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
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
the help of the body and if it can act independently of the help of the body it may exist also without help of the same and so the soul is proued to be immortal or not to dye with the body by its acting in the body contrary to the dictamen or appearence of our senses Q. Methinks this argument only proues that the soul may act and by consequence exist independently of the body for som ryme but proueth not that it may exist for euer independently of the body and the immortality of the soul is not euery existen â—ce but an euerlasting existence independent of the boby A. True it is that the immortality of the soul is an euerlasting existence without necessity of the bodyes help or support and as true it is that reason as soon as the soul knowes it self doth direct it to desire and endeauour its own happiness which â—nuolues not only a perpetuity of existence but an euerlasting felicity in the same existence That reasons cleerest act after the soul knowes its own existence is to direct and inspire into the soul a desire and endeauours of its own happiness is manifest not only by that regret and remorse of conscience which men feel when they deuiat from the direction or dictamen of reason but also by the loue which men bear to themselues which loue being confessed to be most euidently rational can not but be directed by the cleerest principle of reason Vvherfore this desire of the souls happiness being directed by the cleerest principle of reason can not be pretended to be a dreame or delusion vnless you will maintain that the cleerest reason is the greatest folly and by consequence destroy the fundamental ground of all human discourse and rational endeauours If therfore the souls desire of euerlasting happiness be grounded vpon so cleer a principle of reason this if it be not folly must haue a real obiect wherunto we are directed and wherwith we may be satisfied without any possibility of mistake and if so 't is as demonstrable that the soul is immortal as it is that the most rational desires and endeauours are not manifest follies and that the fundamental and experimental principles of reason can not be false or fallacious But if any one will be so mad as to grant that the first and fundamental principles of human reason are false and fallacious besides that herin he reflects vpon Gods wisdom goodness and gouernment wherwith such a supposition is not compatible he must grant that there are som other contrary fundamental principles true in opposition wherunto ours are false and fallacious Let him therfore produce them and maintain that it is reasonable in lieu of honoring our parents to hate them in lieu of desiring our happiness to wish our misery c. and if he can not produce any others besides these he can not think it reasonnable we should credit these or feare our selues can be misled so long as we stick close to our own principles of reason and follow that light which shines and euery man sees in certain actions necessarily and naturally assented vnto and therfore common to all mankind CHAP. III. OF THE VVORSHIP OF GOD and the sacrifice due to him Q. Seing you haue proued that there is a God and that the soul is immortal I would willingly know how God ought to be worshipt A. God being the Author of all good Mr Beacoz a learned ProtestaÌ„t in his Tratise intituled the reliâ—ues of Rome edit 1560. f. 344 saith the Mass vvas begotten conceiued and born anone after the Apostles tyme if all be true that Historiographers vvrite Sebastianus Francus an other learned Protestant in his Epistle for abrâ—gating all â—he Canon lavv sayth imâ—â—diatly after the Apostles all things vvere turnd vpside dovvn c. The Lords supper vvas trans formed into a sacrifice Mr Ascham in his Apology for the Lords supper p. 31. doth acknovvledge that no beginning of this change can be chevved The ancieÌ„t rathers call the Mass the visible sacrifice the true sacrifice the dayly sacrifice the sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ the sacrifice of the Altar the sacrifice of the Church and the sacrifice of the nevv Testament See St Ignatius the Apostles Scholar in his Epistle to the Church of Smirna St Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. of vvhom the Centurists say that he speakes very in comodiously vvhen he sayes that Christ tanght a nevv oblation vvhich the Church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to God in all the vvorld See Cent. c. 4. col 63. and Cent. 2. cap. 10. col 167. they affirm St Ignatius his vvords to bee dangerous and quasi errorum semina See also Terrul ad scapul cap. 2. Origen in numer hom 23. St Cyprian lib. 2. 3. vers fin St Ambrlib 5. Ep. 33. Missam facere coepit c. St Leo Ep. 81. ad Dioscor St August term 91. de Temp. lib. 9. Confess cap. 12. in Enchird cap. 110. c. Sayes that the Sacrifice of our price vvas offerd for his mother Monica being dead and that it is not to be doubted but that the souls of the dead are relieued vvhen for them is offered the sacrifice of our Mediator c. the only beginning and cause of our existence the end and hopes of our happiness it is fit we exhibit vnto him the greatest honor we can not only euery one in particular by an inward submission of our souls acknowledging his infinit excellencies and our own nothing and imperfections but also by an outward offering or oblation of som visible thing that ought to be consumed or changed therby to own Gods infinit power and Dominion ouer his creatures and consecrated to his Diuine maiesty by a solemn ceremony and publik Minister This way of worship is called a Sacrifice and the publik Minister who offers it is called a Priest It hath bin practised since the beginning of the world as appeareth in the sacrifices of Abel Noe Melchisedech Abraham Isaac Iacob Iob. and others in the law of nature and in the written law of Moyses great part therof is nothing but rules and ceremonies concerning the manner of sacrificing and the habit and method which the Priest ought to obserue in performing that publik ministery Q. Vvhat is the sacrifice of the Christians or of the law of grace A. It is the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud offerd for the liuing and for the dead vnder the species or appearence of bread and wine and is commonly called the Mass Q. Is not the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud as it was offerd vpon the Cross the proper sacrifice of Christians or of the Catholik Church A. It is the most excellent sacrifice that euer was offered nay all other sacrifices in the law of nature of Moyses and of grace did and do deriue their virtue and efficaciousness from the sacrifice of the Cross but because
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
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
make great impression vpon all sorts of people as also relations of miracles credibly reported These impressions and the inspirations which follow them raise doubts and these if not endeuored to be cleered are a sufficient cause of damnation The doubts which are raised in ourselues by the example or the discourse of others who haue no design vpon us but the saluation of our souls are also damnable to us if we neglect the cleering of them by all the wayes that a buisness of so great importance doth require And the more diligent we must be in the search by how much more the persons interested in maintaining our persuasion I mean such as liue by the ministery therof deterr us from so rational a scrutiny which they would neuer dissuade us from if they did not feare a discouery of their own wickedness and of their causes weakness Q. I pray sir apply this discourse to the Protestants and Roman Catholiks of England A. I beg your pardon sir I am loath to offend the Parliament But I will apply it to the Arians and Roman Catholiks of Spain The Heir of that Croun Prince Hermenegild hauing bin bred an Arian doubted of the truth of that pretended reformation this doubt was ocasioned by the discourse he had with St Leander Archbishop of Seuil At length he was conuinc't of the falsood of that Arian heresy and reconciled to the Roman Catholik Church The King his Father would needs haue him receiue the Arian communion which the Prince refusing to do the wicked Father for fear of his people sacrified the Heir apparent of the Croun to their fury and caused him to be murthered This change to and constancy in the Roman Catholik Religion together with a report of som miracles wrought so much upon all the people of Spain that a litle after they all turned Catholiks and a law was made that none but Catholiks should haue employment in that Kingdom Hence you may inferr what strong influence the example of a religious and resolute Prince hath euen vpon the most uulgar iudgments and how damnable it is in all people not to examin the motiues of so edifying a conuersion as that wherby one hazards and waues the greatest temporal interest and how certain it is that God will punish as well in this world as in the next all such as resist or neglect the impressions and inspirations which men feel in themselues to follow a religion so generously professed and preferrd before all the greatness and glory of an Imperial Croun Q. If Princely suffering vpon the score of conscience be so great a miracle why shall not the Lady Iane Grayes suffering and Queen Elizabeths also for the Protestant religion be miracles and confirm that profession as the true Catholik Add to these the patience and constancy of those glorious Protestant Martyrs recounted by Iohn Fox in his Acts and Monuments SECT II. OF THE DIFFERENCE BETVVEEN Catholik constancy and heretical obstinacy and vvherin doth each consist A Your obiection is material and I shal endeuor to answer it as cleerly and in as few words as I can but depending of a proper notion of heresy it inuolues som difficulty Experience and history hath proued almost in euery age that som heretiks suffer with as great resolution all Kind of torments and death itself for their false religion as Catholiks do for the true one And yet we all agree in terming the heretiks resolution obstinacy and the Catholiks constancy The reason is because the heretik suffers for adhering to a particular opinion and to his own priuat iudgment The Catholik for conforming himself to the belief of the uniuersal Church and for submitting his iudgement to the same Therfore St Paul sayes that an heretik is condemned by his own proper iudgment 2. Petr. 1. 2. No profecy of Scripture is made by priuat interpretation and St Peter tells us that the true interpretation of Scripture is not that of a priuat man but of the Church And the very word Heresy signifies a particular choyce or a wilfull diuision and declining from the first doctrin This supposed there can be no difficulty in declaring why an heretik may without any miracle suffer with great resolution the greatest torments for maintaining his heresy Because men are naturaly inclined to follow their own opinions and to maintain their own choice and therfore we see what endeuors are used in vain to persuade an humorsom and wilfull man or woman to recall any foolish Act they did of their own heads and how hard it is to conuince them that it was ill don Now euery heretik makes his religion his own act not by an humble submission of his iudgment to the Church as Catholiks do but by a proud preference of his own vnderstanding before that of all others This needs no other proof than that pitty which euery pittifull Protestant euen the women hath of the most learned Roman Catholiks ignorance and Idolatry In this pride and preference of their proper iudgment and in the wilfulness of continuing in their own choice doth consist the obstinacy of heretiks as the constancy of Catholiks takes its denomination from that religious perseuerance which is grounded vpon so rational a resolution as it is to submit and stick to the doctrin of a Church signalised with so many supernatural and uisible marks of being trusted by God to teach and preach the true Catholik Faith as hath bin demonstrated in the 5. Chap. Q. I grant that the difference between Catholik constancy and heretical obstinacy is that this is a more wilfull than rational adherency to a mans proper opinion or to a priuat interpretation of Scripture against the testimony and tradition of the Church and Catholik constancy is a religious perseuerance in a resolution of submitting our iudgments to the same Church but how will you make it appeare that our Protestant interpretation of Scripture is a priuat one or that we are guilty of pride seing we follow the interpretation of the Church of England and submit our iudgments therunto A. I will make that heretical obstinacy appeare in those very Protestant Saints and Martyrs which Iohn Fox doth celebrat for their constancy And to begin as you do with the most innocent of them all the Lady Iane Grey shee did wilfully choose and preferr before the Catholik a new religion or an interpretation of Scripture that was not as old as herself though she was very yong It had bin hatcht by Cranmer and confirmed by the Parliament of Ed. 6. but some fiue years before she suffered and was then Known and declared by an other Parliament 1. Mar. to be heresy and contrary to the publik sense and continual tradition of the Catholik Church and therfore was called by the Protestants themselues a Reformation of the old doctrin So that though the Church and Parliament of England in the reign of K. Ed. 6. called it à Common prayer or a publik worship yet was it
declared by the Parliament of Q. Mary a bundel of Cranmers errers and priuat opinions which himself and som few others inuented or borrowed from Luther and Caluin and other Innouators who had resolued to make themselues popular and powerfull by setting vp their own priuat interpretations of Scripture and opinions for points of Religion So that though all England or a greater part of the world than England is should embrace that Reformation and submit their iudgments to that Church their protestant Tenets are still priuat opinions and the submission of their iudgments to the same doth still inuolue that pride and preference of their own choice of a nouelty or new interpretation of Scripture before the ancient doetrin and against the publik testimony of all precedent English Parliaments as also against the tradition of the Catholik Church As for Queen Elizabeth shee accommodated her religion to the times untill shee got the Croun and then shee made use of the new Faith to serue her turn and secure her interest Indeed Iohn Fox his Martyrs were great but foolish sufferers their ignorance was proportion'd to their obstinacy they cast themselues into the fire without Knowing wherfore And yet Iohn Fox sayes those Tinkers Tanners and silly women confuted the Bishops that endeuored to saue their liues which themselues had forfeited acording to the ancient lawes of the land And though they dyed not Martyrs yet they dyed like Englishmen that is with as litle concern and as great courage as if their cause had bin better But this is no miracle in England though the foolish partiality of Iohn Fox his pen doth endeuor to make his Protestant Readers mistake those proud mad fellows for pious Martyrs Q. Though I do approue of your difference between heretical obstinacy and Catholik constancy yet I must still condemn your application therof to protestancy and popery for an other reason which is that Protestancy is so far from inuoluing pride that the Church of England doth not as much as pretend to be infallible in its doctrin neither doth it exact from its children a submission of their iudgments to itself but only to Scripture And I hope there is as much humility I am sure there is more safety in submitting our iudgments to Gods written word as to the tradition of the Roma Catholik Church A. As I commend the Church of Englands modesty and ingenuity in acknowledging its fallibility and in dispensing with the submission of your iudgments to the same no fallible Church can exact or expect a submission of iudgment in any points of doctrin so must I continue in my opinion of the pride and obstinacy of protestancy 1. Because you will not belieue any thing inculcated to you by God vnless it be deliuered to you in writing as if the Diuine maiesty had not as much right to command by orders intimated to us by word of mouth as by his writing All the true belieuers of the world vntill Moyses his law were gouernd by the testimony and tradition of the Church without any writing or Scriptures neither is any thing written in the old or new Testament wherupon Protestants may with any color of probability ground their pretended priuilege of not belieuing any thing but Scripture and this doth in many places tell them they are as much obliged to belieue Tradition or Gods unwritten word as the written Now why Englishmen and som Northen people alone should refuse to obey the Catholik Church vnless it shewes for euery particular Gods order in writing is not intelligible themselues and all other Nations owning the contrary to be prudently practised in all human gouernments This must be pride and obstinacy 2. The pride and obstinacy of this their pretended priuilege which is the life and fundation of all Protestant Reformations is further discouered by the practise of aprinciple wherin all Protestants agree which is that not one of them thinks he is bound in conscience to submit his iudgment to any of their own or any other Congregations sense of Scripture in controuerted texts if that sense agreeth not with his own priuat interpretation If that of his Church agree not with his own sense he may stick to his own and reiect the other And this is the reason why Protestants are diuided into so many sects How this principle and practise may be excused from heretical pride and obstinacy I know not For they stand at a defiance with all Churches and will as litle submit their iudgments to their own as to that of Rome Euery Protestant is by the fundamental Tenet of the Reformation his own Master and a supreme Iudge of Gods written law Doth not this demonstrat how those Reformations are founded vpon pride and obstinacy Can there be greater than that simple men and silly women should presume to be Masters and Iudges of those Diuine and incomprehensible mysteries That they should preferr their priuat iudgments before that of their own Church and of ours vnto which the greatest Doctors in all ages haue submitted Vvhat a proud foolish insolent and obstinat people would the English conclude any other to be wherof not one would acquiesce in the iudgment or sentence of the Courts of Iudicature but euery one assume to himself the power of deciding his own law suites and of appealing from the Chancery or euen from the Parliament to his own priuat opinion and iudgment Let euery Protestant know this is his own case in matters of religion He appeals in what concerns Faith and the sense of Scripture from his own Church and the Catholik and general Councells to his own proper iudgment Doth he think that Christ would institute so absurd a spiritual gouernment Can any man of sense imagin it agrees with Scripture To what purpose then should the Scriptures and St Paul bid us be of one belief peaceable and humble Is any of these virtues or that of Catholik Faith consistent with such pride obstinacy and dissentions as this principle must inspire and we see in all the reformed Churches and in that of our own Countrey You see therfore that your reformed Churches and interpretations of Scripture haue so litle in them of the vnity obsequiousness and humility of Christian Faith so much recommended to us by St Paul that they seeme to the most learned Roman Catholiks not only to sauor of heresy but to be the very source of heretical pride and damnable obstinacy so far are they from hauing the least smack of the fundation or fruit of Christianity SECT III. SOM INFERENCES FIT TO BE considered by all Protestants and vvhether any may be saued if they dye in that persuasion IF Protestancy doth inuolue that pride and obstinacy which I haue endeuored to proue and deduce from its principles without doubt he who dyes a Protestant is damn'd But Because som are called Protestants and yet know not what protestancy is I will deliuer my opinion how far their ignorance may excuse them from being
damnd by their profession 1. No Protestant Bishop or Minister can be saued if they repent not their hauing bin of that religion The reason is though many of them were more ignorant than they are yet that ignorance can not excuse them because their calling doth oblige them to be at least so learned in History if not in Diuinity as to know the nouelty of their own reformed Tenets and the manners and motiues of the Authors of their Reformations These hauing bin so contrary to Christianity and morality the Preachers and Promoters deserue nothing so well as damnation either for damning others or for not knowing they will be damn'd themselues 2. No man or woman that hath read or heard the contents of Doctor Heylins History of the Church of England or of any such Protestant Author relating the change of Religion and the causes of that change in our Countrey can be saued if they continue and dye Protestants For the cheat of that change is so visible the motiues so wicked and the practises of the Authors and Actors so abominable that there is not the least room left for a tolerable excuse or conscientious mistake The spiritual supremacy of a layman doth not only inuolue a contradiction but the occasion of King Henry 8. assuming it was so scandalous and the way of exercising it so ridiculous that euery one was as much offended at his presumption in making himself Christs Vicar in spiritualibus as they were at his profaness in making Cromuel of Putney his own Vicar general ouer the Clergy And all this confusion was raised because the Pope would not comply with his lust in diuorcing him from his lawfull wife and marrying him to An Bullen There was not a man in England then who did not see and say from whence the Kings spiritual supremacy the fundation and distinction of prelatik Protestancy had its rise and their saying is to this day continued and growen a rude Prouerb As for the change of the Mass into the Common prayer it seemed euen to all the poor Countrey folks so absurd that they took up arms against it in K. Ed. 6. reign and both it and the whole protestant Reformation was condemned as heresy by Act of Parliament 1. Mar. And though the same Reformation was again restored by an other Act of Q. Eliz. som fiue years after yet euery one Knew that the very same persons who voted for restoring it were they who had condemn'd it and now went against their conscience for Q. Elizabeths sake who not only promised rewards but gaue hopes as Doctor Heylin Confesseth of marrying herself to diuers persons euen of the lower House vvho vvere instrumental in getting Votes and securing her interest by reuiuing and setling that Religion vvhich themselues had cryed dovvn as heresy in Q. Maries dayes Vvhat ploughman or Ditcher in any part of England hath not vvit and learning enough to confute and contemn such a change and such a reformation There needs no Logik or Diuinity A bare Knovvledge of the fact is sufficient to discouer the fraud Fevv in England are so ignorant as not to Knovv that Henry 8. turnd avvay Q. Katherin for his loue to An Bullen and that Q. Elizabeth brought in the nevv Religion to strengthen her vveake title to the Croun against the Knovvn right of the Steuards 3. Though it vvere granted that the Knowledge of this change of Religion doth not quite conuince the most illiterat and dull people of its falsood yet it can not be denyed but that it must of necessity raise prudent doubts against its being Diuinely inspired and that whosoeuer is careless in cleering those doubts doth sin mortaly and will be damn'd if he dyes in that sin For a prudent doubt is as if it were the twilight of reason discouering som absurdity in that which formerly we unwarily belieued not reflecting upon the same untill som new chance or circumstance made it appear more cleerly unto us Vvhen this new chance or circumstance doth make an impression upon our mind and conscience we are bound to inquire after the cause and cure of that impression and remorse if not the sore will turn into a canker which can not be otherwise preuented than by a conscientious curiosity according to euery ones capacity The illiterat person is not bound to learn to read or to study Philosophy but he is bound to repair to his honest neighbors to inquire and hear what the Papists can say for their Religion as well as the Protestants And if he doth this without preiudice and with a good intention he will cleer his doubt and conscience Q. I am confident there are many poor Countrey fellows in England who neuer heard of King Henry 8. amours with An Bullen nor of his assuming the spiritual supremacy nor of Q. Elizabeths reuiuing protestancy to salue her own illegitimacy or to secure her interest against the Queen of Scots right How then can these men doubt or discourse of what they neuer heard must they also be damn'd A. There is not one in England who hath not heard of Persecution and Proclamations against Papists and that these men suffer for their conscience and the old Religion This can not but excite a curiosity to Know what men these are and why they should be so foolish as to suffer for so ridiculous a Religion and so strange a Beast as the Parson describeth both the Pope and Popery to be when he forgets his sermon or hath a mind to diuert his Audience or incense them against Catholiks By these and other such wayes the most dull men com to heare and may be informed of the Roman Catholik Religions antiquity as of the nouelty of the Protestant and how this came to be introduced this once Knowen all the industry and artifices of the Protestant party will neuer be able to preuent or root out of mens minds those rational doubts which are grounded vpon the light of common sense when it discouers as it must in this case the least deformity or dissonancy against reason in any obiect whatsoeuer For what can be more dissonant to the very first principles of reason than to preferr a priuat new and interested sense of Scripture before that old one which the Church stuck to as authentik for so many ages The English Bible or Translation before that which all Christendom hath bin say'd by aboue 1200. years An Act of Parliament of Queen Elizabeth and the Abettors of her interest before all other Acts of English Parliaments and all general Councells The authority of such debaucht Friers and Priests as Luther Caluin and the first Protestant Reformers before that of all the holy Doctors and the whole body of the Roman visible Church since the Apostles In a word new fancies called a Reformation before that old Christianity wherin our Ancestors as also our Kings liued and dyed so happily and wherin as the learned Protestants themselues confess they were saued wheras we all deny
he concluded there had bin no such thing as Christs Diuinity and proceeded to teach Circumcision and Poligamy and at length came to be an impure Apostata as the famous Beza doth term him in his Treatise de Poligam pag. 4. Impurus ille Apostata Bernardinus Ochinus Read likewise Sebastian Castalios ' own words in his Preface of the great Latin Bible dedicated to King Eduard 6. which are The more I do peruse the Scriptures the less do I find the same he meanes the profecies of the conuersion of Kings and Nations performed hovvsoeuer you understand the same profecies Dauid George say the Protestant Diuines of Basil in their History of him edit 1568. discoursed thus If the doctrin of Christ and his Apostles had bin true and perfect the Church vvhich they planted c. should haue continued c. But novv it is manifest that Antichrist hath subuerted the doctrin of the Apostles and the Church by them begun as is euident in the Papacy therfore the doctrin of the Apostles vvas false and imperfect And so this protestant Apostle of Basil by reflecting vpon the fundamental principle of the Reformation which is a supposition that the true Church and doctrin had bin inuisible or destroyd for many ages by Popery became a blasphemous Apostat affirming that our Sauior was a seducer In like manner Adam Neuserus the chief Pastor of Heidelberg turnd Turk and was circumcised at Constantinople See Osiander in his Epitom Centur. 16. pag. 818. The like fate had Alemannus Beza his bosom friend as Conradus Schlusserburg sayes in Theol. Caluin fol. 9. and Beza confesseth ep 65. pag. 108. Alemannum affirmant ad Iudaismum defecisse And all their conuersions to so damn'd sects were grounded vpon their not finding any pagan Kings or Nations to haue bin euer conuerted to protestancy but all wayes to popery Q. I must confess Sir that if all the Heathen Kings and Nations haue bin conuerted to that Christianity which we call popery and this was performed by Papists which could not be don without miracles and no pagan Kings and Nations haue bin euer conuerted to Protestancy nor by Protestants yee haue much more to say for yourselues than euer I heard before and we much less But I doubt you will hardly proue that untill the end of the first 600. years there were any Kings or Nations conuerted to Popery though afterwards I must own that profession was spread ouer the world and reignd untill our Protestant Reformation began in the year 1517. And to auoyd prolixity I desire you to rosolue me this one question whether Constantin the great the first Christian Emperor was a Papist Vve belieue that he and the Church of his time was Protestant because the purest Christianity Protestancy was then in vogue though afterwards it degenerated insensibly into Popery A. Euseb de Vita Constantini l. 3. c. 47. lib. 4. cap. 38. S. Hieron contra Vigilant ante med Costantinus Imperator saÌ„ctas reliquias Andreae Lucae Timothei transtulit Constantinopolim apud quas Daemones rugiunt And ibid. Si reliquius Sanctorum traÌ„sferre in aureos loculos re condere non licet sacrilegus fuit cum Constantino Arcadius omnes Episcopi non solum sacrilegi sed fatui iudicandi qui rem vilissimaÌ„ cineres dissolutâ—s â—n sericâ— vase aureo portauerunt c. S. August tom 39. dâ— Sanctis saith Crucis caracterâ— Basilicae dedicantur altaria consecrantur S. Greg. apud Bedam hist lib. 1. c. 30. Euseb de vitâ Constantini l 3. c. 2. atque interdum vultum salutari illa passionis signavit nota Zozomen hist l. 1. c. 8. Sanctae Crucis plurimum tribuit honoris Prudentius in Apotheosi vexillumque Crucis summus Dominator adorat S. Chrysostom in ep 2. Cor. hom 26. versus fin Nam ipse qui purpuram indutus est accedit illa amplexus sepulchra fastu deposito staâ— Sanctis supplicaturus ut pro se ad Dominum intercedant See the same also in S. Chrysost ad pop hom 60. versus finem That Constantin the great was a Papist and the Religion then in vogue and the only then called Catholik was Popery is euident by Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History written a litle after Constantins death as also by what the Centurists of Magdeburg and all other learned Protestants confess For it is euident by their writings that Constantin erected Temples in memory of Martyrs and the Apostles prouided his Sepulchre there to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the prayers there offered He translated to Constantinople the reliques of St Andrew Luke and Timothy at which the Deuil did roare which particular circumstance St Hierom presseth against Vigilantius whom he concludeth an heretik for being against the praying to Saints and worshiping their reliques St Augustin and St Gregory two other Doctors of the Church defend the practise of consecrating Churches when Constantin built them with the sign of the Cross and sprinkling of holy water which I belieue the protestant Clergy of Dublin were ignorant of when as I haue bin credibly informed they framed very lately a new form of their own heads to consecrat Mr Lingars oual Temple with such hatred to the Cross that they would not make use of the sign therof in the Consecration nor bless themselues in the beginning or throughout the whole work nor place any Cross in the top of the Church for fear of profaning it or troubling the Spirit of that peaceble Minister not long before departed Nay Crosses were pull'd down in that Diocess and Catholiks punished for opposing them who committed such sacrileges Vvithout doubt Constantin the great was one of the most rank Papists and though he was the man who pulled down Idols and established Christianity in the world with its splendor and publik exercise yet I feare our Zealous Dublinian Clergy will protest against his Religion as superstitious and censure him guilty of Idolatry when they heare how often he blest himself making the sign of the Cross in his forhead nay which is worse not only adorning but adoring with an inferior religious worship the Cross and which is worst of all praying to St Peter and Paul that they vvould be Intercessors for him to God At least the Church of England will not challenge him as a member of theirs he being so auerse to the spiritual supremacy and Ecclesiastical iurisdiction of temporal soueraigns that he would not sit down at the Councell of Nice untill the Bishops had therto giuen their assent nor would he take vpon him to iudge of Ecclesiastical causes saying God hath ordained you Bishops and hath giuen you povver to iudge of yourselues by meanes vvherof vve yeeld ourselues to your iudgment So Crispinus in his book of the estate of the Church pag. 99. and Zozomen hist l. c. 10. post med sets down these popish vvords of Constantin Mihi vero non est fas cum homo sim ciusmodi
causarum cognitionem arrogare c. He is therfore cursed by the Protestant vvriters as bearing the mark of the beast in acknowledging the Popes supremacy and for subduing all Christian Churches to his iurisdiction so Frigiuillaeus in his palma Christiana dedicated to Q. Elizabeth pag. 35. saying that Constantin preferred the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople before others yet attributed the Primacy before all to the Roman And pag. 34. saith that Constantin gaue the povver of the beast to Pope Iulius vvhich Iulius presently exercised for Constantin also carried the mark of the Dragon in his armes c. And Mr Napper in his Treatise vpon th Reuelations dedicated to King Iames saith After the year of God 300. the Emperor Constantin subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Siluester from vvhich time till these our dayes the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outvvard and visible Church Q. Pardon Sir that I interrupt you from proceeding further in the Proof of Constantins being a Papist I am fully conuinc't he was of your Popish Religion and seing Mr Napper sayes to King Iames that Popery possessed and gouerned the visible Church euer since that time I would willingly know whether it was so before Constantins time or whether that Emperor bestowed this supremacy vpon the Pope and pulld down Protestancy to set up Popery A. To satisfy your curiosity I will remit you to your own Protestant writers the Centurists and others I will only tell you that one of the most learnest protestant writers called Philip Nicolai took great pains in this matter in his work de regno Christi undertaking to discouer the first beginning and increase of the papal dignity or supremacy and concludeth at last with these words pag. 221. Primatus affectatio communis fuit infirmitas Apostolorum ac etiam primorum Vrbis Romae Episcoporum The affectation of the Primacy was an infirmity common to the Apostles as also to the first Bishops of Rome Mr Midleton likewise in his Papistomastix pag. 193. saith that perusing Councells Fathers and stories from the Apostles forvvord vve find the print of the Popes feet Vve may therfore follow securely steps so ancient and so authentik If Popery were not the right way to heauen certainly the ancient Councells would haue condemn'd it the Fathers would haue declin'd it and the Histories would haue recounted how it entred into the Church and supplanted the former Religion that Christ and the Apostles had preach't And yet not a vvord of this change or corruption in Councells Fathers or any History This is the greatest of Miracles that the doctrin and publik profession of Popery being in itself so contrary to Protestancy vvhich is supposed by its Professors to haue bin the pure and primitiue Christianity should steale so early and so insensibly into the Church notwithstanding the vigilancy of those primitiue Pastors and the great concern of euery faithfull to obserue and oppose the least nouelty whatsoeuer in matters of doctrin any change or corruption therof inuoluing a damnable heresy Q. Though the conuersion of all heathen Kings and Nations were as you say to Popery and performed by Papists and that it is not credible God vvould permit so general a peruersion vvherby the end of instituting his Church would be frustrated yet I vvould vvillingly know vvhether you can produce any Miracles against our Protestant doctrin vvherby we differ from the Papists A. See D◠Humfry in Iesuitismi p. 2◠rat 5. p. 5. 627. Bishop Bale in Act. Rom. Pont. pag. 44.45 46. Osiand in Epit. Cēt. 6. p. 289. 288. And the Magdeb. Centur. 6. cap. 20. All the Miracles that moued the Pagans to be Papists were wrought against Protestancy I will instance it in the conuersion of our Saxon Ancestors vvho vvere Pagans and made Papists by the preaching and Miracles of St Austin the Monk Apostle of England The Protestant writers confess he conuerted the Saxons to the Chaos of Popish Ceremonies and superstition and specify worship of Images praying to Saints Purgatory Mass Transubstantiatiation holy water c. And yet themselues confess with St Bede that his doctrin and that of the ancient Britans of that time B p. Iuel in his pageant of Popes B p. Goduin in his Catalogue of Bishops p. 1. Fox in his Acts and Monum printed 1576. pag. 463. difered only in a ceremony of Baptism and in the day of celebrating Easter St Austin confirming his own practise therin by a confessed Miracle of restoring sight to a blind man Now it being euident by our English Chronicles and the Protestant vvriters vvherof Mr Iohn Fox Bishop Goduin and Bishop Iuel are to be particularly noted as being most eminent that the ancient Britans after receiuing the Catholik Faith in the Apostles time held the same untill Austins coming and neuer forsook it for any manner of false preaching of other nor for torments c. It must be concluded that the ancient Britans were first conuerted to Popery and so continued untill Austins time and that his and their doctrin was the same in all particulars contrary to Protestancy and confirmed by Miracles But because you seem to desire a dogmatical Miracle that is one vvrought in confirmation of Popery not only as it is Christianity in general but at it is Christianity in particular and opposit to Protestancy I will endeu or to satisfy your curiosity hoping therby to setle your conscience CHAP. IX St. BERNARDS VNDENIABLE Miracles vvrought by God to confound Protestants and confirm the doctrin of the Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory Prayer for the dead Prayer to Saints their vvorship and that of Images Chrisme the Popes supremacy c. SAint Bernards learning sanctity and Miracles are so generaly confessed by all Protestant writers that Doctor Stillingfleet in his late Comedy of the Idolatry and Fanaticism of the Church of Rome durst not bring him vpon the stage Vvhitaker de Ecclesiâ pag. 369. saith of him I do realy belieue Bernard vvas a true Saint Osiander cent 12. saith Saint Bernard Abot of Clareual vvas a uery pious man c. Gomarus in speculo Ecclesiae pag. 23. saith one pious man your Church had in many years Bernard your Saint And Pasquils return into England pag. 8. 13. saith he vvas a good Father and one of the lamps of Gods Church He was so famous for his learning humility deuotion and Miracles that after his refusal of all Ecclesiastical dignities he gouerned not only the Church but the temporal Princes were sayd by him and submitted to his iudgment King Henry 2. of England forsook a Schismatical Pope which he had supported against the King of France by saint Bernards persuasion The King of France gaue ouer troubling the Bishops for his sake VVilliam the Duke of Aquitain was conuerted from a deuouring wolf to a meek Lamb by his words All the world lookt upon saint Bernard as the Apostle of that age wherin diuers heresies were
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