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
be a prudent or pious act without seing seeiming supernatural signes so obuious to all kind of people that they may if reflected vpon exclude all prudent doubts of our being mistaken because they must dispose us to fix our thoughts so firmly vpon Gods goodness and veracity that we assent with greater assurance to what the Church sayes and its signes shew than if we had seen it not because the Church sayes it or because the signs confirm its testimony but because we rationaly iudge it impossible that God would permit such an appearance and testimony to be falsly fathered vpon himself or permit vs to be deceiued by signs so likely to be supernatural Q. How can a certainty only moral of God being the Author of the commission and doctrin of the Church be a solid and sufficient ground for acts of Christian faith wherby we belieue without the least doubt and by consequence with more than moral certainty or assurance that God is Author of the commission and doctrin of the Church How can any prudent act of our vnderstanding assent to more than it doth see or assent with greater assurance than there is appearance of the truth An intellectual act or assent being an intellectual sight of the truth of the obiect To say therfore that by acts of faith we assent to more than we see or with greater assurance then there is appearance of the truth is as much as to say that by acts of faith we see more than we see and belieue more firmly than we can A. The answer of this obiection is that assent being no more than an interior yeelding a thing to be as dissent is an interior denying it to be the assent of the mind is not alwayes an intellectual sight of the truth of its obiect It is not alwayes the same thing in the soul to say a thing is so and to see it is so For if these two were the same the soul could neuer assent or rely vpon authority nor be mistaken in any assent because it is neuer mistaken in its sight of the truth Besides this opinion that confounds the assent of faith with the sight of the truth whether it be in proper causes or by its connexion with the euidence of Gods reuelation takes away the obscurity liberty and merit of Christian faith because à cleer sight of the truth by whatsoeuer means it coms is not compatible with those attributes St Paul tells vs that faith is an argument of things not appearing and surely if they do not appeare by faith they are not seen by an act of faith More A great proportion of the supernaturality of faith and of its merit consists in ouer comming the difficulty we find not only in examining the motiues and in adhering with the will but in assenting with the vnderstanding to the truth and to the existence of its reuelation as to that of the Trinity Incarnation c. But if our assent of faith were an intellectual sight of the truth or of the existence of Diuine reuelation of those mysteries such an assent could not inuolue nor we find therin any intellectual difficulty for what intellectual difficulty can there be in saying inwardly it is so if we see it is so There is rather a necessity in such a case of saying it is so Faith is so far from being an intellectual sight of the verities belieued or assented vnto that the less cleerly you see the truth or the reuelation credited so it be prudently credible the greater your faith is Therfore Christ reproacht St Thomas for not belieuing the Resurrection vntill he had seen with his eyes Christ resuscitated â—oan 20. And told him they were happy that belieued and did not see what they believed Now the reason why faith and sight or knowledge are so opposit is because the nature and notion of faith is to supply and by consequence it doth suppose the want of sight or knowledge Hence it is that many say faith and knowledge are no more consistent one with the other than the want and not want of the same thing And indeed this notion of faith is well grounded because experience doth conuince and all confess our human nature to be so imperfect that it stands in need of Christian faith to supply the want of knowledge touching Diuine mysteries And euen in worldly affairs we must in most rely for want of cleerer knowledge vpon the authority and testimony of lawfull witnesses and take their word for legal euidence which as it is a sufficient proof of what they testify so is it a demonstration of the imperfection of our vnderstandings and that most of our human assents and iudicial sentences are not intellectual sights of the truth itself but humble submissions to the authority and knowledge of others which we belieue though for ought we euidently know we may be misinformed by their mistake or malice But the supernatural signes of the Catholik Church do shine so cleerly vpon the same that not any who reflects vpon them and relyes vpon Gods veracity can prudently entertain the least feare or doubt of being mistaken in its authority or misled by its doctrin notwithstanding that we do not cleerly see the Diuine trust of the Church or the infallible truth of its Tenets But though the assent of Christian faith be not an intellectuall sight of the truth reuealed or of the Diuine reuelation it doth suppose at least in our Predecessors sensations or an intellectual sight of som seemingly supernatural signs which being credibly reported to us by Tradition are sufficient to gain so much credit and authority for the Church wherin they appear'd as that whoeuer doth not belieue its testimony and assenteth or yeeldeth not to its doctrin as Diuine is iustly condemned by Christ himself in his last words to the Apostles Marc. 16. v. 16. and therfore tells them that his Church shall haue visible and supernatural signes wherby it may be easily discerned from all heretical Assemblies som wherof he specified as power to cast out Deuills to cure diseases to speak vnknowen languages to rid people of serpents These besides others related in Scripture as the Conuersion of Nations to Christianity the continual succession and sanctity of Doctrin and Doctors the spirit of profecy and many such miraculous marks ioyned with profound humility and eminent virtues are so far aboue all heathens and heretiks pretended morality and sanctity that when their saints are compared with canonized Catholiks they appeare to be but hypocritical sycophants puff'd vp with that secret pride so proper to all sectaries preferring their own priuat interpretation of scripture before the publik sense and practise of a visible and miraculous Church Vve conclude therfore that an assent of Christian faith is not an intellectuall sight of the truth reuealed nor of the reuelation and yet the faithfull do assent to both with no less assurance than if it had bin a cleer sight of both because euery
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
connexion though I see it not nay t is therfore I can belieue it because I do not see it Faith requiring that what is belieued be not seen It would indeed be a contradiction to say I see and do not see the infallibility of Tradition or of Faith but t is not any to say I do not see and do belieue that infallibility It may be as well sayd a man who is blind and infallibly or securely led by a knowing Guide through a dangerous way doth see his ruin or danger because he doth not see his own safety or the infallibility of his Guide though he belieues himself secure from all danger Q. Is it not cleerly euident that God can not permit falfood to be so authenticaly proposed in his name as the Roman Catholik Church doth her doctrin by so continued a tradition and so surprising signs as her miracles sanctity conuersion of Nations c. A. Though I am of opinion God can not permit such an appearance of Diuine truth to be a mistake yet our vnderstandings being so imperfect it would be presumption in vs to define or pretend to demonstrat what God can do or not do Vve only know he can not sin But we do â—ot know scientificaly whether he may not 〈◊〉 to punish the sins of some permit the Church to err and the world to be deluded by their cleerest and most frequent â—ensations wherupon as our Aduersary sayeth the certainty of Catholik Tradition is grounded And though both Scripture and Tradition say the Church shall neuer fail or err yet we do not pretend to cleer euidence that either Scripture or Tradition is Gods word SVBSECT HOVV A MAN MAY ASSENT in matters of Faith vvith more assurance than there is appearance of the truth Q. If it be not cleerly euident to us by the tradition of the Roman Catholik Church nor by Gods veracity that he reuealed its doctrin how can we assent or belieue with infallible certainty or assurance that God reuealed it Is it in our power or euen in Gods power to make vs affirm inwardly and certainly any thing we not knowing whether it be so or no How therfore can we affirm inwardly and certainly the truth of the Trinity or that God reueald it if we know it not cleerly either by Gods veracity or by the tradition of the Church A. Assents grounded vpon authority differ in this from assents grounded vpon cleer knowledge that the certainty of these are deriued from and measured by the cleer sight and euidence we haue of their truth or of the obiects being as they are affirm'd to be But the certainty of assents grounded vpon authority is not deriued from or measured by any cleer euidence or sight of their truth but by the persuasion we haue of the persons we belieue his knowledge and inclination to truth Now all men who admit of a God being most certainly persuaded that he is infinitly inclined to truth they may and ought to assent with the greatest assurance and certainty imaginable that God did realy reueale all that which the Church proposeth as Diuine doctrin for though wee do not see this truth in the mystery or matter deliuered by Catholik tradition nor in that euidence which our sensations giue to tradition itself yet by reflecting vpon Gods infinit auersion from falsood and vpon our own persuasion of his infinit veracity and seing so great an appearance of his being deeply engaged and concerned for the truth of a Churches testimony that lookes so like his own affirming the doctrin to be Diuine we are bound in conscience to belieue without the least doubt or at least we are bound to endeauor to belieue without doubt which must be a rational endeauor seing our obligation of endeauoring is so euident to us that God is the Author of the Roman Catholik doctrin and hath reueald it for if he had not he would neuer permit the same to be so plausibly and probably proposed as Diuine by Miracles and other signs of the Church that prudent and learned men must sin in being obstinat against its doctrin and testimony And this is that we mean when we say that we apply the Diuine veracity to euery particular point of faith not by seing the reuelation itself in the tradition or testimony of the Church for then we could not deny its doctrin was reueald nor be heretiks but by hauing so much veneration for Gods veracity that whensoeuer it seemes to be so publikly engaged and prudently belieued as we see it is in the Roman Catholik Church God speakes or reuealeth what it proposeth as his word Q. Methinks the veneration we haue for God and his veracity ought rather oblige vs not to assent to any doctrin as spoken or reuealed by him vnless it be cleerly euident to vs that he spoke or reuealed it for if we do otherwise we expose his holy name to contempt and ourselues to damnation by uenturing to father what we fancy vpon God when perhaps he neuer sayd or reuealed what we imagined A. It s a prerogatiue due to soueraignty and a fortiori to the Deity to speake and command by Ministers and inferior officers which beare the badges of the royal authority And it is not only a disrespect but obstinacy and rebellion not to obey lawes and commands so authenticaly proposed So likewise it must be not only a sin of disrespect and contempt but of heretical obstinacy not to belieue that God speakes or commands by the Roman Catholik Church when its testimony and tradition of hauing Gods trust and authority to declare that he speakes or reueales its doctrin is authenticaly proposed by signs so supernatural in appearance that no human authority is so authentik and no other Church can or dares pretend to the like The more soueraign is any superiority and veracity the greater obligation there is in subiects not to exact for their obedience therunto or belief therof cleerer euidence of its commanding than is usual and sufficient in human affairs when Princes proclaim or command And the more infallible the veracity of him is who claimes the authority if this be authenticaly proposed the greater is the obligation of assenting inwardly therunto without cleerer euidence that it proceeds from the infallible Author of the same than such a moral certainty as the signs of the Church create this being the cleerest that is consistent with the nature liberty obscurity and obsequiousness of Christian Faith Q. Ought there not to be in the true Church an euident and conclusiue argument against heretiks and Pagans to let them see their obstinacy by shewing cleerly to them that God reuealed what they deny to be true or to be matter of Faith A. If men were to be saued by Demon. strations or cleer knowledges deduced one from the other what you say were fit and necessary But God hauing decreed to saue men by Faith rather than by science by a meritorious and free rather than a necessary or
and plausible an appearance of true miracles to confirm any false doctrin as we see in the Roman Catholik Church Therfore if the miracles of the Roman Catholik Church be not true Gods infinit veracity as also his goodness and prouidence may be questioned This may be explained to the vulgar sort by a similitude Suppose there were in som shire or town of England or Scotland a company of men acting in the Kings name as his priuy or great Councell with all the formes and formalities therof as a Lord Chancellor or Commissioner Tresurer Secretaries members of Parliament Clerks c. and that a considerable part of the Nation obeyed their orders and commands as men authorised by the King who is not ignorant of these publik proceedings and by consequence can not be rationaly thought auerse but rather seem to approue of them especialy if he be able without danger of disturbance to hinder and humble this pretended Councell by declaring them to be but a counterfeit Assembly of Cheats and Rebells and by punishing them accordingly A King I say that might hinder such a counterfeit Parliament or Councell from abusing himself and his subiects by so seeming a legal authority and yet would not can not be thought to haue any truth goodness or iustice because by his conniuance at those impostures which he might haue discouerd without trouble or inconueniencies he doth countenance and confirm that Councell as commissioned by himself This may be easily and aptly applied to the Roman Catholik Church which is inuested with so many miraculous marks of Gods authority and therfore doth act by a warant so seemingly Diuine that Gods bare permission of such a cheat as Protestants suppose the Roman Catholik Church to be would conclude his want of prouidence goodness and veracity and by consequence there can be no excuse or rational hopes of saluation for Protestants or any others that will not submit their iudgment to a Church and doctrin so publikly commissioned and confirmed by Gods great seal Miracles as yet shall more particularly appeare in the ensuing sections SECT I. VVHETHER THE CREDIBLE and constant report there is of true miracles vvrought in the Roman Catholik Church be a sufficient euidence to conuict of damnable obstinacy and heresy such as stight them or vvill not heare of them Q. Is it then vpon this ground of not belieuing the Roman Catholik miracles which are recounted by the ancient Fathers or others Roman Catholiks say that we Protestants are obstinat heretiks and that such of vs as dye not members of your Church are damned Is not this a foolish and vncharitable opinion A. One of the grounds of that censure is the Definition of Heresy which is an error in the understanding and obstinacy in the vvill against any truth or authority that is sufficienly proposed as Diuine Now the great appearance and moral euidence there is of the Roman Catholik Church together with its tradition doth sufficiently propose or declare its doctrine and authority to be Diuine For though it be not demonstratiuely euident that the Roman Catholik miracles are true miracles nor that its tradition and testimony is infallible yet it is moraly euident and by consequence sufficiently euident that its doctrin is Diuine and that God is Author of the same it being confirmed by such Miracles and that by them he doth authorise that Church as Princes do their officers by letters patents under their great seale Miracles being the great seale wherwith Gods Ministery and doctrin is made authentik Q. Vvhat is moral euidence of a miracle A. Moral euidence of a miracle is so credible and so constant a report therof that to deny or doubt of the fact reported argues imprudence in the dissenter and renders his caution of not belieuing both rash and ridiculous because it destroyes at least all historical and human Faith Q. May not a man belieue History and rely vpon human authority though he belieues not the stories of the most authentik Roman Catholik miracles A. No if he discourseth consequently and according to the rules of reason wherof one principal is that the same cause produceth the same effects and the same authority the same assent or belief If therfore the same ancient Fathers or Authors vpon whose testimony or tradition you rely for belieuing a miracle of Christian religion in genral or of the Trinity or Incarnation in particular recount the like miracles of Transubstantiation prayer to Saints or Purgatory you are rash and irrational in contemning that same authority which you credited in as difficult a subiect and as much aboue your comprehension for you ought to belieue both the miracles and mysteries or neither Q. Is moral euidence of true miracles sufficient to conuict of damnable obstinacy and heresy all such as slight that euidence and will not examin the grounds and effects therof A. Yes The reason is 1. because they are a sufficient euidence that the doctrin confirmed by them is Diuine 2. because Christs miracles were only moraly not demonstratiuely euident as miracles for if they had bin demonstratiuely euident as such none of the Iewes could deny them to be Diuine or could think they were wrought by the power of Beelzebub And though it was but moraly euident that Christs miracles were true miracles yet that moral euidence was sufficient to conuict the incredulous Iewes of damnable obstinacy and heresy Q. I desire to Know what it is you call damnable obstinacy A. Damnable obstinacy is a setled resolution of remaining in your own opinion of religion or a neglect of inquiring into the grounds of any other notwithstanding the prudent doubts you haue or would haue had if you had not bin carless of being saued in the way wherin you haue bin educated or made choice of Q. I do agree with you that if one doubts of the truth of his own religion he will be damnd unless he inquires into it or som other untill he doth what he can to be satisfied but I can not be persuaded that a man is bound to doubt of that religion wherin he hath bin bred because he heares of miracles wrought in an other unless his own be so absurd or inconsequent that he must doubt of its truth whether he will or no. A. There are two sorts of doubts 1. is a doubt which occurrs to ourselues by our own observation 2. is a doubt not started by ourselues but by som other more learned in matters of religion and as much to be credited and as litle to be suspected of hauing any design but our saluation in our change of opinion as he whom we most confide in Doubts of our own obseruation are very ordinary being grounded vpon the most obuious occurrences as a publik change of Religion either vpon the score of conscience or interest this last is as suspicious euen to the dullest comprehensions as the other is edifying Not only the change into a thriuing religion but constancy in a persecuted one doth