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
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
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
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
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
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
A SOVERAIGN REMEDY AGAINST ATHEISM and Heresy FITTED FOR THE VVIT and vvant of the British Nations BY M. THOMAS ANDERTON aliás BARTON PVBLISHED AFTER HIS DEATH and Dedicated to the Lady Frances Hamilton By her humble Chaplin E. G. An. 1672. TO THE MOST ILLVSTRIOVS LADY THE LADY FRANCES HAMILTON MADAM England your natiue soil once so much celebrated throughout all Christendom for an Istand of Saints and Angels is novv censured euen by its ovvn Parliament as a Nursery of Atheism and Heresy and therfore that great Representatiue of the Nation is no less solicitous for a cure than sensible of a disease so dangerous and destructiue not only to the soul but to the body politik of the Commonvvealth And yet either our misfortune or their mistake hath renderd all remedies hitherto ineffectual This Treatise MADAM composed by Mr. Thomas Barton vvhose Vvit must be admired so long as there vvill be any in the vvorld vvas found vvith his Geometry in Holland vvhere he had designed to print both and bestovvd upon me by one that understood not the English language nor the ualue of his Present In my iudgment 't is one of the best Antidotes against the spiritual plagues vvervvith England is infected I publish it under your Lad ps patronage and beg pardon for doing so vvithout your Knovvledge because you are not only a perfect Pattern of that ancient Faith and Virtue vvhich it asserts but a particular Instance and a conuincing Proof that Heresy and Atheism haue not so vvholly changed the nature of old England but that euen novv it produceth Angels I Knovv MADAM these Truths vvill offend your modesty and Humility your greatest care being to conceal your natural and supernatural Gifts and to eclipse to the eyes of men your spiritual exercises and deuotion feigning to be as vvell pleased vvith the vvorld as the vvorld is vvith you But that vvhich hath exalted you aboue the vvorld and I hope vvrit your name in the book of life is your extraordinary Charity You are not in the list of those vvho hope to be saued by charitable indiscretions No MADAM Prudence directs your almes as vvell as your other actiōs Humor hath no share in your distributions Vanity no influence upon your liberality partiality no suffrage in the choice of the poor you relieue You stretch your piety to the support of merit vvheresoeuer it is iniured by Fortune and to the defence of Virtue oppressed by persecution And though you do it vvith so great caution as to disguise supernatural Charity vvith that noble ayr of generosity so natural and peculiar to your self yet your deuout design is discouered and your revvard before God as vvell as the relieued persons obligation to you infinitly multiplied Pardon me MADAM if I trespass upon your Reseruedness and choose rather to incurr your Lad ps displeasure than concurr to preiudice Mankind by depriuing it of so great an encouragement to Virtue as the Knovvledge of your perfections I speak MADAM of those hidden in your soul not of those vvhich shine outvvardly and can not be concealed as your matchless beauty and charming graces These MADAM are but fading and fallacious Ornaments that set out Mortality in a deluding dress vvith gay and liuely colours vvhich a litle tyme vvill deface the sad fate of the greatest beautyes as vvell as of the fairest flovvers I need not inculcat this Truth to your Ladp. t is so deeply printed in your soul that others are odious to you if they but touch upon any of those rare qualities vvhervvith Nature by straining its povver to the utmost hath made you a Miracle of itself and plac't you in the vvorld as a Model not to be imitated much less paralelled but to be admired euen by those most emulous and enuious of your ovvn sex vvhich fancy themselues ought to be adored by ours But that vvhich most surpriseth the vvorld is that so enuied a Miracle of Nature as your Ladp. could neuer yet be censured or obserued of hauing any Kind of inclination to be admired or applauded This is a Miracle of Gods grace and an effect of that natural modesty and eminent honor vvherby you alvvayes haue preserued your unspotted reputation in the tvvo most dangerous Courts of Christendom to both vvhich you are in this particular the best example as in all other things the greatest Ornament This auersion to your ovvn praises is the only reason vvhy I dare not mention the great Antiquity and high Alliance of your illustrious Family the most proper and usual Ingredient in all Dedicatories I should uenture though to say somthing of your acute VVit profound iudgment agreable humor gracefull utterance becomming behauior and discreet conduct but that these are abuious and obserued by all the VVorld and particularly by the greatest Court and best Iudge therof vvhich giues your Lad p this Character That you are an exact English Beauty naturaly adorned vvith all the graces of France and an abridgment of the purest perfections of both Nations But because euen this authentik and undeniable Testimony is not gratefull to your Ladp. and that it is impossible to speak any truth of you vvithout commending and offending you I am forc't to cut off a long Panegyrik of your deserued praises and conclude vvith this one vvhich I hope vvill not be offensiue that you are the only person vvho thinks you are unvvorthy of that litle I haue sayd heer or that can command me to say no more but that I am vvith all reality and respect MADAM Your Lad ps most obedient and most humble seruant E. G. THE PREFACE WIth no less humility than charity I will propose my thoughts concerning the Atheism and Heresy of our Countrey hoping that if my sense differs from that of others I shall not be blamed for offering and submitting my opinion to better iudgments I shall endeauor to ground mine upon Scripture and reason Scripture compares Heresy to that crafty serpent which deceiued our Mother Eue with the curiosity of Knowing the cause and reasons of Gods reuelations persuading her that human vnderstandings ought not be satisfied with any thing less than cleer euidence as if it were beneath men to submit to authority Vvhen our curiosity and pride preuails with us to contemn the testimony and tradition of the Church and to preferr our priuat opinions before the publik doctrin and practise therof and that we are obstinat in that way we becom heretiks and in progress of time Atheists So filth and corruption becoms first a creeping serpent and afterwards a flying Dragon For as this Vermin is engendred by the heat of the sun in marish grounds and dirty sinks so Heresy and Atheism haue their first being from the influence which heate of passion height of pride and sensual pleasures haue vpon vicious souls These wallowing in the mire of sin and sucking up its venom beget the priuat spirit which is a serpent that with hissing whispers infects the brain by asking
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
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
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