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
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
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
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
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