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
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
application to such as claim to be the Kings Ministers and Messengers because a King can not giue to his subiects greater euidence then moral that he trusts and employs such men with declaring his pleasure and commands But God without any inconueniency to himself may giue cleer and conclusiue euidence to euery indiuidual person that himself reueald the doctrin which the Church proposeth as Diuine And therfore it seems to be uery agreable to reason that in the Church there be som Doctors who may demonstrat or proue by conclusiue euidence against the wittiest Doubters that he hath don so de facto by virtue of Tradition seing cleer knowledge is not only the surest but the most connatural way for rational Creatures to arriue to the happy end we all ayme at by our Faith and actions A. If God can iustly oblige the wittiest men of the vvorld underpain of damnation to content themselues with moral euidence when they haue no greater of such and such men being their Princes and Parents and in consequence therof to submit unto them and their Ministers or Messengers their outward actions of greatest importance sure he may justly oblige under pain of damnation the same men to content themselues with a moral euidence if he be pleased to giue no greater for submitting their iudgments by a most certain belief to his reuelations and authority claimd by the Church and shewing for it marks so supernatural of the Diuine trust and truth that they can not be prudently questioned as counterfeit For as the imperfection of our human nature and Knowledge as also the Prerogatiue of Soueraignty and superiority makes it uery reasonable and natural enough to us to be subiect and directed in our outward actions by a sole moral euidence when we haue no greater so the same imperfection and Gods infinit Excellency doth demonstrat that it is most reasonable and natural to us to be directed in our inward acts and assents by supernatural moral euidence when God is pleased to giue us no greater seing we haue no right or reason to exact it in truths which are obscure to us and the Knowledge of them is aboue our merit and capacity Such are not only the mysteries of our Faith but the Diuine reuelation of them or vvhich is the same Gods communication of his thoughts and Councells to such slaues and pittifull Creatures as we are Christ told the Apostles Ioan. 15. he called them his friends because he communicated to them all vvhich he had heard from his Father And euery Catholik Knowes that Gods friendship or fauor is a supernatural gift which human nature could not expect as due to it We haue no right or reason therfore to exact or expect that God would not haue us belieue whatsoeuer the Church proposeth with moral euidence as being reuealed by him unless wee see the Diuine reuelation applyd to that proposal by cleer and conclusiue euidence Moral euidence is sufficient to damn us if we deny to proceed therupon in order to a most certain though not cleer assent of the truth of the mystery Marc. vlt. as well as of the existence of the revelation As for what you say concerning the nature of Tradition viz. that it may with conclusiue euidence manifest and demonstrat if the dispute be managed by a witty man an infallible and cleer connexion with the Diuine reuelation of the Roman Catholik Faith because it leads us from age to age and yeare to yeare up along to Christ who is God and preacht our Faith to this I answer two things 1. That the Tradition of the Catholik Church whether we speake of it as it is a Congregation of Knowing and honest men before we believe or suppose it assisted by the holy Ghost or whether we speake of it euen after we suppose it to be so assisted it can not demonstrat or proue by conclusiue euidence that God reuealed any one article of our Catholik Faith though it may proue by conclusiue euidence that Christ did because that Tradition only proues that Christ sayd he was God and that the Apostles belieued so but goes no further in prouing Christs Diuinity than by testifying his Miracles which do not demonstrat or euidently conclude his Diuinity though they demonstrat our obligation of belieuing it 2. I answer that though Tradition doth not demonstrat or euidently conclude Christs Diuinity and by consequence can not demonstrat or cleerly conclude that his reuelation of our Faith was Diuine yet it is a conclusiue argument ad hominem against Protestants and all who confess Christs Diuinity that God reuealed all the articles of the Roman Catholik Church because they confess Christ is God And in this sense the Author of the sure footing of Faith vindicated c. argues unanswerably against his Aduersaries for the conclusiue euidence by virtue of Tradition of Gods reuealing supposing Christ to be God euery article of the Roman Catholik Faith And therfore seing he hath as I am credibly informed thus explaind himself he deserues rather great commendation than that seuere Censure which the Author of Religion and Gouernment giues of his doctrin thinking he agreed with Manicheans and Protestants in making cleer euidence the motiue and rule of Christian belief For the Author of sure footing utterly disauowes and abhorres as leading to Heresy and Atheism this Proposition which som imagined he maintained as following out of his Principles No Catholik or at least no learned or vvitty person is bound to assent or belieue vvith Christian Faith any article the Catholik Church proposeth as reuealed by God unless it be demonstrated or concluded by cleer and euident reason that God reuealed the same article Q. Do not som Catholik Diuines teach that cleer Euidence of the Reuelation is consistent vvith our Catholik Faith A. No. Som of them teach the Angels before their fall and Adam in the state of innocency had and euen the Deuils now haue euidence that it was God who reuealed to them the supernatural Mysteries they belieued and few extend this priuilege to the Prophets and Apostles inspired immediatly by God without outward preaching See Fr. Dominic Bannes 2.2 q. â— a. 1. Estius in 4. lib. Sentent lib. 2. dist 23. paragr 6. But not any one Diuine I could see or heare of sayes that cleer euidence of God reuealing our Catholik Faith which according to Saint Paul Rom. 10. coms by hearing Fides ex auditu and the preaching or testimony of the Church is consistent with the same OF THE DIFFERENCE BETVVEN certainty sprung from the sight of Truth and certainty grounded upon Trust The later excludes cleer enidence of the truth and is the certainty required in Christian Faith Q. I find it uery reasonable if possible all men should belieue with the greatest assurance and certainty imaginable that God reuealed euery article both great and smale which the Church doth propose as reuealed by him though there were no cleerer euidence than moral for such a
reuelation But how is it possible that scrupulous and acute Wits or Doubters can assent to Gods reuealing the articles of Christianity or to any truth with greater assurance then there is appearance and euidence of the same Is not euidence and assurance or certainty the same thing in our intellectual assents At least are they not so connected with one an other that they can not be separated or one be greater then the other A. Any thing which is uery reasonable must be possible because reason can not lead to or approue of an impossibility How possible and feasible it is to assent with infallible assurance and the greatest certainty for so we must assent in matters of Faith with only moral euidence is cleer in the scriptures especialy Iohn 20. where Christ our Sauior reprehended St Thomas for not belieuing with the assurance and certainty of Diuine Faith the mystery of the Resurrection though he had but moral euidence for it the testimony of the Apostles not as yet confirmed in grace Christ also Marc. ult reproacht with obstinacy and incredulity against Faith the Apostles themselues for not being content with that sole moral euidence of the Resurrection which they had from the testimony of the three Maries and the two Disciples of Emaus And certainly Christ would not find fault with St Thomas or the Apostles for not doing an impossibility It s possible therfore to belieue by an assent of Faith with more assurance and certainty then there is appearance of the truth or euidence of the Reuelation I confess it is uery difficult to shew how this is don But if wee distinguish the assurance or certainty we haue of truth by seing the truth in itself from the assurance or certainty we haue therof by putting our trust in an other or relying upon his knowledge and integrity we shall find this point much more easy then hitherto hath appeard to most both Diuines and Philosophers The assurance and certainty of our intellectual assents which is produced by the sight either intellectual or sensual of the Truth itself inuolues cleer euidence therof But the assurance and certainty of the Truth which is an effect of the Trust and esteem we haue of an others Veracity integrity power and wisdom is so farr from including a cleer sight or euidence of the truth that it excludes it For Trust is no more consistent with our exacting the possession sight or cleer euidence of that vvherwith vve trust an other than it is vvith doubts cautions and suspitions of his integrity or power Vpon this notion and the true nature of Trust excluding sight or cleer euidence of the thing trusted is grounded that saying I le trust such a man no further than I see him that is I vvill not trust him at all This supposed We may easily comprehend how its possible to belieue or to assent by an act of our Christian Faith with more assurance then appearance or euidence either of the truth or of the Diuine Reuelation Because to belieue or to assent by an act of our Christian Faith is to trust God for his reuelation as well as for the truth reuealed for we belieue God did reueal the mystery and so we must trust him for the reuelation also But if we see the reuelation euidently applied to the mystery reuealed we can not trust him for either seing the truth of the mystery is inseparable and necessarily connected with Gods reuelation therof and we can not trust God for the truth of one of two things that vve know are necessarily connected unless vve trust him for both Therfore if the reuelation be cleerly euident to us by Tradition vve can not trust God for it nor for the truth of the mystery we know is necessarily connected therwith Hence doth follow 1. that seing vve can not trust God for the truth of the mystery reuealed unless vve trust him also for the reuelation vve can not belieue either or any thing the Catholik Church proposeth as matter of Faith if vve exact for that belief conclusiue and cleer euidence that God reuealed the same It followeth 2. That by exacting cleer or conclusiue euidence of the Reuelation to belieue the mystery or matter proposed by the Church we do not only mistrust Gods veracity and goodness but preferr the vvord and veracity of euery honest man before his as it is proposed to us by the Church For vvhen vve heare any honest man speak though vvee do not see the truth of his vvords nor any thing else necessarily connected vvith that truth yet vve belieue him and take his bare vvord for our assent and assurance of the truth But vve will not take Gods word deliuered to us by the Church unless vve see his reuelation which is necessarily connected with the truth of the mystery proposed And in this consists most of the obstinacy and malice of Heresy It followeth 3. That the obstinacy of Heresy is not alwayes grounded upon the passion or inclination of men to sensual pleasures and those nices which Christian Faith shocks and condemns but takes its rise also from the difficulty we find in assenting to any thing without euidence or in trusting euen God for the truth of things vvhich seem to be unlikely Christs Resurrection vvas a thing much desired by Saint Thomas and the Apostles and by consequence they vvere willing enough to belieue it And yet because they thought it an unlikely matter St Thomas vvould not belieue the other Apostles nor these the Disciples of Emaus and the three Maries vvhen they assured them Christ vvas resuscitated And this is the reason why there haue bin so many speculatiue heresies as that of the Arrians against Christs consubstantiality and that of the Greekes against the procession of the holy Ghost c. True it is that the Lutheran and other modern Heresies haue their principal source from sensual pleasures and lendness of life yet no liberty is more bewitching then that of opining euen in speculation and therfore the Church hath bin troubled with confuting many speculatiue heresies in former ages I conclude this Appendix with this aduertisment that many mistakes among Controuersors are occasioned by their not being vvell grounded in School Diuinity especialy in that part of it which treates of the Nature of Faith and Heresy Som confound the Motiues of Faith vvith the Motiues of Credibility as they do the euidence of these vvith that of the Diuine Reuelation and the euidence of this with that of our obligation to belieue it and fancy that the Authors who pretend to demonstrat Christianity or the truth of the Roman Catholik Religion intend to demonstrat God reuealed those mysteries and doctrin vvheras they go no further than to endeauor to demonstrat the reasonableness and obligation of belieuing the same by the euidence of the Motiues of credibility Some of late as Fisher Rushworth and others in England haue attempted to demonstrat or cleerly conclude the euidence of the Diuine reuelation by the certainty of the human Tradition of the Church and therupon ground the certainty of Diuine Faith As their zeal is to be commended so they are to be aduertised that the certainty of Faith must be supernatural and by consequence must haue a higher and more infallible Motiue than the euidence of human Tradition grounded upon that of our senses as all Diuines confess and euen these modern Authors seem to grant I heare a bold Spaniard went further and pretends that Christian Faith is science because the reuelation is euidently concluded from the Motiues of credibility Miracles c. and because St Paul sayes Scio cui credidi certus sum This is but a Spanish conceit Perhaps Saint Paul in his rapt to the third Heauen might haue euidence of the Diuine Reuelation But vve heare of no others that went so far to find out that knowledge I see there are Escobars and Dianas in speculatiue Theology as vvell as in Moral and I think speculatiue errors are more dangerous than large cases of conscience because these carry a certain horror and discredit a long vvith them but erroneous speculations if new seem to vulgar comprehensions especialy of the weaker sex to sauor of wit and many would fain seem witty upon any score euen in matters of Faith wherin the greatest wits must submit to authority and be commanded by the vvill piously affected and supernaturaly assisted to belieue more than we see or comprehend Yet the Spaniard is consequent enough in his error by saying Faith is science For if it be euident that whatsoeuer God reuealed is true and it be euident that God reuealed the Trinity or Transubstantiation it must needs be euident and by consequence Science that these mysteries are true and therfore no man who penetrats these termes can deny their Truth For my part I wish this opinion were true it would be a great ease to all Catholiks vvho find much difficulty in belieuing the articles of Faith So that the Authors and Abettors of Traditionary euidence haue this aduantage of their Aduersaries that we desire they may haue the better of us in this Dispute and if they haue not it must be want of Reason on their side not any preiudice or obstinacy on ours But vve haue this aduantage of them that we may with more ease conuince heretiks euen the wittiest of heresy and obstinacy than they can because its easier to demonstrat or euidently conclude that a man is bound to bilieue God reuealed a mystery of Faith than it is to demonstrat or euidently conclude he did actualy reueale it as it is easier to proue you are bound to belieue this man is your Father than that realy he is so And if we conclude euidently the first we convince the wittiest Diffenters or Disputers in the world of heresy and obstinacy if they do not submit their iudgments and belief to that of the Church
blindness in faith is to pretend a cleer sight of its rules infallibility The Catholik Church acording to St Paul and the Scriptures is a Congregation of men who do not see what they belieue and are led and directed by the holy Ghost in matters of doctrin This Church is euery particular mans immediat Guide because we follow it and hold fast to its testimony and tradition but this Church also hath a Guide the holy Spirit which leads it as Christ sayes into all truth by continualy directing it and assisting in its definitions and decrees Vvhen the four first general Councells defin'd the Diuinity of Christ and of the holy Ghost they did not cleerly see nor demonstrat against heretiks the truth of that doctrin or that God reuealed it For if they had the heretiks could not haue continued heretiks in their iudgments It s therfore fufficient that in the Catholik Church there be Doctors and arguments to demonstrat that all Dissenters or heretiks by not submitting to its doctrin and authority go against reason and the obligation all men haue to embrace that religion which is most likely to be Diuine in regard of greater appearance therin of supernatural signs which Christ sayd his Church should haue than in any other To ground therfore the certainty of Christian Faith or of its rule vpon any euidence which faith itself declares to be fallacious and fallible as it doth declare the euidence of our senses and sensations is in the article of Transubstantiation is to destroy Christianity and therfore Tradition as receiuing its certainty from our sensations can not be a sufficient ground for the certainty of Christian faith Q. I pray resolue your Catholik faith vnto its motiue A. That is don by answering questions Thus. Vvhy do you belieue the mystery of the Trinity or Transubstantiation Because God who can not deceiue nor be deceiued reuealed it How do you know God reuealed it If you speake of cleer knowledge I do not know that God reuealed it But if you will speake properly as a Christian or as a man that vnderstands what we mean by Faith you must not ask how I know but how or why do I belieue that God reuealed it Then I will answer that the testimony or tradition of the Church confirmed with seemingly supernatural signs testifying that God reuealed those mysteries makes it euidently credible he did reueal them But because I know my vnderstanding is so imperfect that I can not pretend to infallibility and my senses are so fallacious that by our sensations we are often mistaken and that faith itself tells us so in the article of Transubstantiation I cant no assent to this article or to the mystery of the Trinity or to any other pretended to be euidently reuealed by virtue of self euident Tradition and infallible sensations with that certainty which Christianity requires vntill I reflect and rely altogether vpon Gods veracity and apply it to the aforesaid testimony and Tradition of the Roman Catholik Church which declares that itself is authorised by God and shews for that authority seemingly supernatural signs to propose as reuealed by him those mysteries and all the other particulars of our Faith Vvhen I compare and apply the Diuine veracity to this testimony of the Church authorised by those signs I assent to all shee proposeth as reuealed by God by this act Notvvithstanding I do not see any cleer euidence or infallible connexion betvven the testimony or signs of the Church and Gods reuealing its doctrin yet because Gods veracity and his auersion from falsood is infinit I do belieue as certainly as I do that God is infinitly inclined to truth that he neuer did nor neuer vvill permit the least falsood to be so authenticaly proposed as his reuelation or vvord as I see euery point of the Roman Catholick doctrin is proposed by the tradition and signs of that Church This general assent is applyed to euery particular article Heer you see that the motiue of our Chatholik Faith is not the Tradition or testimony of the Church but only Gods veracity You see also that the tradition of the Church is the rule of our Faith because it helps and directs vs to reflect and rely more vpon the motiue which is Gods veracity than upon Tradition itself Lastly you see there is no impossibility in assenting by an act of faith with more assurance than there is appearance or euidence of the truth assented vnto because the assurance is not taken from nor grounded vpon the appearance but vpon Gods veracity and his infinit inclination to truth Hence followeth 1. That whosoeuer denyes any one article of Faith whether fundamental or not fundamental belieueth none at all with Diuine or Christian Faith because he slights the motiue therof which is Gods infinit inclination to truth and auersion from falsood to that degree as to be persuaded the Diuinity can permit falsood to be so credibly fatherd vpon itself as the Roman Catholik Church doth its doctrin with so seeming supernatural signs and so constant a Tradition The motiue of Faith being thus once slighted none that so slights it can belieue any thing for its sake or upon its score 2. It followeth That the Tradition and Miracles of the Catholik Church do not make it cleerly euident to us that God reuealed any one article of Christian Faith nay not that fundamental one of the Diuinity of Christ For though Tradition makes it cleerly euident to us there was such a man as Christ and such prodigies as his Miracles and that him self say'd he was God yet that Tradition and those prodigies do not make it cleerly euident to us as it did not to the Iewes that Christ was realy God For if this had bin cleerly euidenc'd to them or us neither Iewes nor Socinians or any other ancient heretiks could haue bin obstinat or heretiks in their iudgments against Christs Diuinity Q. If I do not see an infallible connexion between the assent or rule of Faith and Gods reuelation I must needs see there is no infallible connexion and may say the assent of Faith may be false seing Tradition which is the rule of that assent is fallible On the other side I must sa yt he assent of Faith can not be false So that if Tradition be not so self euident as from it to conclude cleerly the impossibility of Faiths falsood it must be granted that I see Faith is and is not infallible and that Tradition is and is not an infallible Rule A. Though I do not see any infallible connexion between Gods reuelation and the Tradition of the Church or any other rule directing to belieue what he realy â—eueald or which is the same between the assent of Faith and the rule of Faith yet it doth not follow that I must see or say there is no necessary connexion between them For at the same time I do not see that necessary connexion or infallibility I do belieue there is that
connexion though I see it not nay t is therfore I can belieue it because I do not see it Faith requiring that what is belieued be not seen It would indeed be a contradiction to say I see and do not see the infallibility of Tradition or of Faith but t is not any to say I do not see and do belieue that infallibility It may be as well sayd a man who is blind and infallibly or securely led by a knowing Guide through a dangerous way doth see his ruin or danger because he doth not see his own safety or the infallibility of his Guide though he belieues himself secure from all danger Q. Is it not cleerly euident that God can not permit falfood to be so authenticaly proposed in his name as the Roman Catholik Church doth her doctrin by so continued a tradition and so surprising signs as her miracles sanctity conuersion of Nations c. A. Though I am of opinion God can not permit such an appearance of Diuine truth to be a mistake yet our vnderstandings being so imperfect it would be presumption in vs to define or pretend to demonstrat what God can do or not do Vve only know he can not sin But we do â—ot know scientificaly whether he may not 〈◊〉 to punish the sins of some permit the Church to err and the world to be deluded by their cleerest and most frequent â—ensations wherupon as our Aduersary sayeth the certainty of Catholik Tradition is grounded And though both Scripture and Tradition say the Church shall neuer fail or err yet we do not pretend to cleer euidence that either Scripture or Tradition is Gods word SVBSECT HOVV A MAN MAY ASSENT in matters of Faith vvith more assurance than there is appearance of the truth Q. If it be not cleerly euident to us by the tradition of the Roman Catholik Church nor by Gods veracity that he reuealed its doctrin how can we assent or belieue with infallible certainty or assurance that God reuealed it Is it in our power or euen in Gods power to make vs affirm inwardly and certainly any thing we not knowing whether it be so or no How therfore can we affirm inwardly and certainly the truth of the Trinity or that God reueald it if we know it not cleerly either by Gods veracity or by the tradition of the Church A. Assents grounded vpon authority differ in this from assents grounded vpon cleer knowledge that the certainty of these are deriued from and measured by the cleer sight and euidence we haue of their truth or of the obiects being as they are affirm'd to be But the certainty of assents grounded vpon authority is not deriued from or measured by any cleer euidence or sight of their truth but by the persuasion we haue of the persons we belieue his knowledge and inclination to truth Now all men who admit of a God being most certainly persuaded that he is infinitly inclined to truth they may and ought to assent with the greatest assurance and certainty imaginable that God did realy reueale all that which the Church proposeth as Diuine doctrin for though wee do not see this truth in the mystery or matter deliuered by Catholik tradition nor in that euidence which our sensations giue to tradition itself yet by reflecting vpon Gods infinit auersion from falsood and vpon our own persuasion of his infinit veracity and seing so great an appearance of his being deeply engaged and concerned for the truth of a Churches testimony that lookes so like his own affirming the doctrin to be Diuine we are bound in conscience to belieue without the least doubt or at least we are bound to endeauor to belieue without doubt which must be a rational endeauor seing our obligation of endeauoring is so euident to us that God is the Author of the Roman Catholik doctrin and hath reueald it for if he had not he would neuer permit the same to be so plausibly and probably proposed as Diuine by Miracles and other signs of the Church that prudent and learned men must sin in being obstinat against its doctrin and testimony And this is that we mean when we say that we apply the Diuine veracity to euery particular point of faith not by seing the reuelation itself in the tradition or testimony of the Church for then we could not deny its doctrin was reueald nor be heretiks but by hauing so much veneration for Gods veracity that whensoeuer it seemes to be so publikly engaged and prudently belieued as we see it is in the Roman Catholik Church God speakes or reuealeth what it proposeth as his word Q. Methinks the veneration we haue for God and his veracity ought rather oblige vs not to assent to any doctrin as spoken or reuealed by him vnless it be cleerly euident to vs that he spoke or reuealed it for if we do otherwise we expose his holy name to contempt and ourselues to damnation by uenturing to father what we fancy vpon God when perhaps he neuer sayd or reuealed what we imagined A. It s a prerogatiue due to soueraignty and a fortiori to the Deity to speake and command by Ministers and inferior officers which beare the badges of the royal authority And it is not only a disrespect but obstinacy and rebellion not to obey lawes and commands so authenticaly proposed So likewise it must be not only a sin of disrespect and contempt but of heretical obstinacy not to belieue that God speakes or commands by the Roman Catholik Church when its testimony and tradition of hauing Gods trust and authority to declare that he speakes or reueales its doctrin is authenticaly proposed by signs so supernatural in appearance that no human authority is so authentik and no other Church can or dares pretend to the like The more soueraign is any superiority and veracity the greater obligation there is in subiects not to exact for their obedience therunto or belief therof cleerer euidence of its commanding than is usual and sufficient in human affairs when Princes proclaim or command And the more infallible the veracity of him is who claimes the authority if this be authenticaly proposed the greater is the obligation of assenting inwardly therunto without cleerer euidence that it proceeds from the infallible Author of the same than such a moral certainty as the signs of the Church create this being the cleerest that is consistent with the nature liberty obscurity and obsequiousness of Christian Faith Q. Ought there not to be in the true Church an euident and conclusiue argument against heretiks and Pagans to let them see their obstinacy by shewing cleerly to them that God reuealed what they deny to be true or to be matter of Faith A. If men were to be saued by Demon. strations or cleer knowledges deduced one from the other what you say were fit and necessary But God hauing decreed to saue men by Faith rather than by science by a meritorious and free rather than a necessary or
why God gaue men their senses if it was not to be directed wholy by them in iudging euen of mysteries of Faith And though God tells us that the euidence of sense is fallacious when it agrees not with his word as it proued when Eue tasted the forbidden fruit yet Heretiks despising that truth and imitating her example prefer the serpent or the priuat spirits suggestions and their own appetit before Gods reuelation and interpret the Scriptures after a new manner contrary to the testimony tradition and practise of the Church in fauor of liberty and sensuality Heresy hauing thus slighted Ecclesiastical authority and the supernatural signs or Miracles of the Roman Catholik Church as fables or frauds of interested persons and finding no signs or seales of a Deity in any other Congregation it begins to doubt of Gods prouidence and after many windings and turnings from one Sect to an other deuoring most gross absurdities euen against the Diuinity of Christ and immortality of the Soul it growes at length to be a Dragon which armed with scales of obstinat incredulity and wingd with unbridled liberty and pride flyes at the Deity itself like that seuen headed Beast of the Reuelations So that Atheism is nothing but ouergrown Heresy as the Dragon is an ouergrown serpent Both agree in making sensuality the soul of man and the rule of Faith The Heretik by submitting his Faith and Soul to euidence of sense against Gods warning and word the Atheist by maintaining men haue no Faith or soul but sense This last error seemes to som the more iudicious it being most euidently certain that if there be a spiritual Soul it must be superior and ought to command sense curbing its inclinations as foolish and correcting its euidence as fallacious Against this vermin and venom of Atheism and Heresy I haue prepared the Antidot I heer present you with its chief ingredients are strength of reason and supernaturality of Miracles it is as natural for reason to submit to Miracles as it is for sense to submit to reason For what greater violence can be offered to Reason than to rebell or resist against authority signd by Gods hand and seale Miracles Or to deny a Deity and spirits because they com not under the Kenning of our senses Is it not against the first principles of reason and morality to iudge otherwise of things and persons than they seem to be when neither the word of God nor any thing else appears to the contrary Though we do not see spirits or the Deity yet we see effects aboue the sphere and power of bodyes and Nature which can not be attributed to any other causes but Spirits and a Deity So that we must grant the existence of these or maintain an impossibility which is that there can be an effect without a cause Vvhat effect this Antidot will work upon the minds of the Readers God only Knowes I haue endeuored to express my thoughts in the cleerest termes I could and in ordinary English the highest mysteries of Christianity Others may excell in the quaintness of expression I desire no such commendation neither is that manner of writing so proper in matters of Faith which limits our vvords as well as our opinions And though the latitude were greater I should choose those expressions which are best vnderstood my design being to inform all sorts of people Yet I would haue our vvits Know and I hope they will find it so by experience that Atheism and Heresy how new and subtile so euer may be solidly confuted in ordinary and old English A SOVERAIGN REMEDY against Heresy and Atheism Fitted for the wit and want of the British Nations CHAP. I. OF THE EXISTENCE VNITY and Trinity of God Q. Is there any such thing as God I knowthere is such a notion and that men fancy when they speake of God an vnlimited being including in it self infinit excellencies and all perfections My question is whether this Deity of all and infinit perfections be only a meer notion or a real obiect A. it is a real obiect Q. How proue you that for we haue notions not only of things that do not exist as Vtopia but of things that can not possibly exist as Chimeras Centaures c. How therfore wil you make it appeare that the notion of an infinitly perfect Deity is not the bare notion of an impossibility A. Many proofes there are of Gods real existence but in my opinion the cleerest of all must be grounded vpon the experience euery man hath of his own nothing For the only thing we know cleerly euen of our selues is that we do exist and are our selues and yet that there was a tyme we did not exist nor were our selues or which is the same that we were nothing From hence necessarily follow these conclusions 1. that we can not haue our being or existence from our selves because that which at any tyme hath bin nothing or did not exist can no more giue a being or existence to it self then nothing can produce somthing 2. that there must of necessity be somthing which did alwayes exist otherwise nothing did produce all things 3. that the somthing which did alwayes exist must include all and infinit perfections because hauing its being or perfection only from it self as none could giue it a being but it self so none but it self could set a limit to its being or perfections and that thing must haue bin naturaly auers to it self and by consequence not it self which would wave hinder or enuy its own happiness or its hauing all perfections 4. As it is impossible that a thing which hath its being from it self should want or waue any perfection so is it impossible there should be two or more distinct things infinitly perfect Because that which is the source of its own being must necessarily include in it self all being or all perfections seing there can be no cause or reason why it should haue one perfection and not all vnless you wil fancy that a thing before it exists or is any thing can limit it self or out of a pik to it self would pick and choose out of infinit perfections only such as Atheists attribute to that which they call Nature If therfore all perfections must be included in that one thing which hath its own being from it self no other thing of infinit perfections can be as much as fancied to be distinct from it Therfore it must be the same and consequently there can be but one thing or one God including in it self or identifying with it self all perfections So that you see how little wit Atheists do shew in denying a Deity of infinit perfections because they must either grant it or confess that we men or any thing els when we did not exist and were nothing did or could produce our selues Or that this world with all its imperfections is God or that the world before its existence when it was nothing was also somthing and so against the
broacht by the VValdenses S. Bern. Ep. 241. ad Tolos saith vve thank God for that our comming to you vvas not in uain our stay indeed vvas short vvith you but not nnfruitfull the truth being by us made manifest non solū in Sermone sed etiam in vi tute not only by preaching but also by povver of vvorking Miracles the Vvolues are deprended Apostolici Henricians and others These two last Sects had infected a great part of France especialy about Tolouse their chief errors vvere against Transubstantiation Prayers to Saints and the same vvhich Protestants hold in our dayes and we haue mentioned in the title of this Chapter The Pope sent a Legat and St Bernard to confute them In this Mission amongst innumerable others he vvrought the ensuing Miracle not only vvritten by his Disciple Godifridus who was an eye witness ther of but recorded in the other Histories of that time and insinuated by St Bernard himself in his 241. Epistle to the people of Tolouse to the end they might be constant in the manifest doctrin vvhich he had preacht against the Henricians vvhom Protestants challenge as members and Martyrs of the Protestant Church as euery one may see in their Catalogue of the vvitnesses of truth printed 1597. and in M. Symondes upon the Reuelations pag. 142. and 143. The Miracle is recounted by Godefridus invitâ Bern. l. 3. c. 5. and by others of the same time as followeth There is a place in the Country of Tolosa called Sarlatum vvhere after the Sermon vvas don they offerd to he seruant of God as euery vvhere the use vvas many loaues to bless vvihich he lifting up his hand and making the sign of the Cross in Gods name blessing sayd thus In this you shall Knovv that these things are true vvhich vvee and that those other are false vvhich the heretiks labor to persuade you that vvhosoeuer they be of your diseased persons that tast the loaues they shall be healed to the end you may Knovv us to be the true Minister of God The Bishop of Chartres a great friend to the Saint thinking this proposition too general told the people they vvere to understand it conditionaly so they did cate of the loaues vvith Faith St Bernard sudenly replied My Lord I do not mean so my meaning and saying is that all sick folks vvho vvill eat of those loaues shall recouer their health to the end it may be Knovven vve are Gods true Ministers And acordingly it fell out not one diseased person that did eat of the bread mist of being eured and the Miracle being thus diuulged by its effects so huge a multitude of people came to thank and admire the Saint that he declined the common roads and vvent by by wayes to Tolouse vvhere at the instance of the Catholiks and to further confute the aforesaid hetesies against Transubstantiation Mass Purgatory prayer to Saints vvorship of Images c. he vvith giuing his benediction to a paralitik priest that lay a dying in the College of St Saturnin restored him to so perfect health that the Priest vvho also vvas called Bernard sudenly rose out of his bed vvhere he had bin immoueable a long time followed the Saint and begd of him to be admitted into the number of his Monks vvhich vvas granted and afterwards liued amongst them very religiously and vvas at length Abot of Valdeau Vvith these Miracles the heretiks vvere confounded and so many conuerted that their seducer Henricus hid himself and finding no refuge among those who formerly had followed him he was taken prisoner and presented in chains before the Bishop Q. If God wrought such Miracles as these for the conuersion of the Henricians and other heretiks as you call them of that age why may not we Protestants expect that he will do the same for our conuersion if we be in errors I am sure we desire to saue our Souls And certainly God is as willing to saue us as any others I wish we could see such Miracles wrought by any Bernard or other Saint Vve should soon be Papists A. One of the reasons vvhy God doth not vvork now such Miracles for the conuersion of Protestants is because he hath vvrought them for the Henricians For the same errors against Transubstantiation Mass Prayer to Saints Vvorship of Images c. being common to both sects the same Miracles confute both equaly and may now conuince Protestants as vvell as they did anciently the Henricians of heretical and damnable obstinacy And therfore it s not likely Protestants vvould becom Papists though they had seen an other St Bernard work the same Miracles to confirm the Roman Catholik Faith against Protestancy that in effect hauing bin don against it in the case of the Henricians I am the more apt to belieue the sight of such Prodigies vvould not conuert you because your Protestant Authors grant the matter of fact of St Bernards Miracles against the Henricias doctrin and of S. Dominik against the Albigēses Tenets wherin these also agreed vvith Protestants and only answer that they vvere Antichristian Miracles wrought by the Deuills power to confirm the Idolatry of the Mass and Images c. or at least they were feigned by idle Monks Take it in their own words See the Cēturists and Osiander in Epitom cent 9.10.11 pag. 213. The Miracles vvhich superstitious Monks relate are either feigned by themselues or vvrought by Satans enchantments and therfore ought to be enlisted amongst Antichrists Miracles because they vvere vvrought to confirm manifest Idolatry and to establish the vvicked vvorship of Images veneration of Reliques Inuocation of Saints sacrifice of Mass c. True it is that Osiander speaking of Saint Bernards Miracles Cent. 12. pag. 310. saith Not that I think St Bernard vvas a Magitian but that I think it probable Satan vvrought the Miracles vvherby the Saint himself and others vvere deceiued And this is the common answer all Protestants giue to our Miracles when they can not deny the fact nor discouer any fraud And certaintly they would giue now the same answer to the most euident and undeniable Miracles if any were wrought before theyr eyes Q. Am I who can not read or understand Latin and other languages wherin all this you say and quote is written bound to belieue the matter of fact and conform therunto my Faith Vvhat if a Protestant Minister or Bishop tells me all you say are lyes Vvhom must I belieue Or am I obliged under pain of damnation to suspect his sincerity and doctrin if he will not encounter you or any other who offers to make good vvhat you say by shewing the passages in the books themselues I confess I think I am Howeuer I pray tell me vvhat I ought to do in such a case A. You see how in less than two hours time you may know by your Bishops or Ministers carriage and courage in examining any plain book that relates Miracles and matter of fact vvhether the Protestant Religion be