Objection p. 52 We have security for the Salvation of a Child dying immediatly after Baptism Protestants have none p 57 Our Adversary's Exception against our Doctrine of Purgatory retorted upon Protestants p. 59 The Churches not permiting all Parts of the Scripture indefferently to be Read by all is justified And Her high Sentiment of this Word of God declared p. 61 The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith p. 65 This passage search the Scriptures John chap. 5. makes nothing for Protestants p. 65 The Reason why the Mass is not said in the Valgar Tongue p. 70 The Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation does not destroy experimental knowledge nor deceive our Senses p. 74 In the Eucharist our Senses are not deceiv'd in their proper Object p. 77 Transubstantiation neither inclines us to Idolatry nor Hypocrisie with some questions about the Protestants Communion p. 80 Roman Catholicks do not agree with Heathens in their Veneration and use of Images p. 85 The Protestants do not Adore GOD in Spirit and Truth nor the Roman Catholicks the Cross as GOD. p. 88 Invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary does not withdraw us from God nor dishonour Christ p. 93 Protestants live in Spiritual Slavery not Catholicks The Decree of Innocent the Third in the third Cap. of the General Council of Lateran is not a Decree of Faith p. 96 St. Pauls saying whatsomever is Sold in the Shambles c. 1 Cor. 10. v. 24 25 27. makes nothing against our abstinence from Flesh upon forbidden dayes p. 103 The Proofs our Adversary brings out of Scripture for the Marrying of Church-Men are willfull or Ignorant mistakes of the Word of God p. 107 Religious Vows are allowable p. 111 The three Religious Vows of Poverty Chastity and Obedience are Evangelical Counsels p. 113 Vows put not a Man in a worse condition more then the Law of God p. 118 What is the Fruit of these Vows well observed p. 119 Answers the rest of this matter of Vows p. 122 A Recapitulation or short Repetition of the Contents in this Book p. 127 Answer to the Poscript p. 137 A Reason to prove the necessity of an Infallible Visible Guide p. 13â— ERRATA Pag. 5. Lin. 15. apponent R. opponent P. 7. L. 36. the first of R. the first part of P. 8. L. 3 after least add L. 4. after faction add P. 10. L. 4. can't R. can't L. 10. you R. you Ibid. L. 33. meet R. met P. 11. L. 2. a Infidel R. an Infidel P. 14. L. 26. Augustin R. Augustin L. 4. Conf. c. 5. P. 23. L. 10. one R. on L. 36. before R. before P. 24. L. 17. of the world blot out after the P. 24. L. 24. after Her add L. 3. c. 3. P. 37. L. 20. a possibiliiy R. a possibility P 39. L. 17. for all R. for since all L. 28. runs R run P. 40. L. 26 full out R. fall out P. 58. L. 23. to a R. to be a P. 59. L. 8. canses R. causes P. 72. L. 29. a vulgar R. an unknown P. 79. L. 31. indentification R. identification P. 82. L. 5. splear R. sphear P. 83. L. 22. is not R. and it is not P. 86. L. 36. oscuratus R. obscuratum P. 92. L. 22. Ghost R. Host P. 93. L. 19. Intercessors R. Intercessors P. 95. L. 15. stahding R. standing P. 99. L. 11. ascent R. assent L. 12. ascented R. assented to P. 112. L. 3. tates R. States P. 128. L. 18. that is say R. that is to say P. 129. L. 27. we distinguish R. our distinguishing P. 130. L. 4. the disformity R. difformity P. 133. L. 28. meditation R. mediation P. 140. L. 23. ascent R. assent AN ANSWER To A little Book call'd PROTESTANCY To be Embrac'd OR An infallible Method to reduce ROMANISTS FROM POPERY to PROTESTANCY A Preamble THIS Rare Method so taking in the Fancy of its Author may have some Vanity in it but sure no Verity being found to be Compos'd Chymera-like of two Qualities which destroy each other It is said to be Infallible and New If Infallible it must be according to Protestants the Word of God or at least contained in it and by consequence Ancient and so not new If new it is not the Word of God nor contained in it and so not Infallible Again if new it is a meer Work of Reason and so not a Way to lead Men Infallibly to Truth in matter of Religion CHAP. I. Of our Speculative and Moral or Practical Divinity SECT I. Answer to what is Objected against the R. Catholicks Speculative Divinity I Find our School Divinity is tax'd by our Adversary of a double Sacriledge which is that it both hinders Devotion and enervats Faith But this is a false surmise for how can it be possible that She which alone among all our Sciences makes it Her task to propose to us explain and confirm the Object of Faith and Devotion I mean first God and his Divine Attributs and next how we should Honour Him and behave our selves with his Majesty in our Worship to him should not promote but hinder Faith and Devotion Is it credible say I that this Science with all the endeavour and afforded Light should not help but rather remove us from our end If some short-fighted People think She moves more doubts then She satisfies with Her Solutions The fault is in their weak sight or tainted understanding not in Divinity As when in some the Ill affected Pallate loaths Meats which otherwaies are most wholesome Many things altho' most certain to R. Catholicks are discussed in this Science and brought by Reason to a rigid Tryal by which means doubts which do or may arise to the Enemies of our Faith find a clear Solution Thus Reason then overâ—ome by the very Arms of Reason does not only captivate Her self to obey Faith but moreover freely yields and joynes with Her against the Enemies of our Religion So against the Iews we demand if it was possible that God should become Man Against those who deny the veracity of Scripture if God can lie Against those who hold the Decree of Reprobation in God afore any foreseen Demerit either of Adam or his Posterity This Question is moved whether a Soul alltogether Innocent may be by an infinite Goodness designed to the Eternal Pains of Hell Against Athiests this Querie is made whether or no by the light of Nature one may demonstrate the existence of a God Thus different Questions are made concerning the possibility of different things Be cause the Enemies of our Faith as they easily pass from the denyal of the possible to the denyal of the actual existance of a thing so from the conviction of a possibility they are more easily drawn to avow the actual existence of a reveal'd Object Neither is this the work as our Adversary deems of idle Men unless he thinks them to do nothing
Scripturae Neither am I bound to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini neither ought you to stand to the Authority of this nor I to the Authority of that Let us set matter to matter cause to cause reason to reason the thing is to be examin'd by the Authority of Scripture How ever I explain the passage without difficulty Thus St. Agustin seeing that the Authority of the Council of Nice was of no force with the Arian who rely'd upon no other Council but that of Arimini To draw him out of his hole he provok'd to an Authority common to both viz. to that of the Holy Scripture And this is common in the Schools for Men to lay aside their private priaciples and argue from one which is agree'd on by both parties The sense then of St. Augustin if this passage be his may be this neither am I so tyed to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini that we may not make use of another principle which is common to both SECT II. 'T is an Article of Faith that General approv'd Councils are Infallible AN Article of Faith saies our Adversary must either be clearly contained in Scripture or defin'd by some General Council But that the Decisions of General Conneils are Infallible is neither clearly contained in Scripture nor defin'd by a General Council Therefore 't is not an Act of Faith sayes he that the Decisions of General Councils are Infallible He demands in what Book Chapter and Verse of Scripture or in what General Council this Article is contained Answer First either he Argues out of Protestant or Catholick Principles If out of Protestant Principles then he added ill the second part of his disjunctive since 't is of no weight with them If out of Catholick Principles he oversaw himself in bringing the first part of his disjunctive because 't is deny'd by Catholicks For we deny that it is requir'd that an Act of Faith be clearly set down in Scripture nay that all our Articles be contain'd there or in General Councils either since these two are not our adequat and total Rule of Faith but are compleated in the being of our Rule by Apostolical Tradition which enters in and assures us with equal Authority Wherefore I first deny the Major which failing the whole Argument concludes nothing 2. Giving not granting the Major I deny the Minor and say that Article of Faith is clearly contained in the same Scriptures in which its clearly contained according to Protestants that their General Synods do not Err in the Decision of Controversies arising among them for if as they think it is elearly proven by those passages that their Synods do not Err because they are directed by the Holy Ghost I say it s clearly proven by the same that our General Councils cannot Err because they are directed by the Holy Ghost a possibiliiy of Erring being as repugnant to the Holy Ghost as an Actual Error And by this their acknowledging that their General Synod may Err tho it does not Err they discard their Synod of Authority and disown themselves to be that Body of Pastors which CHRIST conserv's in his Church that hearing them we may not waver like Children and be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine Ephes 4. v. 11. and 14. For if I believe the Body of my Teachers to be fallible I fear and waver in my believe of what they have said and taught me For possibili posito in actu nullum sequitur impossibile There 's no impossibility or absurdity if that which is possible be brought to an Actual Being and so CHRIST would be disappointed in the aim he had when Ephes 4. He made some Pastors in his Church that we might not waver 3. I prove our assertion thus 'T is an Article of Faith to believe the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity because it s clearly set down in Scripture according to Protestants as all other things necessary to Salvation But that a General approved Council or the teaching Church is Infallible is as clearly set down in Scripture as appears by many passages of the same for Math. 18. v. 17. God sends us to the Church for instruction and threatens us there with Damnation or the punishment of an Ethnick if we do not harken to Her and consequently tells us that she is Infallible for his Goodness woul dnot oblidge me under pain of Damnation to hear a Church which might lead me wrong Who hears you hears me saies CHRIST to his Disciples going to preach Luc. 10. but who hears CHRIST is infallibly sure to be well instructed then also he is infallibly sure who is instructed by the Church St. Paul saies that Christ made some Pastors as I said above Ephes 4. v. 1. Why That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every wind of Doctrine Hence we inferr that they are Infallible in what they teach us in matter of Faith for if I thought them fallible I might still waver which would make void the aim of CHRIST in giving us those Pastors and Teachers that we might not waver Then 't is an Article of Faith to believe that a General approv'd Council or the Teaching Church is Infallible If our Adversary still deny this I desire him to quote to me as clear passages out of Scripture to prove the most Blessed Trinity as I have brought for the Infallibility of a General Council or the Teaching Church And since I am confident he cannot he has as much Reason to believe the Infallibility of the Church as an Article of Faith as he has to believe the Mystery of the most B. Trinity to be one SECT III. The Infallibility of a General approv'd Council proven by some other passages of Scripture and our Adversary's explication of them exploded I Ask in the case of General approv'd Councils Erring would not the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church contrary to CHRISTS promise Math. 16. v. 18. For all are not Doctors according to St. Paul 1 Cor. 12. v. 29. The Teachable Church is bound to hear the Teaching Church otherways how are these bound to teach them or feed them with Doctrine as CHRIST commanded the Church when he said to Peter Feed my Sheep Iohn 21. v. 15 16 17. if they are not bound to receive the Food they give them Now if they hearken to them teaching by their fallibility Erronious Doctrine the Blind leads the Blind and so both fall in the Ditch Math. 15. v. 14. or runs Headlong to Hell And does not thus Hell prevail against them And what an Interpretation The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it is this of our Adversary That the Church of CHRIST will remain altho' Invisible notwithstanding the Persecution of Tyrants as in the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST 1. Who saies the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST was Invisible Did not the Faithfull then know one another and where
to find a Pastor for instruction or the receiving of a Sacrament in necessity And did not the chief Pastors expose themselves and so became Martyrs the first thirty three all one after another 2. If it be an Errable Church Visible or Invisible 't is as good as no Church to Christians for what I have said and shall say hereafter If a particular Church or Parish Pastor and People should be all the Week dispers'd here and there about their business would they be said to be an Invisible Church all the Week and onely Visible when they meet on Sunday Is it not enough that they can find one another on Week dayes in a necessity But truly 't is not enough to make a true Church Visible or Invisible if they have not among them true Doctrine as might full out in Protestants supposition of the Churches fallibility To show we can't prove the Infallibility of the Church from St. Pauls saying the Church is the Pilla rand Ground of Truth 1 Timot. 3. v. 15. He explains that passage thus The Church is the Pillar of Truth saies he because the providence of God will not permit all her Children to fall and Err but will always stirr up some to oppose Superstition Idolatry and Error Answer Either those who will always oppose Error and Superstition will be Members of the R. Church or not If they be Members of Her She will always oppose Error as when my Hand Writes I am said to Write and since we know our Saviour has foretold Iohn 14. v. 16. and c. 16. v. 13. That he will always direct Her by his Spirit of Truth 't will be impossible for Her by a consequential Impotency to Err. Likewise 't is impossible to compose a perpetual direction of the Spirit of God with Error If these Opposers of Error are a Church a part I ask whether that Church as distinct from the Roman be Fallible or Infallible If Infallible we have what we demand viz. That the teaching Church of God is Infallible If Fallible then the Church in as much as she opposes Herself to Error may Err which is absurd The Inference is proven thus In as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church she opposes Error and in as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church she is Fallible or may Err. Then in as much as she is distinct from the R. Church she opposing Error may Err. SECT IV 'T is not necessary the Infallibility of the Church be defin'd in a General Council yet it is in General Councils defin'd by a practical definition TO that he asks us in what General Council is defined the Infallibility of General Councils I Answer Asking him mutually first in what Parliament or Act of Parliament is it found declar'd that a Parliament hath a Power to make Acts oblidging the People If he thinks this Question Impertinent and that it would be Impertinent for a Parliament or an Assembly of Men if they were not otherways impowr'd to Assemble and make an Act by which they will have all to submit and acknowledge that they have a Power to oblige the People I desire him to Reason the same way of the Infallibity of a General Council and know that it has not ' its Infallibility from its saying we are Infallible but from God who has been pleas'd to declare it to us by Apostolical Tradition and in the Holy Scriptures also to those who read them with the Light which they have received from the Church of CHRIST As a Parliament then is fore-impowr'd to make Acts and acknowledg'd as such by the People afore they set themselves to make any so is the General Council acknowledged by all the Faithful to have a promise from God of not Erring in their Declaration of an Article of Faith afore they set themselves to declare it or by their Explication of a Truth to take away the Cloud that hindred us to see it I Ans Secondly that it is defin'd in all General approv'd Councils as much as it was necessary by a practical definition or their excercis'd power issu'd out by them in their oblidging Decrees always submissively receiv'd by the Faithful If you say some have refused to receive them my answer is they ceas'd from that time to be number'd among the Faithful Does not a King sufficiently declare himself to be King when he uses the Authority of a King in raising Armies and disbanding them calling a Parliament adjurning proroging or disolving it at his pleasure At last our Adversary brings a strong piece viz. that the General Councils are so farr from pretending to be Infallible Judges of controversial debates that in a set form of prayer appointed to be said atter every Council they pray that God would spare their Ignorance and pardon their Errors Ans I can't light upon this prayer Shall I come as good speed in seeking it as I did with Maximian the Arian Bishop He quots de ordin Cele Con. I desire him to write the Title of the Book at length or rather tell me at the end of what Council this prayer is found Since it is to be said after every Council would not the Council of Trent have it This Council which hath set down things so exactly would it have omitted this But now these Errors are either in matters given out to the People for Articles of Faith or not If not they make nothing against us If these Errors be in matters of Faith I ask are they invincible Errors or vincible if they are Invincible they are not Sinful and so need no pardon If they are vincible it is either by their diligence in using more means to discover the Truth or by an extraordinary assistance of God For this extraordinary assistance it is not in their power to have it and depends only of God For the other if they find themselves not to have us'd all necessary means let them use those they have omitted afore they publish their Decrees for what a simplicity and Impudence would it be to continue in the Error I can avoid and ask pardon for it and so having done what lay in them they will not stand guilty afore God nor in a need of pardon Rather say if some passage be found which may seem to have that sence that in the fore discussion of questions some fear themselves to have been too much wedded as is Natural to Man to their own Opinion these desire God to spare their Ignorance not having upheld their Opinion out of Malice and pardon their fault in this that they were not it may be so humble and deferent to others as they should have been If you say provincial Councils anatematize those who reject their decisions as well as General Councils and so no Argument can be taken from thence for the General Council's Infallibility I Answer Provincial Councils anathematize c. absolutly as the General Councils do I deny conditionally and with submission to
and approbation from the Sea of Rome I grant And this confirmes the Infallibility of the Church To satisfie us our adversary is pleased to say the Romanists demand how shall we resolve our doubts in matters of Faith if the decision of General Councils be fallible He Answers by setting Reason to Reason and trying the matter by the Authority of the Holy Scripture Here I ask if that Collation or comparing of Reason with Reason and tryal by the Holy Scripture be fallible or infallible If fallible it serves for nothing in a matter of Faith of which we are speaking for since I must give an assent Infallible super omnia above all my doubt must be taken infallibly away If it be Infallible I ask Again is it in clearing doubts in fundamentals or integrals of Religion Not infundamentals for there is no doubt in them they being according to Protestants clearly set down to Men in Scripture If in Integrals then say I since a private man useing that means may be infallibly clear'd in his doubts concerning Integrals then a General Council using the same means may be infallibly cleared in them and consequently infallibly propose them to the People to be believ'd since they are infallibly found to be reveal'd by God in Scripture and consequently he who will refuse to believe them will be justly look'd upon as an Heretick SECT V. We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd general Council is Baptis'd ANother Scare-Crow from our Doctrine of Infallibility is that a lawful Council ought to be composed of men who have been really Baptiz'd but R. Cath. can never be sure of such an Assembly sayes our Adversary since the Validity of Baptism depends according to them of the uncertain intention of the Minister And upon the same account they are never certain that their Popes are Priests because perhaps the Bishop who ordain'd them had no such intention Answer First that the Synods and general Assemblies of Protestants be lawful the members of them must be of the Elect for if they are not of the Elect Christ did not dye for them according to the Kirk of Scotland and if Christ did not dye for them they are not Christians and if they are not Christians what Spirit influenced them in making your Catechisms and Profession of Faith in which you believe are found all the foundamentals of Christianity They composed them they put them into your hands by their Authority as a motive of credibility you rely upon them How are you more assured that they are of the Elect then that our members of a General Council are Baptiz'd Is it written in their faces O but they have a gift of prayer had not Major Wyer in appearance one and a very great one Answer Secundo We are sure of the Baptism of the Major part of the General Council when we see it approv'd by the Pope because it belongs to the providence of GOD not to permit a General Council unlawful for some hidden defect to have all the outward form of a lawful Council for so he would give an occasion of Error to the whole Church believing it to be a lawful Council if as it might fall out such a Council should propose a false Doctrine to be believed Since the Faithful acknowledge they are bound to hear the teaching Church Matth. 18.23.17 A Subsect The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity OUr Adversary having prov'd as he imagin'd the Fallibility of the teaching Church draws these conclusions The Church is fallible then she imposes no obligation to believe her Decisions as Articles of Faith then who rejects Transubstantiation Purgatory c. are not Hereticks Answer From that antecedent the Church is Fallible he might as well have drawn these conclusions then There is no Faith nor true Religion For if the Church be fallible in her Decisions then she is fallible in teaching us that Christianity is the true Religion then it s only probable that Christianity is the true Religion Again if it be only probable that Christianity is the true Religion theâ— its only probable that CHRIST is God Go further if it be only probable that CHRIST is God then it may be he is not God Is this a pretty Discourse Is not this Discourse rationally deduc'd from that antecedent The Church is Fallible thâ— Church nevertheless which God will have us hear under pain of disobeying him Where is then Faith Where is true Religion If you say the former Discourse is not Rational because you have another Principle to wit the Holy Scripture by which you prove the Infallibility of Christianity I ask by what Principle prove you that the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture and in which only it is to you a Principle of Demonstrating the Infallibility of Christianity is the Word of God By no other but by your private Light or Spirit but this is Fallible as I shall show anon then if the other Principle of the whole Churches Decision be also Fallible the former Discourse was Rational it following from any Principle you please to take for your religion if your principle carry with it fallibility and consequently onely probability of that which is inferred from it Now I prove that your private Light or private Spirit is fallible You are not sure 't is the Spirit of God that enlightens you afore you have try'd it by the Scripture try the Spirit sayes St. Iohn 1 Iohn cap. 4. v. 1. You won't try it by the Church then you must try it by Scripture Again you cannot read the Scripture in Order to try this Spirit afore you are sure you are enlighten'd and guided by the Spirit of God for if perchance it be the ill Spirit transfiguring himself into an Angel of Light who guids you he 'l make that seem to you true which is false If you can't be sure it is the Spirit of God that inlightens you you can't be sure that the spirit which inlightens you is Infallible then it s fallible and consequently your private Light or private Spirit is fallible And if your private Spirit with all the help of the Scripture is fallible and in your Opinion the Spirit of the Church in a General Council is also fallible I pray what Infallible Principle have we from which we may deduce or Demonstrate the Infallibility of the Christian Religion if we have none we are shaken out of our Faith and have no true Religion Be pleas'd to take notice then that you must assert with us the Infallibility of the teaching Church According to that Ephes 4. v. 11. He made some Pastors and Doctors c. that we be not Children wavering and carried away with every wind of Doctrine Or you have no ground to stand on for Christianity Reflect again how can we but waver in our thoughts and be ready to be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine if we believe that the Church which is Teaching us is fallible
and so it may be leading us wrong This thought frustrates and makes void the design of CHRIST who made some Pastors and Doctors a purpose that we might not waver To confirm more this Catholick Tenet of the Infallibility of the Church conceive well that that Religion cannot have true Faith which rejects this Principle of Infallibility by which all Errors in Faith have been condemn'd and admits the Principle of a private Light by which all Errors in Faith have had their rise in the Church and without which Men could not so much as pretend to defend them CHAP. V. Of the Roman Catholick Faith and Doctrine SECT I. A Word by way of entry into this matter OUr Adversary sayes our Faith is so blind that he hath heard many of ours say if a General Council had defin'd white to be black they would believe it Whereby we are seen disposed sayes he to admit of any Error if it be Authoriz'd by a General Council Answer First such Arguments fetch'd from the Testimony of an Antagonist are of no weight since according to the Methode of the School we are bound to credit no more brought by an Adversary then what he proves In the second place I ask him if clear Scripture should tell him that Black is White would he believe it or not Would he not believe it Then he would prefer his private Light to clear Scripture which to do is Impious Would he believe it Then he is found dispos'd say I to admit of any Error if it be set down in clear Scripture He 'll say to me the case is not alike because the Scripture is the Word of God and the Decree of a General Council the Word of Men. But by his Favour we hold that this also is the Word of God tho uttered to us by the Mouth of Men according to that of the Acts cap. 15. and v. 18. It hath seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and us If he say 't is impossible that God should say by the Scripture that Black is White I say 't is also as impossible he should say it by a General Council giving it out as a Decree of Faith But absolutely speaking can't that Assembly of those Men advance such a proposition I Answer Absolutely speaking they can but then we would not believe it because that proposition neither belonging to Faith nor good manners which are the whole and adequat Object to which their Infallibility extends it self as we R. Catholicks hold it layes no Obligation upon us to believe it Moreover to give something to what our Adversary sayes he heard say Since in Aristotles Principles an Accident is really distinguish'd from a Substance what if God by his Almighty Power should put the Colour of White in the Subject in which is the Colour of Black would this imply a Contradiction And in this case would not this proposition be true Black is White or the Subject having the Colour of Black is the Subject which has the Colour of White SECT II. The intention of the Minister required by the Church in Baptism explained makes appear the nullity of our Adversaries Objection TO prove that Protestants may be sav'd more easily and with greater security then Romanists our Adversary sayes we teach that Baptism is absolutely necessary to Salvation and no Baptism a true and real one if the Minister when be pronounces the Words has not an Intention to Baptize which no doubt happens frequently sâ—â—es he since the Intention may be easily diverted to his other designs and affairs Answer First if as Protestants think Baptism is absolutely necessary to none Catholicks are not really less secure as to their Salvation because they think it necessary Secondly If I ask any Minister after he haâ— Christened a Child if he did not Intend to do what CHRIST ordain'd to be done in Baptism and what is ordinarily done by his Church Without doubt he 'l tell me he did And this is all the Intention the Church requires in the Priest Baptizeing If you say the Priest or Minister may be diverted from this Intention by a thought of his other affairs so say I may he be diverted by the same from that Intention which you require to wit of pronouncing the Words and applying the Water and so you have as much to fear you are not Baptiz'd as we But that which hinders us both to fear is this that we do not require an Actual Intention or a Reflection of my understanding that my will Intends which Actual Intention is indeed lost by a Distraction or thought of another thing and this seems to be the mistake of our Adversary by his saying the Priest's Intention may be easily diverted to his other affairs but only a Vertual Intention which stands with an Actual thought of another thing then that I am doing as when a Man playes on the Virginals and speaks to another of something else both at once We say this motion of his Fingers is not of it self but proceeds from a motion of the Will and a direction of the understanding tho' not sensible or preceptible by Reason of the weakness of these two Acts compared to the strength of an Actual Intention This Intention is called Vertual because it is 〈◊〉 were the Vertue or Vicar of the Actual Intention left by it to supply its place in order to do that which was first Actually Intended with a sensible and strong reflection of the understanding upon the Intention of the Will Neither is it destroyed by the explicite thought of another thing so this other thing be not incompatible with the Action to which this Vertual Intention moves and directs For Example my speaking of some other thing suffers at the same time my playing on the Organ which playing is directed by the Vertual while I have an Actual Intention to speak of another thing Now to prove that in Baptizing this Vertual Intention is sufficient not denying but that the Actual is most laudable I desire Men consider we have no other in all our Moral Actions which have a notable duration and succession of parts Would you have a Man who is going a Foot ten miles to a Market talking earnestly with another of Buying or Selling all the Way Actually intend and successively reflect beside all his other Discourse upon every individual step of his Journey This were to make his Head fitter for the Hospital then for the Market when he comes thither Yet to every individual step his Foot is mov'd by the Will intending and the understanding directing not Actually then Vertually as I have explain'd From all this you see the R. Catholick is really as secure in matter of Baptism as the Protestant and has as little Reason as he to fear its nullity But if by a Diabolical malice which is a case more Metaphysical than Moral the Priest or Minister had not a sufficient Intention and the Invalidity of the Baptism were wholly unknown to the Person Baptized then
is impossible say they what perfection can be had if all our Actions be Sins Are Sins and perfections Synonima's Can I command my self to think that that man who is confessedly acknowledged to be composed of iniquity and to do nothing but abomination from Morning till Evening lives innocently like an Anchoret an Austere and Godly Life How can Protestant Doctrine give them a deeper fear of Hell if in that same that they fear Hell they believe and see clearly that they cannot be saved Because who fears has not assurance which is the portionâ— of every just Man since he is not just unless he believe that his Sins are remitted by the Merits of Christ And must every man to whom the Gospel is Preached believe this How many then believe a lye Or what reason have you to believe it more then any other to whom the Gospel is Preached Because you find your self to walk more Cautiously then Romanists But how do you walk more cautiously then we Since if you avoid one damnable Sin you necessarily fall into another seeing you cannot do any thing with all the assistance of the Grace of Christ which is not an abomination in the sight of God This is a cold comfort to Protestants and all this sad Doctrine comes from that great Protestant Principle Baptism does not take away Original sin So that as a poysoned Fountain runs nothing but poysonous Water the Soul of Man still remaining corrupted with Original Sin brings forth nothing but corruption How will Souls so foul enter Heaven Protestants smile if from this passage Matth. 12. v. 33. Some Sins shall neither be forgiven in this World nor in the World to come we silly Romanists infer that since no Sin is forgiven in Hell or Heaven there must be a third place in the other World call 't as you please in the which some Sins may be forgiven But may not we rather laughout at the fancy of Men who acknowledging themselves to be all broken out with the runing sores of Original Actual Sin think with an imaginary cloaking of themselves with the Justice of Christ above all is hidden filth they shall enter Heaven as 〈◊〉 as a Plague Person under a disguise enters a 〈◊〉 Hospital â—â—e Master of the Hospital may be deceived I 〈◊〉 but God who hath said that nothing which â—â—s shall enter Heaven Rev. cap. 21. v. 27. â—ot be deluded SECT V. â—he Churches not permitting all Parts of the Scripture indifferently to be read by all is Justified And her high sentiment of this word of God declared MAny stumble at the Churches not permitting indifferently all those who only understand the holy Scriptures in a vulgar Tongue to read them But without reason this is first the great veneration the Church has for the Word of God not to submit his high Mysteries to the Interpretation of every Ignorant Creature while upon all occasions they read it with as little respect as if it were a Romance or a play Book and give their verdict of its meaning the Prophet Malachy in the mean time cap. 2. v. 7. sayes the lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and the Law they shall require of his Mouth Secondly The Church deals with her Children as Christ dealt with his Apostles John 16. v. 12. and St. Paul with the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3 v. 2. Christ did not propose to them all the strong truths while they were week in Vertue I have said he many other things to tell you which you are not able to bear at present Iohn 16.12 And St. Paul gave the Corinthians Milk not then stronger Food saying to them that they were not yet able 1 Cor. 3. v. 2. Wise Parents at a great Table do not let their Children take what they please but give them of Meats presented what they know to be fit for their weak Stomach So the Church allows the learned to feed themselves with the Holy Scripture she gives of the same Table to the unlearned by their Pastors and Teachers what is fittest for them lest having the whole Bible in their hands especially without the Notes for the better understanding of it they wrong themselves as those who as St. Peter 2 Pet. 3. v. 16. speaks wrested some passages of St. Paul as also the other Scriptures to their own destruction Destruction Implyes more then mistakes in Indifferent matters Would it not startle an Ignorant to hear afore the Passage is explained what God said to the Prophet Isaiah cap. 6. v. 10. Blind the heart of the People c. Lest perhaps they may see with their Eyes and be converted Would an Infinite Goodness says an Ignorant command a Prophet to do so Would it not amaze the same to read in the first of Hosea v. 1. That God commanded him to take a Whore and take to himself Children of Whoredom Is it possible sayes the Ignorant that Sanctity it self should speak so With what surprizing passages will an Ignorant Carnal Man meet with in the Canticles Respect then the Holy Ghost in the Conduct of the Church and do not think that her Children who do not nor cannot read the Scriptures live in ignorance Lukewarmness Indifferency without relishing Heavenly things without true Devotion more then Abraham Isaac and Iacob who had the same want but were Instructed to the Piety we read of by the Tradition from others as our unlearn'd are by the Labours of our Pastors and Preachers who not being diverted from their Book and Prayer by the necessary care of providing for Wife and Children Meditate at leasure the Holy Bible and study how they may best deliver to the People the Truths they find there both necessary to Salvation and conducing to Persection And this aboundantly suffices unless you will exclude also among Protestants all those who cannot read from Devotion as if God had design'd only great Wits for Heaven Add to all this that if the Scripture put into every private Mans hand and being understood by him according to his best Judgement be to him a sufficient Rule of Faith which without doubt would breed as much confusion in the Church as the Law Book Interpreted by every private Man without Obligation to submit to the Kings Judges would do in the Kingdom what need have you of Ministers more then Quakers If every one be thus capable to understand the Word why is he not capable to Preach it And if he be capable to Preach it to others or stirr them up to the Faith of Justifying Grace why is he not capable to give also the Sacrament or the Sign of it receiv'd If you say that God has ordained Bishops or Presbyters to Govern the Church I answer 't is not Civily but in Doctrine what will this Government in our case serve for but to make them Hypocrites since they must then believe outwardly what the Minister Teaches and inwardly what their own light perswades them often contrary to the Ministers perswasion When we
Petition presented by him but only in General that it was for what he desired or made in favour of him 5. If any be contentious for our not using a vulgar Tongue in our Lyturgy our Answer is with St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 16. we have no such Custome nor has had the Church of God for 1600. Years and more 6. By unknown Tongues the Apostle means not of Hebrew among the Iews Greek among the Grecians or Latin among us of the Western Church which is understood of the learned and civil People in every great City but of Miraculous Tongues which Men spoke in the Primitive Church as a Mark that they had received the Holy Ghost Think you that the Lyturgy is said in the Greek Church in an unknown Tongue because it s said in propâ—â— Greek not now understood by the vulgar SECT VIII The Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation does not destroy experimental knowledge nor deceive our Senses OUr Adversary sayes that Transubstantiation destroyes all evidence grounded in the experimental knowledge of our senses and makes void the proof CHRIST made use of to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit To understand my Answer to this Objection of our Adversary you must know First that the Principle of experimental knowledge is this for example wheresoever are all the Accidents of Bread there is the substance of Bread unless the Author of Nature hinder its presence there Secondly That this conditional must be alwayes added in Reverence to the Almighty Power of God otherwayes by this Experimental knowledge a Combustible thing laid in the Fire burns 'T would follow that the Children in the Furnace of Babylon were burnt contrary to what is said in Daniel 3 cap. v. 50. These two things being known I answer that evidence grounded upon experimental Knowledge stands in its full vigour with our Doctrine of Transubstantiation as is clear to him who in this true Supposition of Experimental Knowledge considers it For we deny Bread to be in the Eucharist where all the Accidents of Bread are because the Author of Nature hinders the presence of Bread to be there as he has revealed it to us in several places of Scripture And consequently I deny that Transubstantiation destroyes more Experimental Knowledge than Protestant's belief that the Angels who appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were Angels and not Men destroys it Had not the Angels appearing to them all the Accidents of Men as our Eucharist has all the Accidents of Bread And did not they look as like men as it looks like Bread Secondly It makes void sayes he the proof Christ brought to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit Handle me and see sayes our Saviour for a Spirit has no Flesh Luke 24. v. 39. which can be no conviction to Romanists who see Bread in the Eucharist if they will trust their own Senses Answ Do Protestants make void the proof Christ made use of to his Apostles when they say that the Angels of which afore that appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were not Men but Angels No say you because GOD hath revealed that they were Angels Neither do we Romanists when we say that in the Eucharist that which appears like Bread is the Body of Christ under the form of Bread and not Bread because our Saviour hath Revealed that it is his Body Our Saviours proof says our Adversary that he was not a Spirit shall never influence a Papist to conviction Answer This I deny for in this case we have both evidence of the senses and our Saviours Word and no Revelation contradicting them and therefore are fully convinc'd to believe it But for Bread in the Eucharist we have indeed the evidence of sense but not Christs word but on the contrary we have our senses contradicted by Christs infallible word Must not a Man be in Eclipse or under a Cloud not to see this Disparity To clear then our Adversary in his mistake I let him know that our Saviour undertook to prove that he had a true Body which is the Natural Remote object of our senses by the Judgment of his Disciples senses But never to prove Immediatly an Object or Mystery of Faith such as our Eucharist is by the Judgment of our senses I say Immediatly because having prov'd Immediatly that this was his true Body mediatly he proved in that Circumstance that it was risen again Nay when we come to such Mysteries of Faith we must not only Captivate our Senses but Reason also if we will believe St. Paul 2 Cor. 10. v. 5. As to that he sayes that our Transubstantiation favours the Opinion of the Marcionists its manifestly false to those who know the Marcionists Opinion to wit that Christ had not a true Body but only in appearance For who grants our Transubstantiation must grant that the Body of Christ is there either really and substantially or in appearance But under the appearance of Bread cannot be the appearance of the Body of Christ to wit the Shape Bulk Colour and Extention of all the parts of his Body for how can all these stand together with the proper Accidents of Bread in the lest Particle of the Host And consequently they not being there his reall Body must be there to make the grant of Transubstantiation good Subsect 1 In the Eucharist our senses are not deceiv'd in their proper Object OUr Adversary saies let us torture our discursive faculty never so much we shall never be able to prove that our senses are not deceived representing to us as Bread what really if we are believed is not Bread Answer That our senses are not deceived in their proper Object I prove thus The proper Object of our senses are only the Accidents of Bread in the Eucharist our senses represent to us the Accidents Colour Taste c. after the Consecration just as they did afore then they are not at all deceived in their proper Object You 'l say their proper Object is also the Substance of Bread and in that they are deceived since after Consecration according to us there is no Bread Answer I deny that the Substance of Bread is their proper Object it s the Object of the understanding which from the senses Anticedent representation to him of all the Accidents of Bread infers that the Substance of Bread is there viz. ordinarily and naturally when it is not revealed to him that the Author of Nature has disposed otherwaies So that the Substance of Bread is only improperly by Accident and occasionally called the Object of our senses in as much as they by their Relation to him of all the Accidents of a Substance give him occasion to Judge certainly that the Substance is also there when he has no Revelation from God of the contrary If our Eyes are deceived in Transubstantiation was not the Iews Eyes deceived in the Incarnation representing CHRIST as a Human Person By this solution you have an Answer to all
exhibetur refertur ad prototypa quae illae representant Ita ut per Imagines quas osculamur coram quibus caput aperimus procumbimus Christum adoremus sanctos quorum illae silmitudinem gerunt veneremur Id quod Niceni Synodi Decretis Can. 2. Act. 3 4. contra Imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum That is The Holy Synod c. commands the Pictures of Christ of the Virgin Mother of GOD and other Saints to be had and retained especially in Churches and that one give to them the due respect and Veneration not that we believe that there is any Divinity or Vertue in them for which they are to be Honour'd or that we ought to ask any thing of them or that we ought to put our trust in Pictures as the Gentiles did who plac'd their hope in Idols but because the Honour which is given to them is directed to the Originals which they represent So that by Images which we kiss and afore which we take of our Hats and bow down we Adore Christ and Worship the Saints whose likeness they represent to us And this is ratified by the Decrees of the Council of Nice Can. 2. Act. 3 4. From Image Worship he comes to that of the Consecrated Host and saies this is more intolerable because the Priest may forget the intention of Consecrating or designedly will not to Consecrate it Answer Of this Intention I spoke enough in the matter of Baptism and how hard it is for a Priest not to have a virtual one such as I explained there and which suffices But if you suppose him to omit it maliciously there will not be for that danger of Idolatty for all Worship and Adoration given to the Host altho explicitly and formally it be absolute yet virtually and implicitly it involves this condition If it be Consecrated So if it be not consecrated my adoration doeth not fix on it but goes to him whom I intended to adore not to what I see to wit the species of Bread and thus ther 's no Idolatry commited Because it fals out often that he is thought the Father of a Child who really is not did our Adversary doubt to respect him who was his Father No more Reason have Catholicks to doubt to yield to the Holy Host a Soveraign Worship For the reliques of Saints because we meet with many we know not whither they be authentick or not our respect to them always involves in it this Tacit condition of which above if it be the true relique of such a Saint As to that he sayes 't is not of Faith that the Soul of such a Saint for example of St. Francis of Assisium is in Heaven I deny it because altho' the Pope be not Infallible in his canonizing as some Roman Catholicks hold yet when his Decree is receiv'd by the acceptation of the whole Church by their positive cult and Honouring of the Saint its equivalent to the Decree of a General Council SECT III. Invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary does not with draw us from God nor dishonour CHRIST OUr Doctrine sayes our Adversary relating to the Mediation of the Virgin Mary and other Saints with-draws us from rendring to Christ due Honour and Glory c. Answer He does not remark the difference which is between Intercession and Impetration Intercession presupposes always a request or desire which is a Prayer made to be presented by the Intercession to God or to him from whom we intend to obtain a Favour to whom the address is made for the Client or Petitioner by the Intercessor Impetration not always for a Favour may be obtained from the King for me on which I did not so much as Dream Thus you see our invocation of Saints as Intercessors does not withdraw us from God because it presupposes the request made to be presented by them to God Nay nor from due Honour to Christ since in all our Prayers in which the Church has her recourse to Saints in the Mass or Breviary after we have begun our Prayer by God saying O God c. we always end per Dominum nostrum Iesum c. desiring that whatsomever we Pray for to be given us from God by the Intercession of Saints come to us through the Merits of Jesus So we only Pray them that they Pray that what we demand may be given us through the Merits of Christ And this way is so far from Dishonouring Christ that it Honours him more as he signified of the Centurion who thinking himself unworthy to approach Christ immediatly made his approach first by his Friends whom he imagin'd more in Favour with Christ Luke 7. v. 3. and 6. And Christ praised him Matth. 8. v. 10. For this Humility proceeding from the Faith he bad of the Grandour of his Person And if God had alwayes demanded our immediate recourse to himself he would not have sent Eliphaz to Iob Iob 42. v. 8. saying Go to my Servant Job and my Servant Job will Pray for you for him will I accept Here you see v. 7. that God would not hear Eliphaz who had offended him Are you who reject the recourse to Saints more Innocent afore God then Eliphaz was Lay your Hand to your Heart But why did God send Eliphaz to Iob Because Iob had Honoured him and God says 1 Sam. 2. cap. v. 30. who will have Honoured me I will Honour him Now for our Invoking the Name of Mary is it less Holy then that of David And yet did not Solomon Pray thus for thy Servant David 's sake turn not away the Face of thy Anointed Psalm 132. v. 10 As if he had Pray'd God thus O Lord who hast said Exod. 20. v. 5. I am the Lord thy God a Zealous God visiting the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children into the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me Thou hast also said vers 6. showing Mercies unto thousands of them that love and keep my Commandments Thou then who hast mercy on Children for the Sainctity of their Parents have mercy on me for my Fathers sake What mean't Iacob Gen. 48 v. 14. when he bid his Name be call'd upon the Sons of Iosepth but that he expected God should do them good upon that call for his sake And what mean't Moses praying for the whole People Exod. 32 v. 11. When he besought God to remember Abraham Isaac c And was not God pacified there-with v. 14. Note in the old Testament they did not say as we do now to Saints pray for us because the Fathers were not yet in Heaven nor saw God The way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing Heb. 9 v. 8. I avow then we mind indeed sick People invock Jesus and Marry together but in a different way Jesus to save them and Mary to Pray him for them If some simple People rely more on what they do then on what Christ did
for them 't is not the Churches fault tho' it may be the fault of some particular Pastor neglecting the Instruction of his Flock CHAP. VII Of our Ecclesiastical Discipline SECT I. Protestants live in Spiritual Slavery not Catholicks The Decree of Innocent the third in the third Cap. of the General Council of Lateran is not a Decree of Faith TO his saying the R. Church imposes besides the written Law so many Obligations on her Subjects that Popery is justly call'd a meer Slavery I Answer She imposes none not contained in the Law of God explicitly or Implicitly Since God has bid Bishops or the Teaching Church Govern the Church viz. the directed Church and Commanded us to hear Her or them 't is no more Slavery to us to Obey Her in Spiritual matters then for the Subjects of a Kingdom to Obey in Civil matters the Commands of a Vice-Roy or a Commissioner The Protestants indeed live in a Spiritual slavery according to their Principles because when they have Grace they are necessitated by it and when they want it they are necessitated by their concupiscence and so are ever without Liberty in Slavery The business our Adversary drives at in this Objection is this that the Church incroaches upon the Temporal Dominions of Princes by deposing Kings untying their Subjects from their Allegiance to them and giving their Lands to such as can Conquer them As may be seen in the third Chap. of the fourth General Lateran Council under Innocent the Third Answer Let our Adversary Read that Decree with the Eyes of a Divine and he 'l find that that Decree is not of Faith and therefore does not oblidge us to believe it The Decrees of Faith in that Council being gathered into the first Chap. Intituled de Fide Catholica The Tenets of the Catholick Faith Let him then learn to distinguish another time a Decree of Faith from a Decree of Precept The first oblidges always and every where the other not always nor every where but may be chang'd the circumstances changing As I said when I told how a General Council may be mended And this I show in this present Precept of the fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third now ceasing For are R. Catholicks in France Germany England Scotland c. admonish'd to take that Oath of Ridding their Lands of Hereticks Or are they thought by the R. Church not good Catholicks because they do not do it Then you see this Oath may be omitted with a safe Conscience and Princes be without fear of having their Subjects free from their Obedience Moreover I say that under the general notion of Potentats Soveraigns are not comprehended no more then Abbots under the General Name of Monks tho' really they are Monks In fine if you will not be satisfied with these solid solutions remember that the Embassadours of Kings were present at the Council so that if they knew 't was mean'd also of their Masters and they did not oppose the Decree afore it was passed volenti non sit Injuria no Injury is done to him who is willing This Decree I know is a common place for Protestants not considering that they hit themselves on the Heel when they bring it against us giving us an occasion to reflect not by a mistake but with Truth upon them since the chief Principle supposed by the first Beginers of their Reformation was that it was Lawful not only to refuse all Obedience but to take Arms against their own Natural Soveraign for the Reformation of Religion If they deny this Principle as never supposed by their Predecessors then they must grant that the first Broachers and Abettors of their Reformation were all Traytors and Rebels since they begun it by Sedition and Rebellion against their Lawful Soveraigns in Germany France Geneva Holland and Scotland What was the great ground of the Bloody Scots Covenant Have we not seen of late a number of Clowns and Crafts-Men by their private Interpretation of the Bible free themselves from all due Obedience to their King and in their Conventicles endeavour to take from him all Royal Power by their seditious Sermons and Declarations as in those who were published at Sanchir and Rouglin Many of which remain so obstinate in their ridiculous perswasions that they will rather Dye then give any acknowledgment of submission to a most Gracious and Loving Prince You 'l say they are not true Protestants Answer I pray in what Fundamentals do they differ from you What a Childish Discourse is this which follows when he says that the Romish Church forbids Her Followers the use of their Rational faculty to find out the true Church Why then does She propose to our Rational Faculty to move it to Assent or to be confirmed in that we have Assented to marks out of Scripture of Her being the true Church Telling us first that we see in Her as was foretold Ephes 4. A perpetual and visible Succession of Pastors since the Apostles time Is it credible that God by a special Providence notwithstanding so many Persecutions would have Conserv'd that perpetual Succession of Pastors to teach Superstition and Idolatry And not Conserv'd a Succession of Pastors among Protestants to teach the true Religion As we then have the same Spiritual Power ever Descending and continued from the Apostles time so have we also with it the same True and Apostolical Doctrine Descending from Father to Son since the Apostles time to us Secondly That there is no Doctrine or Faith now Preach'd to all Nations according to the Command of Christ Matth. 28. v. 19. given to his Apostles but that of the Roman Church It s altogether amazing if the Protestant Doctrine be true and Evangelical Doctrine that GOD has never stirred up any of the Protestant Preachers to go with an Apostolical Spirit through Poverty Afflictions Persecutions c. as the Apostles did to instruct many Barbarous Nations in Africa Asia America but makes use only to give the knowledge of his Holy Name to them of Idolaters and Superstitious Romanists the true Preachers staying at Home with their Wives and Children Thirdly That moreover this Faith and Doctrine altho so Universal yet all the Believers thereof have such an Unity and Agreement among themselves in matters of Faith and such a subordination to the visible Head of the Church that they make as Christ said of his Sheep Iohn 10. v. 16. one Flock and one visible Pastor they both receiving all Spiritual Light Grace and Direction from their invisible Head and Pastor Iesus Christ Fourthly That the Doctrine of the R. Church leads evidently to a Sanctity of Life and Worship of God Almighty by a Sacramental Confession of Sins Fasting Praying Self-denyal Mortifications of the Flesh Good Works keeping GODS Commandements by Vows the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and many Ceremonies by which outward show we make appear our inward respect to God From hence it comes that in all Ages among the Believers of
Advers inveighs against the rigour of the Catholick Church not knowing sayes he that true Vertue consists mainly in an Intire Victory we should Endeavour to get over our own Passions Answer Holy People Endeavour to get this Victory by the Mortification of their Bodies Iudith that famous Woman chosen by God for the saving of her Nation wore a Hair Cloath upon her Loins not to speak of Her Fasting all the Dayes of Her Life except the Sabbaths New Moons and the Feasts of the House of Israel Iudith 8. St. Iohn the Baptists led a rigorous Life in the Wilderness and St. Paul besides his stupendious Labour by Teaching and Preaching added a chastising or Scourging of his Body least after he had Preach'd to others he should become a Reprobat Himself 1 Cor 9. v. 27. What means he 2 Cor. 4. v. 10. when he says always bearing about with us the Mortification of Jesus in our Bodies that the Life of Jesus may be manifested in our Bodies What was this Life of Jesus a perpetual Mortification of his Body from his Cradle to his Cross Our new inlightned Men find another way to overcome their Passions to wit abstaining from the Chastisement of the Body Deny thy self take up thy Cross and follow me sayes our Saviour Matth. 16. v. 24. But does not our Adversary seem rather to say take thy satisfaction in Eating and Drinking thy fill and so thou wilt be strong to follow him Pamper thy Flesh and so thou wilt be strong to overcome thy Lust Eat and Drink thy fill and I 'll warrant thee thou shalt alay thy Passion of Eating and Drinking for an hour or two But his Experience may have told him that thus he puts a Sword in his Enemies Hand who tho' he lay quiet for a while will rise up more firce hereafter Bellarmine said indeed that if he were Pope he would take away Lent but he added that in its place he would order to Fast on Wednesday all the Year over Does the exchange of fourty Fasts with fifty two favour the inclination of our Adversary to Feasting SECT III. The Proofs our Adversary brings out of Scripture for the Marrying of Church-Men are either willfull or Ignorant mistakes of the Word of God MArriage in the purest Age was not forbidden to Ecclesiasticks sayes our Adversary which he proves by this passage 1 Tim. 3. v. 2. A Bishop must be blamless the Husband of one Wife Answer First was not St. Paul a Bishop Had he a Wife when he said 1 Cor. 7. v. 8. I say to those who are not Married its good for them if they remain so even as I The sense then of that place is that as St. Paul would have the Church Widow to be the Wife of one Husband or to have been only Married once 1 Tim. 5. v. 9. So he would have a Bishop to be the Husband of one Wife or to have been only once Married Otherwayes what does St. Paul say here particular to a Bishop have other Men two Wives Note in the Birth of the Church it was hard to find among new Converts Men of Maturity for the Government of a Bishoprick who had not been once Married especially at Candy of which Church St. Paul speaks here to Timothy because as Strabo writes L. 10. They had an Antient Law by which all of their Republick were forced from their very Youth to Marry Again to prove that Ecclesiasticks may Marry he brings this passage of St. Paul Marriage is Honourable in all and the Bed undefil'd Hebr. 13. v. 4. Answer First the same St. Paul says 1 Cor. 7. v. 38. He who gives his Virgin in Marriage does well but he that gives her not in Marriage does better And 1 Cor. 7. v. 1. 'T is good for a Man not to touch a Woman The former passage is then to be understood thus Marriage is Honourable in all who may Lawfully Marry but not between Father and Daughter Brother and Sister In Church-Men who have vow'd Chastity in Church-Widows who being admitted to the Service of the Church upon their resolution of not Marrying according to St. Paul 1 Tim. 5. v. 11. Incur Damnation if they Marry because they cast of their first Faith as the Apostle speaks to wit to CHRIST Secondly the Greek Text has Timios o gamos en pasi that is Honourable Marriage in all so where Protestants without ground add is Catholicks with ground add be in the imperative mood and so it imports First an Exhortation to those who are Married that they live Faithful to one another not Dishonouring by Incontinency their Marriage but keeping their Bed undefil'd But why will the Apostle that Marriage be Honourable in all keeping their Bed undefil'd Because as he presently adds Adulterers God will Judge Thus you see Catholicks have a ground to supply the sentence not with is but with be or let it be Secondly To those who desire to Marry that they do not offer to Marry when they know they are not free to Marry being engag'd to others or having an Impediment and so make their Marriage when the Impediment is discover'd Dishonourable However our Latin and English Cath. Text have neither is nor be but Honourabile conubium in omnibus Honourable Marriage in all conform to the Greek Original Text. In the third place to justifie the Marriage of Church-Men who have Vow'd Chastity he brings what St. Paul sayes to Tim. 4. v. 3. That forbiding to Marry is a Doctrine of Devils where he speaks of Manicheans Encratists and Marcionists and others of that Cabal as St. Chrysostom remarks in his 12. Hom. upon that passage it is quite another thing to forbid absolutely to Marry then to forbid only those who have Vow'd Chastity to Marry The Catholick Church does not forbid to Marry but only forbids to break a Vow made to God I think no Body will say that it is a Doctrine of Devils to fulfill what one has solemnly promised to God The thing being Lawful in it self Deut. 23. v. 21. When thou shalt Vow a Vow to the Lord thy God thou shalt not slak to pay it for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee Now the Catholick Church shows she Honours Marriage more then Protestants because she looks upon it as a Sacrament which Protestants do not His instance of Zacharie sayes nothing against us for we do not deny that the Priests of the Old Law Married but only we say they did not use their Wives those dayes their turn was to Sacrifice Luke c. 1. v. 23 24. And seeing our Priests must Sacrifice every day they ought to abstain from that Action so remote from the Spirit and dulling it in order to Divine thoughts at that time that our mind ought to be sursum corda raised above our senses hence Origen said Hom. 23. in num It seems to me that it belongs only to him to offer the continual Sacrifice who has dedicated himself to a continual and perpetual
that he is condemned by Scripture then Scripture alone cannot be our Judge nor does God himself by Scripture alone decide our differences In the mean time without a Judge we are all loose in our Opinions Hence Confusion Fire Sword Church against Church and Dissention among the People to the Destruction of the Nation And what is the business What is the Quarrel They won't submit their Judgment to mine To yours And why should they submit their Judgment more to yours than you to theirs Who thinks himself to be void of wit or not to abound in Judgment quisquis in suo sensu abundat and if it be true that there is no Infallible Visible Judge why may not I hope that God gives me as much of his Divine assistance as to you since I use as much diligence as you to obtain it My LORDS do you see where we are What would the Law Book do in Scotland if your Lordships Wisdoms were not impowered and authorized by his Majesty to determine Causes What Cause does not find an Advocate to make the Law look favourably upon his Clyant Will we make God less wise to keep an Vnion in his Church than Kings to keep an Vnion in their Kingdom A Holy King most earnest to have Justice administred to his People if it were in his Power and he could with his ease enlighten his Judges with Truth in giving their Sentence would he not do it Does not God as earnestly desire as that Holy King that all Men come to the Knowledge of the Truth in matters of Faith if we may believe St. Paul 1 Tim. 2. v. 4. And cannot he if he please without any difficulty enlighten his Church and influence Her with an Infallible assistance in Her Decisions Why then shall we not think he has done so Since he has established Her to Govern us Act 20.28 and subjected us to Her Obedience Matth. 18.17 What do I say shall we not think he has done so Can a Christian rationally doubt yet of it after Christ's saying to Her Who hears you hears me Luc. 10 and after St. Paul's assuring us Eph. 4. that Christ made some Teachers in his Church that we might not waver And who can but waver and be ready to hearken to others who speak with more applause if he Judge his Fore Teachers Fallible in the great and last concern of his Eternity Grant this My LORDS which is evident enough that the Teaching Church of Christ wheresomever She be is Infallible in Her Decisions of Religion and the main Work is done for we will as easily find Her out by Her Marks set down in the Holy Scriptures as the Sun among the Planets in Sole posuit Tabernaculum suum Psal 18. he has made Her as Visible as the Sun What is unreasonable in all this Discourse But if the great Reason of looking strange on us be the imagined difformity of our Religion from the Word of GOD be pleas'd to cast your Wiser Eyes upon this little Book and with your Reason examine impartially the Reasons we bring for the R. Catholick Religion If here and there our Reasons seem to contradict your senses 't is to obey Faith to Her according to St. Paul Rom. 1. v. 5. We owe Obedience and such that we must sometimes captivate our understanding for this performance 2 Corin. 10. v. 5. 'T is true Reason is the Light of Man but Faith is the Light of a Christian To be a Man I must be Rational but moreover I must Believe to have the Title of a Christian God has given us both our Will and our Vnderstanding He will and with all Reason be Honoured by the one aswell as by the other I Honour him with my Will when I Obey his Law I Honour him with my Vnderstanding when I submit to Faith and seek no other evidence than his Word for all I Believe in order to my Salvation As my doing what otherwaies pleases not my Nature because God commands it is a perfect submission of my Will to his command so my Believing what God reveals to me by his Church which otherwaies I don't understand is a perfect submission of my Vnderstanding to his Word A Word worthy of our Adoration God by the force of his Word Created us by the bounty of his Word Redeemed us and by the Submission of our Judgment to his Word revealed to us by his Church expects to Save us Otherwaies not He that Believes not viz. all that he has revealed shall be Damned undoubtedly Mark 16.16 I know My Lords that if a Man find himself convinced to become a Catholick at this time the very fear of being thought to turn upon the account of Gaining or continuing in Favour is no small Stumbling-Block to Persons of Honour But if you have strong Reason on your side what Reasonable Man can wonder Should not they rather wonder to see you Men before in their Opinion so Reasonable now fail and fall from Reason or of so little resolution as to leave an infinite Good for a Good that is so finite so small I mean a conservation of esteem among the Vulgar Of this last I thought good to mind your Lordships in my great Zeal for your Souls and high respect for your Persons coveting to be in Christ MY LORDS Your Lordships most Humble Servant A TABLE Of the CONTENTS Of this BOOK A Preamble Pag. 1 Answer to what is Objected against the R. Catholicks Speculative Divinity p. 2 Answer to what is Objected against R. Catholicks Practical or Moral Divinity p. 4 Protestants cannot be Sav'd even in the Opinion of our Adversary because they don't fulfill what is requir'd by him to Salvation p. 6 Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of Christ p. 9 It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of Belief p. 11 'T is not a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd p. 13 The formal Protestant cannot be Sav'd p. 16 Formal Protestants are Schismaticks p. 22 Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages p. 26 Formal Protestants are Hereticks p. 29 St. Augustin 's saying of the mending of a former Council by a posterior sully answered p. 31 Another Objection solv'd p. 35 'T is an Article of Faith that General approved Councils are Infallible p. 36 The Infallibility of a General approv'd Council proven by some other passages of Scripture and our Adversary's explication of them exploded p. 39 'T is not necessary the Infallibility of the Church be defin'd in a General Council yet it is in General Councils defin'd by a practical Definition p. 42 We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd General Council is Baptiz'd p. 46 The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity p. 47 A Word by way of entry into this matter p. 50 The Intention of the Minister required by the Church in Baptism explained makes appear the nullity of our Adversaries