Arguments are not fully solv'd by them many of their Learn'd Men must see this as I was told of a Minister in France when I was among the French who when his Wife startl'd by what he uttered in a Discourse said to him after if that be true why do we live as we live He answered Her Que Diable veut tu que je fasse avec toy mes Enfans that is What the Devil wilt thou have me do with Thee and my Children To wit if he Liv'd according to what he thought Thus they seeing the R. Catholick Truth and Teaching Protestancy are formal Protestants who as long as they remain so cannot be Sav'd Many of the material Protestants are it may be much held in their way by the Physical Arguments they frame to themselves against Transubstantiation And this depends much of the notion of a Body which hath been given them in Philosophy For if they have been taught for example that the nature of a Body consists in an actual extension of its parts and that accidents are not distinct from the substances it presently appears to them impossible that the whole Body of CHRIST can be in every the least particle of the Host and there under the sole Accidents of Bread But we Catholicks when we see such notions cannot stand with what the Holy Scripture saies the Holy Fathers unanimously teach and the whole Church hath believed from the Apostles time down to us we condemn them knowing that Reason must captivate it self to Obey Faith not Faith submit her self to Reason Don't think for what I have said that I acknowledge a material Protestant who has no doubt in his Faith secure as to his Salvation no I do not indeed deny but that he may be Sav'd but I do not absolutely say that he will be Sav'd for he seing so great changes in the Protestant Religion since its rise the R. Catholicks alone remaining alwayes the same seeing Preachers who were thought Learn'd and Good-men and who had stood stiff to the Covenant as conform to the Word of God now solemnly renounce it acknowledging they have got a new Light he can't I say well but doubt whether he ought to follow them in this Light or in the Light for which they said before as much as for this And since they changed from the former it may be hereafter they will change from this to a third there being no more infallibility in this then in the former And if he doubt he is bound to enquire and hearing that the R. Catholick Church believes Her self to be infallible in what She delivers of Faith Infallibility if it were true being as confess'd by all a certain means to settle Men in Conscience and secure them from all doubts in matters of Religion he is bound to enquire and try if Romanists have any solid ground to bring for this their Tenet and if he find it good in Charity to himself he 's bound to embrace it Next tho' a material Protestant have no doubt he is not in an equal condition in order to Salvation because if he fall into grievous Sin he has no other Remedy then an Act of Contrition or of Sorrow for it purely for the Love of God he has offended which is not so easily had Whereas the Catholick has frequent Sacramental Confession and by it pardon from God which is clearly intimated to us in Io. 20. chap. v. 23. The Sins which you remit are remitted to them A Protestant may say I believe from that passage it not ill but Lawful to Confess to a Minister of the Church but not that we are bound But weigh then say I the following Words Whose Sins you retain or do not pardon are retained are not pardon'd this can't be understood of Protestants Excommunication for if you don 't or can't pardon with what Authority do you or can you retain Both parts belonging to the Function of the same Ministers of God Also the Excommunication is not a formal retaining of Sin but a thing destinct and a sign of your retaining it posterior to the retaining of it Moreover how can the Priest know which Sin he may remit and which he must retain if you do not Confess them to him And St. Augustin in Confirmation of this Confession sayes in his 49. Hom. of the 50. Hom. Tom. 10. Do Penance as it is practised in the Church and let no Man say occulte ago apud Deum ago I do it secretly in the â—ottom of my Heart Ergo saies he Sine causa dictum est quaecunque Solveritis c. Matth. 16.19 Frusâ—ramus Evangelium frustramus verba Christi did Christ then say that in vain sayes He to the Ministers of the Church Whose Sins ye remit are remitted to them We frustrate the Gospel and make void the Words of Christ Besides many as some Apostats come to have no doubt in the Protestant Religion by a punishment from God Eo quod charitatem veritatis non receperunt ut salvi fierent ideò mittes iâ—lis Deus operat onem Erroris ut credant mendacio saies St. Paul ad Thess 2. cap. 2. v. 10. Because they have not cherish'd oâ— embrac'd the Truth which God out of Love manifested to them that by it they might be Sav'd therefore â—od will send them the Operation of Error to believe â—â—ing He will send i. e. saies St. Augustin L. 2. de Civit. Dei cap. 19. Will permit the Devil to do those things viz. to bring them to believe lying These People conscious to themselves of their tepid or vicious Life in the Religion they were in ought not to ground themselves upon their want of doubt in the way they have taken but to use much humble Prayer to God to enlighten them Here I add something our Adversary saies to justifie himself in a Letter to a Friend Sure I am saies He that a knowing Man as one may have Reason to think me to be in such matters can never resist a known Truth So if I be in an Error 't is not an Error of Will but Iudgement for which God damns no Man provided this Error be invincible as undoubtedly mine is allowing what your prepossession inclines you to believe that I am really mistaken There being an invincible Error but less reflected on that comes from knowledge as well as an other more talked of in the Schools that proceeds from want of knowledge Answer Did not Origen and Tertullian resist a known Truth If not why were they condemned If they did resist it may not you also Were they less knowing than you Or less Vertuous in their Moral Life then you One fault was found in them to wit that they would not submit their Judgement to the Church And this is found in you Tho' God damns no Man for an Error of Judgement He may damm a Man for the Sin to punish which he withdrew his Grace and for want of which Grace this Man sell into that Error
are That every one may see clearly whither or no what I hold as a Tenet of Religion is not found among them but is a meer superstruction Will you refuse to a considerable Person who thinks certainly he has seen in the Law Book a Law which justifies the Action for which he is condemn'd to Die Will you I say refuse him a publick sight of that Book to justifie your Sentence against him but notwithstanding the murmur of the People upon your refusal of his demand suspecting him Innocent savagely cast him If not do not condemn us who hold for certainty Transubstantiation to be so Fundamental that no Christian of the first three Ages would have deny'd it A Subsect Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages I Ask our Adversary did those Christians living then believe as a Fundamental point that they were the true Church planted by CHRIST and continued from the Apostles or not If not then they could not say in their Creed I believe in the Holy Catholick Church If they did believe it I ask again upon what ground was truth warranted to them for three hundred Years and not to the Church till the end of the World Was not Gods promise of Infallibility to his Church made to it as well to the end of the World as for the first three hundred Years Isaiah 59. v. 21. This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee to wit the Church and my Words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart out of thy Mouth nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed saith the Lord from henceforth and forever And to the Ephes 4. cap. v. 11 12 13 14. And he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints c. till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. That we henceforth be no more Children tost too and fro and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine by the slight of Men. If he avow the Church fail'd not in Fundamental Truths I wonder how he can allow Luther and Calvin's Reforming the Church with so much Fire Sword and Confusion for a matter that did not impede Salvation If they Reform'd Her in Fundamentals then She perish'd which is against the Infallible promise of CHRIST If you say they did not Reform it as it lay pure in the Souls of some chosen tho' unknown to others but in the publick Pastors and Teachers who were reprehensible for their grievous Deviations then say I where was the visible Church to which Men should have recourse for the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments Isaiah cap. 2. v. 3. A second Proof and Reason is drawn from that it seems morally impossible that in the begining of the fourth Age if he will have the fall of Religion then the Pastors should propose a number of new Tenets to be believ'd and perswade the People that they had heard them from their Fathers of the third Age not one individual Person in the mean time remembring that he heard them from his Is it credible that not only one Parish or Nation but all Countries who liv'd afore in the Union of the Catholick Church should of a sudden have permitted themselves to be cheated into this perswasion or rather bewitch'd since not one was found for many Ages to have gainsaid it or reclaimed against it Since this then is Morally impossible conclude that these Tenets of R. Catholicks which our adversary calls novelties were the old tenets of the three first Centuries A third reason 't is remark'd that God never permitted any notable Error to rise up in his Church but alwayes stirred up at the same time some man or men to speak and write against it and mov'd the whole Church to joyn with them to destroy it So Athanasius rose up against Arius Cyrillus Alexandrinus against Nestorius Augustin against Pelagius All back'd by the whole Church for the total overthrowing of those Errors Now if the Mass be an Error it is a most damnable one an Idolatry insupportable to give Divine Worship to the Host if it be only a piece of Bread Yet after this Error was broach'd in Gregory the Great 's time in the sixth or seventh Age as Protestants imagin what University or private Man spoke against it then or three hundred Years after It s true about four hundred Years after Berengarius inveighed against it but being better inform'd and by a torrent of Arguments for its Truth overwhelm'd he Recanted and Dyed Penitent Consult then Reason and not Passion and you will see that R. Catholicks have made no superstructurs on the Faith of the first three Ages SECT II. Formal Protestants are Hereticks I Advance to his assertion in which he affirms that we cannot say without Ignorance Calumny and Injustice that a Protestant is an Heretick First I agree with him that an Heretick is he who denyes viz. pertinaciously an Article of Faith or a revealed Verity Next I ask him by what principle he proves that a Protestant does not deny an Article of Faith or a reveal'd Truth I suppose he will Answer because a Protestant believes the CREED and the Holy Scripture I ask him further if a Preacher now of their Congregation should vent a Doctrine not Orthodox and should pertinaciously maintain it against his Brethren as a Truth according to his best Judgment reveal'd in Scripture By what principle will he convince him to be an Heretick He 'l tell you he believes the three Creeds and the whole Scripture and therefore he believes this his dogme because the thinks he finds it in Scripture Is he an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement to his particular Brethren He is known to be as Learn'd as they and of as good a Life as they If you say this Man can't be proven to be an Heretick that is against the Scripture Tit. 3. v. 10. bidding us to shun an Heretick and consequently he may be proven to be one If you say he is an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement not only to particulars but neither to the whole Congregation or the Church of which he was a Member and therefore is justly condemn'd by Her according to Isai 54. v. 17. Every Tongue that rises up against thee in Iudgment thou shall condemn this is the Inheritance of the Lords Servants I conclude without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice that the Protestant Luther the Protestant Calvin c. were Hereticks because they would not submit their Judgment to the whole Church of which they were Members afore they were Excommunicated for their self Opinions Again this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick either is an Act of Faith or Science or Opinion If you say it is an Act of Faith 〈◊〉 then say I 't is false
of CHARLES the first our Lawful Soveraign I grant the Loyal party now has a Horrour of that deposing Power But it must be confessed the Royal party it self had not that horrour when being of the Church of England they deposed in like manner Queen MARY of Scotland Lawful Heir of that Kingdom Since then the Actions of both the Church of England and Kirk of Scotland or of both the Prelatick and Presbyterian party make our History blush at what they have done in this matter should not either of them be asham'd to cast up so often to the R. Catholick Religion that some of Her Children have Written not with assurance but with a fear that the contrary Opinion was true that there is a deposing Power in the Pope SECT II. Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of CHRIST OUr Antagonist advances an other proof to show that a Protestant can be Sav'd God sayes He illuminates all Men that come into this World Iohn 1. v 8. then he adds are not Protestants Men Answer They are Men and illuminated by God but if they resist this Light which is given them and equivalently tell God as those wicked Men of whom Iob spoke Iob. 21. v. 14. Scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus We will not have the knowledge of thy Wayes They will be found more remote from Heaven then if they had not receiv'd it He urges we R. Catholicks grant that Infidels who have never heard of CHRIST may be Sav'd and inconsequently deny that hope of happiness to Protestants Answer There 's no ill consequence here to deny a capacity of Salvation to him who puts a hinderance to it and to grant it to him who puts none The Infidel who hath never heard of CHRIST doing what lyes in him by living according to the Light of Nature make 's way to Grace But the Protestant who rejects Faith offered to him by God and his Church willingly shuts up the avenue to a further Grace and untill he remove this obstacle by an humble submission of his Judgment to Faith he continues in an impossibility to please GOD. O! but you are uncharitable sayes He to perswade the simple People that a Protestant can't be Sav'd I ask him can a R. Catholick be Sav'd If he saies no where is his Charity for us If he affirms we may then they who according to Protestants are Idolaters may be Sav'd If so whom will you exclude from Heaven But to return to his Objection since he denies Charity to us and we only Faith to him Charity being a greater Vertue then Faith according to St. Paul is not he in this more Uncharitable to us then we to him He goes on do not Protestants believe all Fundamentals contained in the three Creeds and Scripture I Answer First since that there are Fundamentals as condistinguished from Intigrals or not Fundamentals is a Fundamental point with him I ask in what CREED or Book and Chap. of Scripture is this Fundamental contained If he can't find this then that hereafter he speaking with Catholicks may distinguish a Fundamental from an Integral as he calls it Let him take this notion of a Fundamental from us to wit that all things contained in Holy Scripture are Fundamentals in this sense that we are bound to believe them under pain of Damnation when they are sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church as reveal'd by God in the Scripture For to disbelieve God revealing that Christ meâ—t a blind man on the way of Iericho destroyes as much his veracity as to distrust him revealing that his Son became man By this notion of Fundamentals we perfectly distinguish the Faithful foul from a Infidel or Sectarian And therefore it is not given without ground or reason Again when Christ commanded the Gospell to be preached to Men did he command the things only which you call fundamentals to be Preach'd or the whole Gospel if things only you call Fundamentals why were the Apostles so exact to give us the whole Gospel that it 's thought Damnable not only to add but to pair from it If he commanded the whole Gospel to be Preached and consequently to be believ'd how can he be sav'd who refuses to believe the least Integral of it when it 's sufficiently proposd to him as reuealed by God SECT III. It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of belief NOw I come to his Achiles this dreadful Argument to Romanists this Argument in in his Judgment above the reach of all Rational Solution It runs thus Who Follows a probable Opinion neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently But who bolds that Protestants may be sav'd followes a probable Opinion Then he neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently The major saies he is Commonly admitted by Iesuits and others And a probable Opinion is that which Learned Prudent and Pious Men hold But that a Protestant may be sav'd is an Opinion that Learn'd Prudent and Pious Men hold then it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be sav'd Ans I distinguish the major in matter of Faith on which absolutly depends Salvation he does not Sin who follows a Probable Opinion I deny in other matters I grant If we hold a Priest to Sin and all Judicious Men think we ought to do so in our Principles who makes use in the Baptism of a dying Child of that which is only probably Water having at hand sure Water Because he makes a mortal breach of Charity against his Neighbour exposing the Child's Salvation Am not I damnably Injurious to my self to follow a probable Opinion in matter of Faith without which I cannot be sav'd when I have my choice of taking a sure way am not I bound to be as Charitable to my self in a matter of that consequence as to my Neighbour Again can my understanding tell my Will that she may prudently command him to give a certain and infallible assent super omnia above all that may be said such as the assent of Faith is to an object to command which she is only mov'd by a probable motive what it an Angel come after this assent is made from Heaven and tell me the thing I assented to is false as I fear'd or might have reasonably fear'd 't was having only a probable motive to beleive the contrary Might not he accuse me not only of Imprudence but also of boldness to make my self believe that God said it and so Father upon him as other articles of my Faith this which is found to be false which I might have justly fear'd having only so slender a ground as a probable Opinion is to believe it A Subsect 'T is not a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be sav'd MOreover I deny that it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be Sav'd First Because the Church has defin'd the contrary which definition excludes all probability from that Opinion Secondly I deny that Learned and Pious Men hold that