records the name of a man that their Successors pretended fifty years after the time of answering was past had made Parker a Bishop but fiue years before they were askt the question with so much ceremony and solemnity For Hardings book and Iuells answer were printed an 1565. or therabouts An other thing made the prelatik Clergies caracter absolutly null And that was the Form which they used in the consecration of their Bishops and Priests This Form was iudged essentialy defectiue because not one word therof did express or mention the caracter pretended to be giuen therby And though the Church of England for neer one hundred years had defended and practised this Form yet at length they were forc't to submit to their Aduersaries exceptions and reasons against it and to change and correct the Form as wee directed in the bookes we writ against the same Vpon the Kings restauration they printed their Ritual and therin you may see the words Bishop and Priest added vnto the Form of their consecrations which or their equiualent are absolutly necessary and yet nothing like them was in the old Forms and former editions This humility of theirs is to be commended though it be to no purpose seing the change made not them who went before it Bishops and though their late reformed Form be valid yet when pronounced by men that are not Bishops it works no effect nor giues any caracter either of Priestood or Episcopacy to themselues or their Successors And none of the Protestant Clergy hath bin consecrated by a true Bishop since the change of their old Form Let the Protestant Layty now reflect vpon the caracter and conscience of their Clergy as being men who take vpon themselues the administration of Sacraments absolution from sins spiritual jurisdiction and all functions belonging to true Bishops and Priests though themselues can not but know there is no probable ground to belieue they are such I say nothing of the reuenues they are possessed of vpon the account of being Churchmen but I can not be so uncharitable as not to aduertise my Countreymen of the danger they are in and of the damnation which will follow if by timely repentance and a generous resolution they do not withdraw themselues from the direction of such Teachers and from the Ministery of such a Clergy Vvhat can they answer to the obiection we borrow from the statut 8. Eliz. Can they imagin that the Queen would dispense with the state and condition of the Consecraters if they had had the Episcopal caracter Vvhat need was there of a dispensation with their state and condition if they were real Bishops Vvhy should the Parlament confirm this dispensation and enact by law that whatsoeuer was don by this commission of the Queens should be valid whether the Consecraters were Bishops or not the words are by any person or persons vvhatsoeuer All that my Countreymen can say is that they haue an Act of Parliament for the caracter of their Clergy and for the saluation of their souls Vvhat that will auail them in the other world I wish they did consider Surely they can not but know that such Acts will
you pretend to haue in your Church and for confirmation of the doctrin wherin you differ from us But I pray let them be Miracles like those of Christ for I will not belieue any others I giue you this caution for feare you should trouble me with Mother Iulianas fits and one Finaghtyes triks wherwith he deluded the common people heer in England and Ireland where that mans Miracles as I heare are mightily cryed up A. Sir you haue reason to expect I should relate unto you Miracles like those of Christ seing himself hath sayd Iohn 14.22 Luther to 7. l. de Iudaeis c. fol. 210. A Deo didicimus accepimê° aeternum verbuÌ„ veritatem Dei hactenus mille quingentio annis miraculis signis confessam confirmatam he that belieueth in me the vvorks that I do he shall do and greater Vvhich words not only Luther the first Protestant Reformer but your English Bibles edit 1576. in the marginal notes referr to the vvhole body of the Church in vvhom this virtue doth shine for euer Though I must confess both Luther and our English Protestant writers contradict themselues again in this particular as all men must who maintain errors and say when we press them to relate som of their Miracles that Miracles are now superfluous and therfore none wrought in the Church But I shall deal so impartialy with Protestants in this matter that I will not mention any miracle for confirmation of the Roman Catholik Church and doctrin which the best Protestant writers themselues do not confess to be miracles though others of them attribute the working therof to the power of Beelzebub as the obstinat Iewes did of Christs and that for no other reason but because the miracles were wrought by Papists and to confirm Popery As for Finaghtyes miracles I made it my buisness to inquire after them and him also and do find that so soon as he began to work his miracles the Popish Archbishop of Tuam in Ireland who was his Ordinary questioned him for that presumption and finding him both ignorant and obstinat he forbid him the further tempting of God and scandalizing the Church by his foolish attempts But the mans zeal or vanity preuailing more vpon his Spirit than his Superiors commands he continued his ridiculous course and therupon was commanded out of the Archbishops Prouince After that vigilant Prelats death Finaghty lurking for som time in other places came into England and from thence returned to Dublin where he playd the fool with breathing and beating the Deuil in good ernest one Stanton an other mad Priest of his Countrey printed many of his rash attempts for great miracles Finaghty after that his manner of exorcisms had hin examind and found to be different from those of the Church and his dispossessing of Deuils to be without any visible marke or sign of the Deuils possession or at least departure was silenc't by the Clergy of Dublin and commanded out of that Province From thence he went to his own Conaght and falling again to his old miracles he was by the Popish Bishop of Elfin depriued of his general Vicarship and that extraordinary respect forgot which the simplicity of the people had offered to his supposed sanctity by vvhom now he is much slighted My charity inclineth me to belieue that his greatest fault was folly and that he was more cheated by the Deuil than so simple a man could design to cheat others I haue bin more diffuse upon this subiect than you may think it deserues because the world may be satisfied None suspects the truth of miracles nor corrects the foolish Pretenders of working them more than we Roman Catholiks it being one of the greatest cares of our Bishops and Pastors to preuent such impostures and to punish the Impostors And this hath bin the continual practise of our Church euer since the beginning of Christianity Q. You haue giuen me great satisfaction by your relation and opinion of Finaghty and his miracles If they had not bin so soon and sesonably condemn'd by his own party I should suspect that all your other miracles reported in Legends and Saints liues were of the same nature But now I see that miracles which were neuer contradicted or suspected by yourselues are credible I pray therfore relate those which you say are confessed or allowed of by the learned Protestants and yet confirm your doctrin in opposition to theirs SECT I. THE CONVERSION OF THE Heathen Kings and Nations from Paganism to Christianity and Popery is an euident miracle and mark of the truth of the Roman Catholik Church and doctrin in opposition to that of all Protestant Reformations It s continuance euen from the Apostles to this present demonstrated as also the impossibility of its pretended insensible change THe greatest of all miracles it being the end for which they haue bin wrought and the Christian Church instituted is the conuersion of the Heathen Kings and Nations to Christianity If therfore it be proued that all the Heathen Kings and Nations which haue bin conuerted from Paganism to Christianity were conuerted to no other but to that Christianity which Protestants call Popery and that the sayd conuersions were performed by knowen Papists and confessed miracles our Aduersaries must acknowledge that the Roman Catholik Church and it alone is the true Church of God otherwise it will follow that Christ instituted his Church to no purpose and that his design and desire of the conuersion of Nations and sauing their souls came to nothing Nay it will follow that Christ is not the Messias to vvhose doctrin and Church as the Scriptures and Prophets foretell all Nations shall flovv and their Kings Minister the multitude of the seas shall be conuerted the Iles shall vvayt for and the Heathens be its inheritance and the end of the earth its possession All this the Protestants themselues confess to be prophecied of the true Christian Church as you may see in their marginal notes upon the English Bible edit 1576. in Esay 60. vers ult And in Daniel 2. vers 45. This argument made so great impression upon many of the most learned Protestant writers who had resolued not to be Papists that som of them turned Iewes others Atheists others Turks as Bernardin Ochin Sebastian Castalio Dauid George Adam Neuserus Allemanus and others Q. Sir though I doubt not of your sincere dealing yet I must not take upon your single credit that learned Protestants could turn Turks and Iewes vpon the score you mention A. Sir I hope you will belieue themselues Read Bernardin Ochins Preface to his Dialogues wherin you will find these words vvhen I did consider hovv Christ by his povver vvisdom and goodness had founded and established his Church c. and again discerned hovv the same vvas utterly ouerthrovvn I could not but vvonder and being desirous to knovv the cause I found there had bin Popes From this conceit of the Popes preuailing against Christs Church
he concluded there had bin no such thing as Christs Diuinity and proceeded to teach Circumcision and Poligamy and at length came to be an impure Apostata as the famous Beza doth term him in his Treatise de Poligam pag. 4. Impurus ille Apostata Bernardinus Ochinus Read likewise Sebastian Castalios ' own words in his Preface of the great Latin Bible dedicated to King Eduard 6. which are The more I do peruse the Scriptures the less do I find the same he meanes the profecies of the conuersion of Kings and Nations performed hovvsoeuer you understand the same profecies Dauid George say the Protestant Diuines of Basil in their History of him edit 1568. discoursed thus If the doctrin of Christ and his Apostles had bin true and perfect the Church vvhich they planted c. should haue continued c. But novv it is manifest that Antichrist hath subuerted the doctrin of the Apostles and the Church by them begun as is euident in the Papacy therfore the doctrin of the Apostles vvas false and imperfect And so this protestant Apostle of Basil by reflecting vpon the fundamental principle of the Reformation which is a supposition that the true Church and doctrin had bin inuisible or destroyd for many ages by Popery became a blasphemous Apostat affirming that our Sauior was a seducer In like manner Adam Neuserus the chief Pastor of Heidelberg turnd Turk and was circumcised at Constantinople See Osiander in his Epitom Centur. 16. pag. 818. The like fate had Alemannus Beza his bosom friend as Conradus Schlusserburg sayes in Theol. Caluin fol. 9. and Beza confesseth ep 65. pag. 108. Alemannum affirmant ad Iudaismum defecisse And all their conuersions to so damn'd sects were grounded vpon their not finding any pagan Kings or Nations to haue bin euer conuerted to protestancy but all wayes to popery Q. I must confess Sir that if all the Heathen Kings and Nations haue bin conuerted to that Christianity which we call popery and this was performed by Papists which could not be don without miracles and no pagan Kings and Nations haue bin euer conuerted to Protestancy nor by Protestants yee haue much more to say for yourselues than euer I heard before and we much less But I doubt you will hardly proue that untill the end of the first 600. years there were any Kings or Nations conuerted to Popery though afterwards I must own that profession was spread ouer the world and reignd untill our Protestant Reformation began in the year 1517. And to auoyd prolixity I desire you to rosolue me this one question whether Constantin the great the first Christian Emperor was a Papist Vve belieue that he and the Church of his time was Protestant because the purest Christianity Protestancy was then in vogue though afterwards it degenerated insensibly into Popery A. Euseb de Vita Constantini l. 3. c. 47. lib. 4. cap. 38. S. Hieron contra Vigilant ante med Costantinus Imperator saÌ„ctas reliquias Andreae Lucae Timothei transtulit Constantinopolim apud quas Daemones rugiunt And ibid. Si reliquius Sanctorum traÌ„sferre in aureos loculos re condere non licet sacrilegus fuit cum Constantino Arcadius omnes Episcopi non solum sacrilegi sed fatui iudicandi qui rem vilissimaÌ„ cineres dissolutâ—s â—n sericâ— vase aureo portauerunt c. S. August tom 39. dâ— Sanctis saith Crucis caracterâ— Basilicae dedicantur altaria consecrantur S. Greg. apud Bedam hist lib. 1. c. 30. Euseb de vitâ Constantini l 3. c. 2. atque interdum vultum salutari illa passionis signavit nota Zozomen hist l. 1. c. 8. Sanctae Crucis plurimum tribuit honoris Prudentius in Apotheosi vexillumque Crucis summus Dominator adorat S. Chrysostom in ep 2. Cor. hom 26. versus fin Nam ipse qui purpuram indutus est accedit illa amplexus sepulchra fastu deposito staâ— Sanctis supplicaturus ut pro se ad Dominum intercedant See the same also in S. Chrysost ad pop hom 60. versus finem That Constantin the great was a Papist and the Religion then in vogue and the only then called Catholik was Popery is euident by Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History written a litle after Constantins death as also by what the Centurists of Magdeburg and all other learned Protestants confess For it is euident by their writings that Constantin erected Temples in memory of Martyrs and the Apostles prouided his Sepulchre there to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the prayers there offered He translated to Constantinople the reliques of St Andrew Luke and Timothy at which the Deuil did roare which particular circumstance St Hierom presseth against Vigilantius whom he concludeth an heretik for being against the praying to Saints and worshiping their reliques St Augustin and St Gregory two other Doctors of the Church defend the practise of consecrating Churches when Constantin built them with the sign of the Cross and sprinkling of holy water which I belieue the protestant Clergy of Dublin were ignorant of when as I haue bin credibly informed they framed very lately a new form of their own heads to consecrat Mr Lingars oual Temple with such hatred to the Cross that they would not make use of the sign therof in the Consecration nor bless themselues in the beginning or throughout the whole work nor place any Cross in the top of the Church for fear of profaning it or troubling the Spirit of that peaceble Minister not long before departed Nay Crosses were pull'd down in that Diocess and Catholiks punished for opposing them who committed such sacrileges Vvithout doubt Constantin the great was one of the most rank Papists and though he was the man who pulled down Idols and established Christianity in the world with its splendor and publik exercise yet I feare our Zealous Dublinian Clergy will protest against his Religion as superstitious and censure him guilty of Idolatry when they heare how often he blest himself making the sign of the Cross in his forhead nay which is worse not only adorning but adoring with an inferior religious worship the Cross and which is worst of all praying to St Peter and Paul that they vvould be Intercessors for him to God At least the Church of England will not challenge him as a member of theirs he being so auerse to the spiritual supremacy and Ecclesiastical iurisdiction of temporal soueraigns that he would not sit down at the Councell of Nice untill the Bishops had therto giuen their assent nor would he take vpon him to iudge of Ecclesiastical causes saying God hath ordained you Bishops and hath giuen you povver to iudge of yourselues by meanes vvherof vve yeeld ourselues to your iudgment So Crispinus in his book of the estate of the Church pag. 99. and Zozomen hist l. c. 10. post med sets down these popish vvords of Constantin Mihi vero non est fas cum homo sim ciusmodi
causarum cognitionem arrogare c. He is therfore cursed by the Protestant vvriters as bearing the mark of the beast in acknowledging the Popes supremacy and for subduing all Christian Churches to his iurisdiction so Frigiuillaeus in his palma Christiana dedicated to Q. Elizabeth pag. 35. saying that Constantin preferred the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople before others yet attributed the Primacy before all to the Roman And pag. 34. saith that Constantin gaue the povver of the beast to Pope Iulius vvhich Iulius presently exercised for Constantin also carried the mark of the Dragon in his armes c. And Mr Napper in his Treatise vpon th Reuelations dedicated to King Iames saith After the year of God 300. the Emperor Constantin subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Siluester from vvhich time till these our dayes the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outvvard and visible Church Q. Pardon Sir that I interrupt you from proceeding further in the Proof of Constantins being a Papist I am fully conuinc't he was of your Popish Religion and seing Mr Napper sayes to King Iames that Popery possessed and gouerned the visible Church euer since that time I would willingly know whether it was so before Constantins time or whether that Emperor bestowed this supremacy vpon the Pope and pulld down Protestancy to set up Popery A. To satisfy your curiosity I will remit you to your own Protestant writers the Centurists and others I will only tell you that one of the most learnest protestant writers called Philip Nicolai took great pains in this matter in his work de regno Christi undertaking to discouer the first beginning and increase of the papal dignity or supremacy and concludeth at last with these words pag. 221. Primatus affectatio communis fuit infirmitas Apostolorum ac etiam primorum Vrbis Romae Episcoporum The affectation of the Primacy was an infirmity common to the Apostles as also to the first Bishops of Rome Mr Midleton likewise in his Papistomastix pag. 193. saith that perusing Councells Fathers and stories from the Apostles forvvord vve find the print of the Popes feet Vve may therfore follow securely steps so ancient and so authentik If Popery were not the right way to heauen certainly the ancient Councells would haue condemn'd it the Fathers would haue declin'd it and the Histories would haue recounted how it entred into the Church and supplanted the former Religion that Christ and the Apostles had preach't And yet not a vvord of this change or corruption in Councells Fathers or any History This is the greatest of Miracles that the doctrin and publik profession of Popery being in itself so contrary to Protestancy vvhich is supposed by its Professors to haue bin the pure and primitiue Christianity should steale so early and so insensibly into the Church notwithstanding the vigilancy of those primitiue Pastors and the great concern of euery faithfull to obserue and oppose the least nouelty whatsoeuer in matters of doctrin any change or corruption therof inuoluing a damnable heresy Q. Though the conuersion of all heathen Kings and Nations were as you say to Popery and performed by Papists and that it is not credible God vvould permit so general a peruersion vvherby the end of instituting his Church would be frustrated yet I vvould vvillingly know vvhether you can produce any Miracles against our Protestant doctrin vvherby we differ from the Papists A. See D◠Humfry in Iesuitismi p. 2◠rat 5. p. 5. 627. Bishop Bale in Act. Rom. Pont. pag. 44.45 46. Osiand in Epit. Cēt. 6. p. 289. 288. And the Magdeb. Centur. 6. cap. 20. All the Miracles that moued the Pagans to be Papists were wrought against Protestancy I will instance it in the conuersion of our Saxon Ancestors vvho vvere Pagans and made Papists by the preaching and Miracles of St Austin the Monk Apostle of England The Protestant writers confess he conuerted the Saxons to the Chaos of Popish Ceremonies and superstition and specify worship of Images praying to Saints Purgatory Mass Transubstantiatiation holy water c. And yet themselues confess with St Bede that his doctrin and that of the ancient Britans of that time B p. Iuel in his pageant of Popes B p. Goduin in his Catalogue of Bishops p. 1. Fox in his Acts and Monum printed 1576. pag. 463. difered only in a ceremony of Baptism and in the day of celebrating Easter St Austin confirming his own practise therin by a confessed Miracle of restoring sight to a blind man Now it being euident by our English Chronicles and the Protestant vvriters vvherof Mr Iohn Fox Bishop Goduin and Bishop Iuel are to be particularly noted as being most eminent that the ancient Britans after receiuing the Catholik Faith in the Apostles time held the same untill Austins coming and neuer forsook it for any manner of false preaching of other nor for torments c. It must be concluded that the ancient Britans were first conuerted to Popery and so continued untill Austins time and that his and their doctrin was the same in all particulars contrary to Protestancy and confirmed by Miracles But because you seem to desire a dogmatical Miracle that is one vvrought in confirmation of Popery not only as it is Christianity in general but at it is Christianity in particular and opposit to Protestancy I will endeu or to satisfy your curiosity hoping therby to setle your conscience CHAP. IX St. BERNARDS VNDENIABLE Miracles vvrought by God to confound Protestants and confirm the doctrin of the Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory Prayer for the dead Prayer to Saints their vvorship and that of Images Chrisme the Popes supremacy c. SAint Bernards learning sanctity and Miracles are so generaly confessed by all Protestant writers that Doctor Stillingfleet in his late Comedy of the Idolatry and Fanaticism of the Church of Rome durst not bring him vpon the stage Vvhitaker de Ecclesiâ pag. 369. saith of him I do realy belieue Bernard vvas a true Saint Osiander cent 12. saith Saint Bernard Abot of Clareual vvas a uery pious man c. Gomarus in speculo Ecclesiae pag. 23. saith one pious man your Church had in many years Bernard your Saint And Pasquils return into England pag. 8. 13. saith he vvas a good Father and one of the lamps of Gods Church He was so famous for his learning humility deuotion and Miracles that after his refusal of all Ecclesiastical dignities he gouerned not only the Church but the temporal Princes were sayd by him and submitted to his iudgment King Henry 2. of England forsook a Schismatical Pope which he had supported against the King of France by saint Bernards persuasion The King of France gaue ouer troubling the Bishops for his sake VVilliam the Duke of Aquitain was conuerted from a deuouring wolf to a meek Lamb by his words All the world lookt upon saint Bernard as the Apostle of that age wherin diuers heresies were
broacht by the VValdenses S. Bern. Ep. 241. ad Tolos saith vve thank God for that our comming to you vvas not in uain our stay indeed vvas short vvith you but not nnfruitfull the truth being by us made manifest non solū in Sermone sed etiam in vi tute not only by preaching but also by povver of vvorking Miracles the Vvolues are deprended Apostolici Henricians and others These two last Sects had infected a great part of France especialy about Tolouse their chief errors vvere against Transubstantiation Prayers to Saints and the same vvhich Protestants hold in our dayes and we haue mentioned in the title of this Chapter The Pope sent a Legat and St Bernard to confute them In this Mission amongst innumerable others he vvrought the ensuing Miracle not only vvritten by his Disciple Godifridus who was an eye witness ther of but recorded in the other Histories of that time and insinuated by St Bernard himself in his 241. Epistle to the people of Tolouse to the end they might be constant in the manifest doctrin vvhich he had preacht against the Henricians vvhom Protestants challenge as members and Martyrs of the Protestant Church as euery one may see in their Catalogue of the vvitnesses of truth printed 1597. and in M. Symondes upon the Reuelations pag. 142. and 143. The Miracle is recounted by Godefridus invitâ Bern. l. 3. c. 5. and by others of the same time as followeth There is a place in the Country of Tolosa called Sarlatum vvhere after the Sermon vvas don they offerd to he seruant of God as euery vvhere the use vvas many loaues to bless vvihich he lifting up his hand and making the sign of the Cross in Gods name blessing sayd thus In this you shall Knovv that these things are true vvhich vvee and that those other are false vvhich the heretiks labor to persuade you that vvhosoeuer they be of your diseased persons that tast the loaues they shall be healed to the end you may Knovv us to be the true Minister of God The Bishop of Chartres a great friend to the Saint thinking this proposition too general told the people they vvere to understand it conditionaly so they did cate of the loaues vvith Faith St Bernard sudenly replied My Lord I do not mean so my meaning and saying is that all sick folks vvho vvill eat of those loaues shall recouer their health to the end it may be Knovven vve are Gods true Ministers And acordingly it fell out not one diseased person that did eat of the bread mist of being eured and the Miracle being thus diuulged by its effects so huge a multitude of people came to thank and admire the Saint that he declined the common roads and vvent by by wayes to Tolouse vvhere at the instance of the Catholiks and to further confute the aforesaid hetesies against Transubstantiation Mass Purgatory prayer to Saints vvorship of Images c. he vvith giuing his benediction to a paralitik priest that lay a dying in the College of St Saturnin restored him to so perfect health that the Priest vvho also vvas called Bernard sudenly rose out of his bed vvhere he had bin immoueable a long time followed the Saint and begd of him to be admitted into the number of his Monks vvhich vvas granted and afterwards liued amongst them very religiously and vvas at length Abot of Valdeau Vvith these Miracles the heretiks vvere confounded and so many conuerted that their seducer Henricus hid himself and finding no refuge among those who formerly had followed him he was taken prisoner and presented in chains before the Bishop Q. If God wrought such Miracles as these for the conuersion of the Henricians and other heretiks as you call them of that age why may not we Protestants expect that he will do the same for our conuersion if we be in errors I am sure we desire to saue our Souls And certainly God is as willing to saue us as any others I wish we could see such Miracles wrought by any Bernard or other Saint Vve should soon be Papists A. One of the reasons vvhy God doth not vvork now such Miracles for the conuersion of Protestants is because he hath vvrought them for the Henricians For the same errors against Transubstantiation Mass Prayer to Saints Vvorship of Images c. being common to both sects the same Miracles confute both equaly and may now conuince Protestants as vvell as they did anciently the Henricians of heretical and damnable obstinacy And therfore it s not likely Protestants vvould becom Papists though they had seen an other St Bernard work the same Miracles to confirm the Roman Catholik Faith against Protestancy that in effect hauing bin don against it in the case of the Henricians I am the more apt to belieue the sight of such Prodigies vvould not conuert you because your Protestant Authors grant the matter of fact of St Bernards Miracles against the Henricias doctrin and of S. Dominik against the Albigēses Tenets wherin these also agreed vvith Protestants and only answer that they vvere Antichristian Miracles wrought by the Deuills power to confirm the Idolatry of the Mass and Images c. or at least they were feigned by idle Monks Take it in their own words See the Cēturists and Osiander in Epitom cent 9.10.11 pag. 213. The Miracles vvhich superstitious Monks relate are either feigned by themselues or vvrought by Satans enchantments and therfore ought to be enlisted amongst Antichrists Miracles because they vvere vvrought to confirm manifest Idolatry and to establish the vvicked vvorship of Images veneration of Reliques Inuocation of Saints sacrifice of Mass c. True it is that Osiander speaking of Saint Bernards Miracles Cent. 12. pag. 310. saith Not that I think St Bernard vvas a Magitian but that I think it probable Satan vvrought the Miracles vvherby the Saint himself and others vvere deceiued And this is the common answer all Protestants giue to our Miracles when they can not deny the fact nor discouer any fraud And certaintly they would giue now the same answer to the most euident and undeniable Miracles if any were wrought before theyr eyes Q. Am I who can not read or understand Latin and other languages wherin all this you say and quote is written bound to belieue the matter of fact and conform therunto my Faith Vvhat if a Protestant Minister or Bishop tells me all you say are lyes Vvhom must I belieue Or am I obliged under pain of damnation to suspect his sincerity and doctrin if he will not encounter you or any other who offers to make good vvhat you say by shewing the passages in the books themselues I confess I think I am Howeuer I pray tell me vvhat I ought to do in such a case A. You see how in less than two hours time you may know by your Bishops or Ministers carriage and courage in examining any plain book that relates Miracles and matter of fact vvhether the Protestant Religion be
true or false If he will resolue to conferr or rather to conster the vvords of the book you vvill easily iudge of the truth by their sense to which you must keep him and the Catholik also without any other digressions or discourses all your buisness must be to know vvhether the Miracle or matter of fact be so in the book as I told you and that you may know from any honest man vvho can read and understand it as vvell perhaps better than from your Protestant Minister or Bishop As for the answers vvhich the most learned Protestants giue to the argument of our miracles they are so vveak that none but vvicked and obstinat persons can be satisfied ther with Their first answer is that our miracles haue bin feigned by idle Monks This is so damnd an answer that they dare not stick to it because it is not possible that such publik transactions as St Bernards or St Dominiks preaching and Miracles against the Henricians and Albigenses could be imposed vpon the world there being as many Obseruers as there vvere persons either curious or concernd in two so contrary parties Vvhy did not som one of the Henricians or Albigenses publish and declare the imposture vvhen their Religion vvas so discredited therby Vvhy should Pope Alexander 3. venter to be laught at and deposed from the Apostolik see for canonizing St Bernard 12. years after his death if his Miracles vvere not so authentik that they could not be contradicted Vvhat design could the world and that age haue in conspiring to impose such Miracles vpon their friends and posterity and in damning themselues therby for St Bernards sake The same argument may be applied to St Dominik St Francis St Vincent Ferrer St Francis Xauier or to any other of our Roman Church vvhose miracles haue bin vvrought in publik assemblies and not contradicted as false or fraudulent by any of those ages that vvere vvitnesses to them or vvherin they vvere first spoke of And this is of such force that our Protestant Aduersaries grant it to be true and therfore recurr to the Deuills power for their answer and the confutation of our Miracles as the obstinat Iewes did against them of Christ VVHETHER TRADITION TOGETHER vvith the Miracles of Christ and of the Church do demonstrat or undeniably conclude that God reueald the articles of Christian Faith Or vvhether they only demonstrat or cleerly proue that vve are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue that God reuealed them And vvhether it be cleerly euident or more than moraly euident that they are true supernatural Miracles Q. I do think the Parallell between Christs Miracles and those of the Roman Catholik Church or between the obstinat Iewes and the Protestants doth not hold Christs Miracles vvere so euidently supernatural or Diuine that if the obstinat Iewes vvould consider the visible circumstances therof they could not deny them to be true and Diuine Miracles But the Miracles of the Roman Catholik Church I speake of the most authentik are no such for vve Protestants examin and consider all the circumstances of them and yet vve can and do deny them to be true Diuine Miracles A. The parallell doth hold and you will think so if you reflect upon it 1. It is a mistake to belieue that Christs Miracles were so cleerly supernatural and Diuine as to force an assent or acknowledgment of their being so from the Iewes and Gentils that saw them and therfore could not but admire them and consider their surprising circumstances For if the Miracles had appeared to them supernatural and undeniably true no assent of their Faith could be a free act and that vvherwith St Peter own'd Christs Diuinity Math. 16. and for vvhich he deserued to be made the Rock or foundation of the Church vvould not haue bin so particularly applauded and rewarded by Christ himself the other Apostles hauing seen and considered as much as he the Miracles of Christ vvhich moued St Peter to that Confession of Faith and yet no assent of Christs Diuinity flowed necessarily from that their sight and confideration neither vvas it forc't from St Peter but vvas a free act and assent of his after seing all the Miracles and considering their circumstances to say Thou art Christ Son of the liuing God The obstinat Iewes therfore did consider all circumstances of Christs person and Miracles as much as those vvho belieued them to be Diuine nay more because the Scribes Pharisees and the Doctors of the law searcht and pry'd more narowly into his actions and were better able to iudge of their being natural or supernatural than most of those who belieued his Miracles vvere Diuine and himself the Messias And this appeareth in many passages as in that of the blind man vvhom they cast out of the Synagogue for they understood the Miracle better than himself and vvere sufficiently conuinc't of the cure and matter of fact It vvas not therfore vvant of consideration of the circumstances of Christs person and Miracles that made the learned Iewes obstinat but their abundance of pride vvhich made them auerse from submitting their iudgments to Christs doctrin notwithstanding they had moral euidence of the Diuinity of his person and of the supernaturality of his Miracles Q. I can not comprehend how Christs Miracles or any others can oblige men to belieue his doctrin or conuince them of obstinacy and heresy for not belieuing it and his Diuinity unless it be first made cleerly and undeniably euident to them that the Miracles are true and supernatural As for your Moral euidence of their being true Miracles it is not strong enough to build therupon so absolute an assurance as is requisit in our acts or assents of Christian Faith vvhich excludes all doubts and euen all moral possibility of falsood A. I often told you that the certainty and assurance of Christian Faith is not grounded vpon the euidence of Christs Miracles or any others of his Church being true Miracles or of its Tradition being infallible but upon Gods Veracity vvhich is so infinitly auers from all Kind of falsood that he will no more permit any to be so probably and plausibly fathered upon him as the Roman doctrin is than positiuely promote it Now Christs Diuinity and the doctrin of the Roman Catholik Church being confirmed by such prodigies and signs as haue a moral euidence of being supernatural and true Miracles this makes it moraly euident to all men that none but God is Author of that doctrin and of the prodigies which confirm it This moral euidence of God being the Author is not indeed as you say strong enough to beare and ground upon itself the assurance of an assent or act of Christian Faith but it is a prudent and sufficient inducement to belieue most certaintly and without any Kind of doubt that God would not permit so great an appearance of his authority as the miracles of Christ and of the Roman Church manifestly shew to all the