A soveraign remedy against atheism and heresy. Fitted for the vvit and vvant of the British nations / by M. Thomas Anderton.

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 first and cleerest notions and principles of mankind , it must be sayd , that nothing hath not only proportion with somthing , but also that nothing and somthing haue the same properties , and work the same effects , and by consequence that there is no difference or distance between such contradictions , as nothing and somthing , being and not being , existent and not existent .

Q. I see that the existence and vnity of God is much more cleere than Atheists pretend ; but me thinks the same argument wherby you proue Gods vnity , concludes the impossibility of the Trinity : for if there can not be two or more things infinitly perfect , it must be granted that either the Father , son , and holy Ghost , are not things , or beings distinct one from the other ; or if they be , that they are not infinitly perfect .

A. To this question , or obiection there are two answers . The first and best is , that God were not infinitly perfect , if such imperfect creatures as we know our selues to be , could comprehend his excellencies and mysteries . And though as rational creatures , we ought ( euen in what we belieue ) be directed by reason , yet that reason which is our guide , can lead us no further in many things than to persuade vs submit to credible authority , which is the testimony of a Church or Congregation authentikly authorised by God to beare witness that he reuealed such and such mysteries . Though the truth of these mysteries be not intelligible or visible to our human , vnderstandings , it were want of vnderstanding to doubt of them , or to deny them : because there is not any one truth more cleer to vs , nor more obuious ( by vndeniable experiments ) to all mankind than this , that there are many truthes wherof our human vnderstandings can giue no reason . Now if this be so in human and ordinary things , why should we presume or pretend that the mystery of the Trinity is not true , because we forsooth , can not comprehend its truth ?

The second answer is this , the Father , the son , and holy Ghost , haue but one being , or nature , common to all three , and therfore they are equaly powerfull , equaly wise , equaly good , and eternall , and by consequence but one God . But because this diuine nature , or essence hath three different manners of being , and that euery one of these three manners is identified with , and inseparable from the Deity , though distinct one from the other , there must be three distinct persons ; the first is called the Father , the second is called the son , the third is called the holy Ghost . This may be explained by two similitudes . 1. is that of a body , which hath three dimensions , longitude , latitude and profundity , distinct one from the other , but not from the body . 2. is that ordinary example of our soul , which is but one being , though it hath three different manners of being : the first manner is to know , the second is to wish , or wil , the third is to remember . Though these three manners or modes of being , are very different in themselues , yet they are not things distinct from the soul . Q. But how can this be applyed to the Trinity ?

A. Thus. It must be granted that in the Deity we may consider ( and truly t is so ) the Diuine nature , first , as hauing from itself alone all knowledge , and all perfections . 2. this same Deity may be considered as knowing or reflecting vpon its own knowledge , and perfections . 3. it may be considered , as infinitly louing itself and its infinit perfections . The Deity therfore or the Divine nature as it is the fountain of infinit fecundity , and the original principle , or giuer , is called the Father . The same Deity as it is considered not the fountain , but as if it were the riuer that flowes from that fountain , or the chanel that receiues its own knowledge and perfections , is called the son ; The same Deity as it is infinitly beloued by the Father and the son , is called the holy Ghost ; which holy Ghost proceedeth as wel from the son as from the Father , because each of those two persons equaly loue one an other , and the Deity : whence it followeth , that the Greekes error of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father alone , and not from the son , is not only blasphemy , but nonsense ; because it is impossible that such a Father should not loue such a son , and that such a son should not loue his Father , they both hauing the same nature , and the same perfections . This is sufficient of so sublime a mystery , the truth wherof though it can not be cleerly comprehended by so imperfect creatures as we are , yet our human reason may with some probability and proportion shew that the vnity of the Diuine nature doth no more exclude the Trinity of persons , than the vnity of a body doth exclude its three dimensions , or the vnity of the soul it s three faculties .

CHAP. II. OF THE IMMORTALITY of the soul .

Q. Is the immortality of the soul an article of Christian Religion ?

A. Yes , because in the Creed we belieue the life euerlasting .

Q. May this article be proued by natural reason ?

A. yes , if you will admit there is any such thing as reason in man . For , reason is that faculty wherby a man finds himself naturaly directed and inclined to raise his thoughts aboue and beyond the reach of his senses ; and to correct and contradict his own sensations , when he discouers that they are as false and fallacious as dayly experience doth manifest in familiar examples v. g. of oares that seem to bend or break in the water ; of sophisticated wine that seemes to be natural ; of false colours ; of mad dreames , and imaginations that in our sleep or in a melancoly humor seem to be rational discourses and real obiects ; and other innumerable mistakes , which are rectified either by reflexions of our own , or by the rules of perspectiue philosophy , and other sciences , inuented by men to discern the difference that is between the true existence , and the false appearance of things .

Q. How do you inferr that the soul is immortal , because reason ( which is the soul , or a faculty therof ) doth direct and incline men to correct the fallacy of their sensations , and to raise their thoughts aboue , and carry them beyond the reach of our senses ?

A. Sensation being a cooperation , or a ioynt operation of the body and soul , through the organization or ministery of our senses , if the soul ( or its faculty of reason ) doth correct and contradict som of these sensations , and finds them to be false or fallacious , it is manifest that the soul may and sometimes doth , operat not only independently of the body , but contrary to those appearances which seemd to be real , whilst we were in it , and were directed by them , or belieued our senses ; and by consequence the soul is immortal , because the immortality of the soul is nothing else but its independency of the body in acting and existing : and if it acts against our sensations when it is in the body , questionless it may act without them , or independently of 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 ●ce , but an euerlasting existence independent of the body .

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 ●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 . Wherfore 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 WORSHIP 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 Protestant , in his Tratise intituled the reli●ues of Rome , edit 1560. f. 344 saith , the Mass was begotten , conceiued , and born anone after the Apostles tyme , if all be true that Historiographers write .

Sebastianus Francus an other learned Protestant in his Epistle for abr●gating all ●he Canon law , sayth , im●●diatly after the Apostles all things were turnd vpside down , &c. The Lords supper was transformed into a sacrifice .

Mr Ascham in his Apology for the Lords supper , p. 31. doth acknowledge that no beginning of this change can be chewed .

The ancient 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 new Testament .

See St Ignatius the Apostles Scholar in his Epistle to the Church of Smirna . St Irenaeus . l. 4. c. 32. of whom the Centurists say that he speakes very in comodiously when he sayes that Christ tanght a new oblation , which the Church receiuing from the Apostles , doth offer to God in all the world . See Cent. c. 4. col. 63. and Cent. 2. cap. 10. col. 167. they affirm St Ignatius his words 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 was offerd for his mother Monica , being dead ; and that it is not to be doubted but that the souls of the dead are relieued when 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. What 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 Christ , as offered vpon the Cross , is a general fountain of graces , and pardons , and the foundation of the sacrifices of the old ( as well as of the new ) Testament , wherof they all were but types , or figures , therfore that Diuine and bloudy sacrifice of the Cross can not be so peculiarly attributed to the law of grace , as to be called the proper sacrifice of the Christian and Catholik Church .

Q. Is not the sacrifice of the Cross , and the sacrifice of the Mass , the same sacrifice ?

A. They differ not in the substance , because the same Christ is offerd in both , and Christ himself is the chief Priest in Both. But they differ in the manner , for in the sacrifice of the Mass Christ is offered vnder the species or appearance of bread and wine , and in the Cross he was offered in his own shape .

Q. If the substance of the sacrifice be the same , what need is there of that of the Mass ? is it not sufficient that Christ offered himself vpon the Cross once for all ?

A. It is a general rule grounded vpon reason , and the concurrence or custom of all Nations which euer professed any Religion , that euery particular Religion must haue its sacrifice peculiar to itself ; because Religion being Diuine worship , and sacrifice being an action professing the Diuinity of that which is worshipt , it inuolues a contradiction to say Religion , and no sacrifice , or to say , that a religion can continue , and the sacrifice therof not continue . Seing therfore the Christian and Catholik Religion doth continue , and that the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross , or Christs passion , doth not continue , the sacrifice of the Cross can not be the proper and peculiar sacrifice of the Christian Religion , and Catholik Church .

Q. It is not sufficient that the effects of the sacrifice of the Cross continue in the Church though Christ suffered but once ; for the cause may be sayd to continue in its effects ?

A. It can not be properly sayd that the cause continues in its effects . Otherwise it might be properly sayd , that the Priestood and sacrifice of Noe after the deluge ( chap. 8. Gen ) doth yet continue , because the effect therof ( viz. the assurance of not suffering an other deluge ) doth and will continue vntill the end of the world .

Q. If all the sins of the world be pardoned ( or at least be sufficiently satisfied for ) by the sacrifice of the Cross , what vse is there for the sacrifice of the Mass ? or how can it be a propitiatory sacrifice , in virtue wherof sins are pardon'd and satisfied for ?

A. It is not against the sufficiency or infinitness of the sacrifice of the Cross , that sins be forguien , and satisfied for by the sacrifice of the Mass ; not only because the same Christ is offered in both sacrifices , but because the sacrifice of the Mass is a commemoration of that of the Cross , and doth apply the sufficiency of the same to the pardon of particular sins , that were not committed before Christs passion , as we say of Baptism and other Sacraments . And if the sacrifices of the old testament were propitiatory , in virtue of Christs passion , before he came to the world , there can be no ground to deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is a Propitiatory sacrifice , in virtue of the same passion after that he sufferd .

CHAP. IV. OF THE CHVRCH OF GOD , and of Diuine faith .

Q. Though I know that they who worship God as he commands , are his Church , yet there being so many Congregations of Christians pretending themselues alone to be those worshipers , and the true Church , or at least a part therof , I would willingly know whether there be any certain and cleer signes wherby the true Church and its members may be discerned from all false and heretical Congregations ? and what signes these are ? I am satisfied that any two or more Congregations dissenting in any doctrin , can not constitute that Catholik Church , out of which there is no saluation ; because such Congregations can not haue either vnity , or verity in that doctrin wherin they disagree ; and by consequence , seing God ( who is truth itself and infinitly auers from falsood ) can no more countenance , or confirm with supernatural signs the least , than the greatest falsood , that Church or Churches which propose contradictory Tenets ( whether fundamental or not fundamental ) can no more be the Catholik or part therof , than God can forfeit his veracity , or incline and oblige men to belieue contradictory points , wherof one must needs be false .

A. That there are certain and cleer signes wherby the true Catholik Church of God may be discerned from all false and heretical Congregations , is as euident as Gods veracity , and his inclination to truth ; or as it is , that God did not institute a Church wherin there could be no peace , concord , or order ; but all must haue bin disorder , confusion and dissention ; For , if the testimony of euery of those Congregations were as credible ( by supernatural signs of their being the true Church ) as they are confident in their pretentions of being so , the most learned and prudent men might liue and dye safely in the state of perplexity ; and all the world ( at best ) must haue bin seekers , or sceptiks ; and there being no reason ( in such a case ) to belieue , why rather one sect than an other should be the true Church . Therfore God being the Author of truth , peace , order , and vnity , his Church can not be a Congregation of dissenting , or perplexed people , changing from one faith to an other , for want o● discernable and supernatural signes , which none but the true Church ought to haue , to the end all men may find it out , and therby be directed to embrace the true Diuine worship and doctrin .

These signes must be supernatural ; that is , signes , aboue the sphere and power of natural causes ; at least they must seem so , not only to the vulgar people , but to the wisest men and greatest Doctors , after a diligent scrutiny , and mature consideration of all causes , and circumstances : because they must be such as produce in us an euident obligation of belieuing that God alone is the Author of the Doctrin proposed as Diuine , and that he hath authorised that Church to propose the same . The signs must not only be obseruable , but obuious to euery vulgar comprehension , and perceptible euen by our senses . The reason is , because many , of the mysteries which are to be belieued with Diuine faith , exceed human capacity , and therfore as well the learned as the ignorant are to be instructed therin by the Church , and must take its testimony for a sufficient proof of their obligation to belieue ( without doubting ) that God reuealed those things which it proposeth in his name , and they can not comprehend ; though they be credibly reuealed . Now to belieue that things so difficult as many mysteries which the Church proposeth , are true , and reuealed by God ; and that any man or Congregation of men is authorised by his Diuine authority to propose and press such things vpon our vnderstandings , this belief I say , can not 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 . ●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 .

We 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 whether this , or Heresy , be consistent with 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. What 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. What 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 . We 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 . We 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 . When 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. Why 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 .

When 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 . Notwithstanding I do not see any cleer euidence or infallible connexion betwen 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 will permit the least falsood to be so authenticaly proposed as his reuelation , or word , 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 ●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 . We only know he can not sin . But we do ●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 ●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 . HOW A MAN MAY ASSENT in matters of Faith , with 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 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. Why 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 Will 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 assurance 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 experience : 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 . Without 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 in ouercoming this last great difficulty consists chiefly the supernaturality which is most peculiar to the act of Faith . Heretiks therfore may be conuicted of obstinacy and heresy , though they do not cleerly see , nor we euidently conclude ( by tradition , or any thing else ) that God reuealed what they deny or doubt of , and the Church proposeth as reuealed by him : For , heresy doth not consist in an impossibility , but it would be one if it were requisit that learned heretiks be obstinat against a cleer and conclusiue euidence of God hauing reuealed what they deny or doubt of . How can any passion or pride blind a learned heretik ( if it depriues him not wholy of his wits , and then he can not sin , or be an heretik ) so far , as to make him deny or doubt of what he sees euidently concluded God sayd , or reuealed ? That were to deny God is God , or the existence of a Deity . A learned heretik therfore can not be better or more cleerly conuicted of heretical obstinacy , than by our euidently concluding against him , that he is obliged in conscience ( to auoyd the threatned danger of damnation if he doth not belieue the Church , whose testimony is confirmed with Miracles ) to assent to that doctrin as Diuine , which is deliuered by Catholik Tradition and confirmed by the motiues of credibility , though it be not cleerly euident that its doctrin is Diuine , or its tradition infallible . More of this hereafter . Now I will proue the euident obligation all men ( who are informed of our Faith ) haue to belieue the doctrin of the Roman Catholik Church as Diuine , as also how they are obliged in conscience to inform themselues therof .

CHAP. V. HOW THE MIRACLES OF THE Roman Church euidently conuict all its Aduersaries of damnable obstinacy ; and how a credible report of them obligeth all men to inform themselues of those miracles , and doctrin confirmed by them ; and that of all Christian Congregations the Roman Catholik alone is the true Catholik Church .

Q. Supposing the Catholik Church can not be composed of all or any two Congregations dissenting in the least point of doctrin , as hath bin proued in the precedent Chapter , I desire to know which of them all is that one true Catholik Church we ought to belieue , according to that article of the Apostles Creed I belieue in the holy Catholik Church , and out of which there is no saluation ?

A. You know the true Catholik Church is only that Congregation of Christians which hath the signs Christ sayd ( Marc. 16. ) should follow the true belieuers : and that those signes are , the casting out of Deuills ( not by coniuring , but ) in the name of Christ ; the gift of tongues , the conuersion of Nations to Christianity , the curing of diseases , raising of the dead , and other supernatural marks of Gods trust and truth committed only to the ministery of that Church , and by which marks i● must be discerned from all false Congregations , pretending to be either the whole , or a part of the Catholik Church .

Q. Out of your discourse I gather that all the markes of the true Catholik Church are reduced to miracles ; because supernatural sanctity , the conuersion of Nations to Christianity , the gift of profecy , &c. are as great miracles , as the casting out of Deuills , curing diseases , raising the dead , and the gift of tongues . But it is a common saying among Protestants , that miracles are ceased in the Church ; and som Catholiks grant they are so few , and wrought in those remote regions of Iapan and China , that you can hardly meet with one who did euer see a miracle . How therfore can miracles be the marks wherby euery man may be directed to know the true Catholik Church , if few or none see them ?

A. I grant that all the marks of the Catholik Church must be miraculous ; otherwise they were not fit motiues for prudent men to submit their iudgments to the testimony or ministery of that Church , as to the Church of God . But miracles are not ceased , nor confind to those remote regions of Iapan and China : There is not a Catholik Nation in the world which doth not shew som things at least so like supernatural miracles , that as wise and wary men as any in Christendom , belieue them to be so . And such Protestants as pretend they are not , can not with any probability shew that the matter of fact is false , or that the manner of working them is fraudulent or natural ; seing therfore Christ himself assures vs that supernatural miracles shall follow the true belieuers , and that vntill the end of the world there will be true belieuers , and by consequence a Catholik Church , we are bound in conscience to belieue , that only is the true Church , wherin we see ( or at least heare credibly reported ) there are true miracles , or things so like true miracles , that as wise and as wary men as any in the world ( after a seuere scrutiny , and serious study ) mistake them for true miracles , notwithstanding they know that vpon their not being mistaken in so important a matter doth depend their euerlasting happiness , or misery . Dr Downham in hi● Treatise of Antichrist l. 1. c. 9. pag. 111. saith , neither Turks , nor Iewes , nor any other Churches of Christians , but only the Pope and Church of Rome do vaunt of miracles .

Q. Is there but one Congregation of Christians that pretends to such miracles ?

A. No.

Q. Which is that ?

A. The Roman Catholik .

Q. If all other Christian Congregations be against the Roman Catholik , and that in euery Christian Congregation there be as wise and wary men , and as willing to be saued , as any Roman Catholiks ; why should any man be bound in conscience to belieue the Roman Catholik miracles are true , when as great , or a greater number of wise and learned men do maintain they are not true miracles ?

A. When learned parties agree in the fact of an accident so extraordinary , that no natural cause therof ( after diligent scarch ) can be knowen , but seemes to be aboue the power of all natural causes and human industry , doubtless the party which belieues the fact to be supernatural , or a miracle , deserues to be credited before all which contradict the same , and can giue no good reason for their contradiction . 1. Because in som Christian Congregation or other there must be true miracles , otherwise Christs words , Marc. 16. can not be verified . And seing no other Christian Congregation but the Roman Catholik pretends ( at least vpon so publik and probable grounds ) to haue true miracles , the Roman Catholik is to be credited in this point before all others . 2. It is not consistent with Gods infinit veracity to permit so publik and probable an appearance of true miracles for confirming falsood , as the appearance of miracles in the Roman Catholik Church is . For that , veracity is an inclination to truth , and an auersion from falsood ; and by consequence , the Diuine veracity ( being infinit ) inuolues an infinit auersion from falsood . But an infinit auersion from falsood is not consistent with Gods permission of so probable 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. WHETHER THE CREDIBLE and constant report there is of true miracles wrought in the Roman Catholik Church , be a sufficient euidence to conuict of damnable obstinacy and heresy such as stight them or will 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 will 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. What 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 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 BETWEEN Catholik constancy , and heretical obstinacy : and wherin 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 ? What 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 whether 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 ) who were instrumental in getting Votes , and securing her interest by reuiuing and setling that Religion which themselues had cryed down as heresy in Q. Maries dayes . What ploughman or Ditcher in any part of England hath not wit and learning enough to confute and contemn such a change , and such a reformation ? There needs no Logik or Diuinity . A bare Knowledge of the fact is sufficient to discouer the fraud . Few in England are so ignorant as not to Know that Henry 8. turnd away Q. Katherin for his loue to An Bullen , and that Q. Elizabeth brought in the new Religion to strengthen her weake title to the Croun against the Known right of the Steuards .

3. Though it were 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 . When 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 that they can be saued by Protestancy .

Q. I see you are of opinion that no Protestant at all can be saued . What ? Can none of them haue inuincible ignorance ? Is there so cleer and obuious an euidence of the Roman Catholik being the true Church , that none can pretend nor plead ignorance of that truth ?

A. That out of the true Church there is no saluation , is a maxim of Faith wherin the holy Fathers agree . That the same Church is so visible and preferable before all others , that euen the most stupid may as easily see it , as a Citty vpon a mountain , and therfore are commanded to repair to it , is manifest in Scripture . That the Roman Catholik hath those cleer marks of Gods fauor , which persuade the most scrupulous it is the true Church of God , hath bin in the 4. Chapter demonstrated by us , and appeareth by those supernatural signs of miracles , sanctity , conuersion of Nations to Christianity , &c. which shine in it , and haue set it out so gloriously in all ages and places of the world since the preaching of the Apostles . That in England there is any corner or person wherin common sense can be so burried , or curiosity so dead , as to be ignorant of these things , and others deliuered by tradition from age to age , and year to year , is not credible . But in case there be any Protestant so neer a beast as not to reflect vpon any thing he sees or heareth of his own or of our Religion ; his Baptisme will saue him , if he did not loose , by a mortal sin the grace which he receiued in and by that Sacrament . And this is all the comfort I can giue my Protestant friends , whose saluation I more heartily wish , than those do , who delude them with larger opinions .

Q. This is but very cold comfort . Will not God grant to som poor ignorant Protestant an act of contrition , at least in the last hour ?

A. I think not . But if he doth to any , it is to som of those stupid Creatures I last spoke of . As for others , who haue wit and wayes to consider and reflect vpon those doubts which occurr to themselues , or are raised in them by the discourse of others , their obstinacy or affected ignorance in not listening , or inquiring into a matter so important , and so easily resolued , makes them incapable of so great a fauor as an act of contrition . And as for those ernest or bigot Protestants , they are in greatest danger of any , and furthest from contrition ; because hauing a cleerer Knowledge of their own religion , and spending much time in the meditation therof , they must needs haue great doubts , if they do not stifle them in their first birth , by diuerting their thoughts to more pleasing obiects , and by auoyding all occasions of discoursing of protestancy , as commonly they do , especialy when they perceiue there is any likelihood of laying open the weakness of its principles , and the wickedness of the first Reformers . Besides , an act of contrition inuolues Faith , hope , and charity , and these Protestants not hauing Faith , but rather an auersion against hearing of it , are not in a disposition fit for contrition , which is the greatest grace God doth to his most eminent seruants , and the Saints of his own Church .

Q. Methinks this is very hard . I can not as yet comprehend why a deuout Protestant may not be capable of an act of contrition . Is protestancy so abominable in the sight of God , that he will not turn his mercifull eye towards Protestants ? Is it wors than other great sins which God doth pardon ? Is it heresy ? And if it be , may not an heretik haue an act of contrition ? Is the malice of heresy so great as to exclude Gods mercy ?

A. Without doubt Heresy is the greatest of sins , and yet excludes not Gods mercy ; but an Heretiks conuersion precedes contrition , this not being compatible with heresy . I will briefly tell you wherin consists the malice of heresy , and leaue yourself to iudge whether protestancy be Heresy . The malice of Heresy consists in the contempt of Gods veracity . And Gods veracity consists in an infinit inclination to truth . An infinit inclination to truth is not consistent with a permission of falsood credibly fathered and fastned upon him that permits it , if he can easily hinder the same . Now , the malice of heresy consists in hauing so mean an opinion of Gods veracity , or of his inclination to truth , that he would permit a Church so credibly pretending to be his own , as the Roman Catholik doth ( by its miracles , its sanctity its conuersion of Nations to Christianity , and other supernatural marks ) to impose upon the world ( in his name ) for so many ages , false doctrin for true ; wheras it was in his power euery moment of all that time to discouer and declare the cheat , and disown the doctrin . And yet he did not either . That our miracles father our doctrin upon God , is easily proued ; for , though the first Protestant Reformers and their successors cry out against som of our miracles as false , yet they are forc't to confess som of them are true ; and we joyn with them in censuring false miracles as such , and punish them who feign them as Malefactors . Against our conuersion of Nations to Christianity ( a confessed mark of the true Church ) they haue nothing to say ; and as litle against the succession and sanctity of our Doctrin and Doctors . Notwithstanding this credible ( and indeed conuincing ) appearance of our miracles , and of the Roman Catholik Church being the true one , commissioned by God to instruct his people , yet the Protestants will not belieue it , nor submit their iudgments to so authentik an authority , nor hearken to the Diuine voice manifesting itself by the cleerest signs and euidence that is consistent with the freedom , merit , and obscurity of Christian Faith . Whether this obstinacy be not heresy , let the Protestants themselues iudge ; and examin whether to slight the testimony and signs of such a Church , be not a contempt of Gods veracity , as supposing he can permit falsood to be so plausibly fatherd upon him as wee see the Roman Catholik doctrin hath bin for so many ages , and throughout all parts of the world .

CHAP. VII . OF THE MINISTERY OF THE Church , and of the nullity of that of England .

AS it is necessary that Gods Church should haue visible signs wherby it may be discerned from all heretical Congregations , so it is acknowledged that in the same there is a Ministery caracterised with such publik ceremonies and authentik testimonies , that there can be no danger of counterfeiting a mission or vocation so sacred . In the Christian Church the Ministers are called Bishops and Priests . Both are consecrated by a real imposition of Episcopal hands , and other ceremonies which haue bin practised in the Church euer since the Apostles , from whom by a continual succession the Episcopal caracter must descend , and be proued ; otherwise no credit is to be giuen to any persons claiming to be Bishops of whose ordination Priestood dependeth .

It was the misfortune of the Protestant Reformations , that the Authors therof were not Bishops , and , by consequence , could not transmit either that caracter , or that of Priestood to their successors , as they did their doctrin . This defect they endeuored to supply by persuading such as belieued them , that no indelible caracter or visible ceremony of imposition of Episcopal hands , was necessary for a Minister of the Ghospel . And euen the Church of England was necessitaded to approue of this desperat doctrin ( in the 25. of its 39. articles of Religion ) because it was then well Knowen , the Consecrators of her first Bishops were no real Bishops , though they were called so for reason of state . One is , that the constitution of English Parliaments requiring Bishops as one of the three estates of the Kingdom , and their votes being a considerable addition to the soueraigns authority , of which alone their nomination dependeth , Q. Elizabeth in this particular of Episcopacy went against the principles of other Reformations , and would needs Keep vp the name of Bishops in her Church . But it happened very cross to her design , that none of the Catholik Bishops of England ( no others were then there liuing ) would lay hands upon , or consecrate any of those new ones which she named to that dignity . See the commission and dispensation in Doctor Bramhall the Protestant Bishop of Derry , his vindication of the Episcopacy of England . See the statut . 8. Eliz. 1. Therfore she was forc't to issue forth a second commission for that purpose and therin to dispense ( by virtue of her supreme spiritual iurisdiction ) with the very state and condition of the Consecrators . And this power and practise hauing bin publikly excepted against ( by Catholik Authors in print ) as null , and ridiculous , it was confirmed and declared by Act of Parliament ( 8. Eliz. 1. ) that whatsoeuer had bin don untill then in making of Bishops , Archbishops , &c. by the Queens commission under the great seal of England , should stand as ualid , whether the Consecrators were Bishops or no Bishops ; any person or persons whatsoeuer , hauing bin declared capable of giuing that caracter to any other , prouided they were authorised therunto by her Maiesties commission under the great seal .

This occasioned great disputes between Doctor Haiding and Doctor Iuel , one of the first Protestant Bishops . Doctor Haiding in his printed bookes desired Mr Iuel to name the Bishop that consecrated him , Parker , and the rest of Queen Elizabeths first Bishops ; and was content to submit to Iuel , and own the validity of his and the other protestant Bishops consecration , if he would name Parkers Consecrator . A man would think this was no such intricat matter , nor strong argument , if euer Parker had bin consecrated by a Bishop . And yet Iuel hauing bin thus prouoked by his insulting Aduersary , could neuer name Parkers Consecrator , of whose consecration depended that of the rest ; nor produce Registers of that consecration , when Harding called for them , though som 50. years after , appear'd in print a very formal Register of Parkers consecration , copied forsooth out of Records Kept in Lauander at Lambeth . The unseasonable appearance of this new found Register occasioned much laughter , and new disputes which haue continued vntill these times . And indeed it can not well enter into any considering mens heads , that Parker , Iuel , and the first protestant Bishops ( who were called by Catholiks no Bishops in print , for want of a right Consecrater , and challenged to name the Bishops that consecrated them or Parker , their aduersaries setting their stress vpon that only argument ) would not take the pains to see and search their Registers of Lambeth for a Bishops name that imported them so much to name , if any such Bishop had euer bin , or any such Records had bin then extant . Besides , sure their memories were not so short , as not to remember without the help of Registers and Records the name of a man that their Successors pretended ( fifty years after the time of answering was past ) had made Parker a Bishop but fiue years before they were askt the question , with so much ceremony and solemnity . For , Hardings book and Iuells answer were printed an. 1565. or therabouts .

An other thing made the prelatik Clergies caracter absolutly null . And that was the Form which they used in the consecration of their Bishops and Priests . This Form was iudged essentialy defectiue , because not one word therof did express or mention the caracter pretended to be giuen therby . And though the Church of England for neer one hundred years had defended and practised this Form , yet at length they were forc't to submit to their Aduersaries exceptions and reasons against it , and to change and correct the Form , as wee directed in the bookes we writ against the same . Vpon the Kings restauration they printed their Ritual and therin you may see the words Bishop and Priest added vnto the Form of their consecrations , which ( or their equiualent ) are absolutly necessary ; and yet nothing like them was in the old Forms , and former editions . This humility of theirs is to be commended , though it be to no purpose , seing the change made not them who went before it , Bishops ; and though their late reformed Form be valid , yet when pronounced by men that are not Bishops , it works no effect , nor giues any caracter either of Priestood or Episcopacy to themselues or their Successors . And none of the Protestant Clergy hath bin consecrated by a true Bishop since the change of their old Form .

Let the Protestant Layty now reflect vpon the caracter and conscience of their Clergy , as being men who take vpon themselues the administration of Sacraments , absolution from sins , spiritual jurisdiction , and all functions belonging to true Bishops and Priests ; though themselues can not but know there is no probable ground to belieue they are such . I say nothing of the reuenues they are possessed of vpon the account of being Churchmen ; but I can not be so uncharitable as not to aduertise my Countreymen of the danger they are in , and of the damnation which will follow , if by timely repentance and a generous resolution they do not withdraw themselues from the direction of such Teachers , and from the Ministery of such a Clergy . What can they answer to the , obiection we borrow from the statut 8. Eliz. Can they imagin that the Queen would dispense with the state and condition of the Consecraters , if they had had the Episcopal caracter ? What need was there of a dispensation with their state and condition , if they were real Bishops ? Why should the Parlament confirm this dispensation , and enact by law , that whatsoeuer was don by this commission of the Queens , should be valid , whether the Consecraters were Bishops or not ; the words are , by any person , or persons whatsoeuer . All that my Countreymen can say , is , that they haue an Act of Parliament for the caracter of their Clergy , and for the saluation of their souls . What that will auail them in the other world , I wish they did consider . Surely they can not but know that such Acts , will be no excuse before that dreadfull Iudge , who takes no other euidence but that of our own conscience . This only we must consult in matters of Eternity , and not think that a Clergy or Religion established by a temporal law , is lawfull , though it should be called legal by an Act of Parlament .

Q. Sir , I haue seen the Registers of Lambeth you would haue me suspect as forged . I assure you I see no sign of forgery in them . And as for Bishop Iuels not answering Doctor Harding demand , concerning the first Protestant Bishops ( and particularly Parkers ) Consecrator , perhaps he thought it an idle question , and underualued so weak an obiection .

A. Forged Registers are often the most formal , all counterfeit ware standing in need of being set forth with great artifice . We haue seen Registers and Records of publik Courts of Iudicature so artificialy changed and corrupted , that nothing but their not being produced many years before , when they were called for , could conclude the forgery . Doctor Harding called for the Registers of the first protestant Bishops Consecration , as well as for the Consecraters name : Neither did B. Iuel contemn this demand , as you imagin . He went as far in the answer as he durst . He answered , 1. that the first protestant Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign , were consecrated in due form by Archbishop Parker their Metropolitan : But being again pressed by Harding to name Parkers Consecrator , he put off that impertinent question ( wherof the whole controuersy and the credit of the Church of England depended ) by a wild digression and long discourse of the ancient Bishops being consecrated without aquainting the Pope . But sure Mr Iuel might aquaint Doctor Harding with the name of him who consecrated Parker , as well as he named Parker for Consecrator of the other Bishops ; and certainly would , if Parker himself had bin realy consecrated by a Bishop . If you do not belieue my relation , read Doctor Hargings bookes against Iuel , and Iuels own Apology for the Church of England , where they treat of this particular .

Q. Gentlemen , I would to God you did agree among yourselues , and not break the Layties heads with your disputes . You haue put so many doubts into mine , that I can hardly belieue any thing . On both sides you seem to bee honest and learned men ; therfore I think my best way is , to continue in the Church of England , and trust in God , that I shall not be damn'd for not being of that of Rome , untill I be better satisfied that the points wherin it differs from ours are necessary for saluation . And this requiring longer time , ( the particulars being so many ) than I am like to liue , t' is not credible God would oblige me , or any other illiterat person , to spend our dayes rather in controuersies than in prayer and good works ; and in the end be as litle satisfied with ourselues as our and your Clergy are with one an other . Yourselues grant that implicit Faith is sufficient for such ignorant people as I am , that Faith , I am sure I haue ; for I do belieue all that God reuealed , though I do not know what it is he reuealed , or whether he hath apointed the Church of Rome , rather than that of England , to instruct the world , and inform us of his reuelations . And truly I belieue a man may be saued without troubling himself to know which of them it is that God hath apointed for our instruction , prouided we be redy to be members therof when that shall be made cleer to us by better arguments than I am able to inquire after .

A. This is so dangerous doctrin , that I iudge it worth my pains to shew yet further the obligation the most illiterat men haue to search after the true Church , and how easi●y they may find it out by visible signs ; and how you may without any help , but that of common sense , be satisfied of the truth of euery particular point of doctrin wherin Roman Catholiks differ from Protestants : And all this in the space of less than two houres time .

Q. Nay Sir , if you perform your undertaking , I deserue to be damn'd for all Eeternity , if I will nor hear you for so short a time as two hours . I pray Sir proceed .

CHAP. VIII . HOW EVERY ILLITERAT PERSON may easily and in the space of two houres , find out the true Church , and the truth of euery point of doctrin controuerted between Catholiks and Protestants .

WHen the people of Israel were most diuided in matters of Religion , 3. Reg. 8. the Prophet Elias made a motion to them of cleering the truth by that famous dogmatical Miracle of burning an Ox upon the Altar without kindling the fire under it . This cleer and compendious way was hugely approued of by the multitude , as suting best with their capacities , for , they needed not learning to dispute , their eyes were sufficient Iudges , and they had so much common sense as to know , that God would not permit a falsood to be confirmd by a miracle in so publik a trial , wherin his Veracity was so particularly concerned . The Prophets therfore of Baal durst not refuse so fair an offer as Elias made in their presence , and I hope the Protestant Clergy will be ashamed to refuse mine . Let us not delude the people with school subtilities , or obscure texts of scripture . If the Church of England or Scotland or any other reformed one be the true Church , and its doctrin the true doctrin , let that be tried by miracles . I shall try ours of Rome by that test . I challenge then all the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and all others of the Reformation , or all the Protestants of the world , to work , or mention any one miracle euer yet wrought by any Protestant to confirm any one point of doctrin wherin they differ from the Roman Catholik . Gentlemen , summon your Sinods , search into all histories , profane , and sacred , set your heads together , and produce at least som probable testimony of as much as one miracle to grace your Reformations . And if you can not find undoubted miracles , at least shew som thing that lookes like a miracle ; som thing that may be mistaken for one , wherof the falsood or fraud hath not bin as yet discoured : such as you say many of ours are . Perhaps you will pretend that your Protestants are not so easily foold with false miracles , as our Roman Catholiks . But this must be a gift and priuilege of your priuat spirit ; for , the Spaniards , Italians , and French , are not by nature so dull as our Northen Protestants , and are as loath to be cheated out of their moneys by Masses , Miracles , Pilgrimages , and other pretexts of deuotion , as you are . And yet they belieue such Miracles , as haue bin motiues for the Popes , or people , to Canonize our Saints , and those also wherby Heathens and heretiks haue bin conuerted to our Religion .

Q. I doubt not Sir , but that the Catholiks are as unlikely and loath to be imposed vpon , as Protestants ; therfore I would fain heare som of those undeniable miracles you pretend to haue in your Church , and for confirmation of the doctrin wherin you differ from us . But I pray let them be Miracles like those of Christ , for I will not belieue any others . I giue you this caution for feare you should trouble me with Mother Iulianas fits , and one Finaghtyes triks , wherwith he deluded the common people heer in England and Ireland , where that mans Miracles ( as I heare ) are mightily cryed up .

A. Sir , you haue reason to expect I should relate unto you Miracles like those of Christ , seing himself hath sayd ( Iohn . 14.22 . ) Luther to 7. l. de Iudaeis . &c. fol. 210. A Deo didicimus , & accepimꝰ , aeternum verbum & veritatem Dei hactenus mille quingentio annis miraculis & signis confessam & confirmatam . he that belieueth in me , the works that I do , he shall do , and greater . Which words not only Luther the first Protestant Reformer , but your English Bibles ( edit. 1576. ) in the marginal notes , referr to the whole body of the Church , in whom this virtue doth shine for euer . Though I must confess , both Luther , and our English Protestant writers contradict themselues again in this particular ( as all men must who maintain errors ) and say , when we press them to relate som of their Miracles , that Miracles are now superfluous , and therfore none wrought in the Church . But I shall deal so impartialy with Protestants in this matter , that I will not mention any miracle for confirmation of the Roman Catholik Church and doctrin , which the best Protestant writers themselues do not confess to be miracles , though others of them attribute the working therof to the power of Beelzebub ( as the obstinat Iewes did of Christs ) and that , for no other reason but because the miracles were wrought by Papists , and to confirm Popery .

As for Finaghtyes miracles , I made it my buisness to inquire after them , and him also ; and do find , that so soon as he began to work his miracles , the Popish Archbishop of Tuam in Ireland ( who was his Ordinary ) questioned him for that presumption , and finding him both ignorant and obstinat , he forbid him the further tempting of God , and scandalizing the Church by his foolish attempts . But the mans zeal or vanity preuailing more vpon his Spirit , than his Superiors commands , he continued his ridiculous course , and therupon was commanded out of the Archbishops Prouince . After that vigilant Prelats death , Finaghty lurking for som time in other places , came into England , and from thence returned to Dublin , where he playd the fool with breathing , and beating the Deuil in good ernest ; one Stanton ( an other mad Priest of his Countrey ) printed many of his rash attempts for great miracles . Finaghty , after that his manner of exorcisms had bin examind , and found to be different from those of the Church , and his dispossessing of Deuils to be without any visible marke or sign of the Deuils possession , or at least departure , was silenc't by the Clergy of Dublin , and commanded out of that Province . From thence he went to his own ( Conaght ) and falling again to his old miracles , he was by the Popish Bishop of Elfin depriued of his general Vicarship , and that extraordinary respect forgot which the simplicity of the people had offered to his supposed sanctity ; by whom now he is much slighted . My charity inclineth me to belieue , that his greatest fault was folly , and that he was more cheated by the Deuil , than so simple a man could design to cheat others . I haue bin more diffuse upon this subiect than you may think it deserues , because the world may be satisfied None suspects the truth of miracles , nor corrects the foolish Pretenders of working them more , than we Roman Catholiks ; it being one of the greatest cares of our Bishops and Pastors , to preuent such impostures , and to punish the Impostors , And this hath bin the continual practise of our Church , euer since the beginning of Christianity .

Q. You haue giuen me great satisfaction by your relation and opinion of Finaghty , and his miracles . If they had not bin so soon , and sesonably condemn'd by his own party , I should suspect that all your other miracles reported in Legends and Saints liues , were of the same nature . But now I see that miracles which were neuer contradicted or suspected by yourselues are credible . I pray therfore relate those , which you say are confessed or allowed of by the learned Protestants , and yet confirm your doctrin in opposition to theirs .

SECT. I. THE CONVERSION OF THE Heathen Kings and Nations from Paganism to Christianity , and Popery , is an euident miracle and mark of the truth of the Roman Catholik Church and doctrin , in opposition to that of all Protestant Reformations . It s continuance euen from the Apostles to this present demonstrated , as also the impossibility of its pretended insensible change .

THe greatest of all miracles ( it being the end for which they haue bin wrought , and the Christian Church instituted ) is the conuersion of the Heathen Kings and Nations to Christianity . If therfore it be proued , that all the Heathen Kings and Nations which haue bin conuerted from Paganism to Christianity , were conuerted to no other but to that Christianity which Protestants call Popery , and that the sayd conuersions were performed by knowen Papists , and confessed miracles , our Aduersaries must acknowledge that the Roman Catholik Church , ( and it alone ) is the true Church of God ; otherwise it will follow , that Christ instituted his Church to no purpose ; and that his design and desire of the conuersion of Nations , and sauing their souls , came to nothing . Nay it will follow , that Christ is not the Messias , to whose doctrin and Church ( as the Scriptures and Prophets foretell ) all Nations shall flow , and their Kings Minister , the multitude of the seas shall be conuerted , the Iles shall wayt for , and the Heathens be its inheritance , and the end of the earth its possession . All this the Protestants themselues confess to be prophecied of the true Christian Church , as you may see in their marginal notes upon the English Bible edit. 1576. in Esay 60. vers. ult. And in Daniel 2. vers. 45. This argument made so great impression upon many of the most learned Protestant writers , ( who had resolued not to be Papists ) that som of them turned Iewes , others Atheists , others Turks ; as Bernardin Ochin , Sebastian Castalio , Dauid George , Adam Neuserus , Allemanus , and others .

Q. Sir though I doubt not of your sincere dealing , yet I must not take upon your single credit , that learned Protestants could turn Turks and Iewes , vpon the score you mention .

A. Sir I hope you will belieue themselues . Read Bernardin Ochins Preface to his Dialogues , wherin you will find these words , when I did consider how Christ by his power , wisdom , and goodness had founded and established his Church , &c. and again discerned how the same was utterly ouerthrown , I could not but wonder , and being desirous to know the cause , I found there had bin Popes . From this conceit of the Popes preuailing against Christs Church , 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 , howsoeuer 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 which they planted , &c. should haue continued , &c. But now 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 was 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 ? We 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 .

Euseb. de Vita Constantini l. 3. c. 47. & lib. 4. cap. 38. S. Hieron . contra Vigilant . ante med. Costantinus Imperator sāctas reliquias Andreae , Lucae , & Timothei transtulit Constantinopolim , apud quas Daemones rugiunt . And ibid. Si reliquius Sanctorum trāsferre , & in aureos loculos re condere non licet , sacrilegus fuit cum Constantino Arcadius , omnes Episcopi non solum sacrilegi , sed & fatui iudicandi , qui rem vilissimā & cineres dissolut●s ●n seric● , vase aureo portauerunt , &c.

S. August . tom. 39. d● Sanctis , saith , Crucis caracter● 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 , sta● 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 .

Without 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 would 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 power to iudge of yourselues , by meanes wherof we 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 words of Constantin . Mihi vero non est fas , cum homo sim , ciusmodi causarum cognitionem arrogare , &c. He is therfore cursed by the Protestant writers , 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 power of the beast to Pope Iulius , which 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 which time till these our dayes the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward 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 forword , we find the print of the Popes feet . We 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 word 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 ( which 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 would permit so general a peruersion , wherby the end of instituting his Church would be frustrated , yet I would willingly know whether you can produce any Miracles against our Protestant doctrin wherby 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 , who were 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 , Bp. Iuel in his pageant of Popes . Bp. 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 writers ( wherof 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 wrought 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 wrought 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 worship , 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 . Whitaker de Ecclesiâ , pag. 369. saith of him , I do realy belieue Bernard was a true Saint . Osiander cent. 12. saith , Saint Bernard Abot of Clareual was 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 was 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 . William 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 broacht by the Waldenses , S. Bern. Ep. 241. ad Tolos saith , we thank God for that our comming to you was not in uain , our stay indeed was short with you , but not nnfruitfull ; the truth being by us made manifest ( non solum in Sermone sed etiam in vi tute ) not only by preaching , but also by power of working Miracles the Wolues are deprended . Apostolici , Henricians , and others . These two last Sects had infected a great part of France , especialy about Tolouse ; their chief errors were against Transubstantiation , Prayers to Saints , and the same which Protestants hold in our dayes , and we haue mentioned in the title of this Chapter . The Pope sent a Legat , and St Bernard , to confute them . In this Mission , amongst innumerable others , he wrought the ensuing Miracle , not only written by his Disciple Godifridus , who was an eye witness ther of , but recorded in the other Histories of that time , and insinuated by St Bernard himself in his 241. Epistle to the people of Tolouse , to the end they might be constant in the manifest doctrin which he had preacht against the Henricians , whom Protestants challenge as members and Martyrs of the Protestant Church , as euery one may see in their Catalogue of the witnesses of truth , printed 1597. and in M. Symondes upon the Reuelations , pag. 142. and 143. The Miracle is recounted by Godefridus invitâ Bern. l. 3. c. 5. and by others of the same time , as followeth .

There is a place in the Country of Tolosa , called Sarlatum , where after the Sermon was don , they offerd to he seruant of God ( as euery where the use was ) many loaues to bless , wihich he , lifting up his hand , and making the sign of the Cross , in Gods name blessing , sayd thus . In this you shall Know that these things are true which wee , and that those other are false which the heretiks labor to persuade you ; that whosoeuer they be ( of your diseased persons ) that tast the loaues : they shall be healed , to the end you may Know us to be the true Minister of God . The Bishop of Chartres ( a great friend to the Saint ) thinking this proposition too general , told the people , they were to understand , it conditionaly , so they did eate of the loaues with Faith . St Bernard sudenly replied , My Lord , I do not mean so , my meaning and saying is , that all sick folks who will eat of those loaues , shall recouer their health , to the end it may be Knowen we are Gods true Ministers . And acordingly it fell out , not one diseased person , that did eat of the bread , mist of being eured ; and the Miracle being thus diuulged , by its effects , so huge a multitude of people came to thank and admire the Saint ; that he declined the common roads , and went by by wayes to Tolouse ; where at the instance of the Catholiks , and to further confute the aforesaid hetesies against Transubstantiation , Mass , Purgatory , prayer to Saints , worship of Images , &c. he with giuing his benediction to a paralitik priest that lay a dying in the College of St Saturnin , restored him to so perfect health , that the Priest ( who also was called Bernard ) sudenly rose out of his bed where he had bin immoueable a long time , followed the Saint , and begd of him to be admitted into the number of his Monks ; which was granted , and afterwards liued amongst them very religiously , and was at length Abot of Valdeau . With these Miracles the heretiks were confounded , and so many conuerted , that their seducer Henricus hid himself , and finding no refuge among those who formerly had followed him , he was taken prisoner , and presented in chains before the Bishop .

Q. If God wrought such Miracles as these for the conuersion of the Henricians and other heretiks ( as you call them ) of that age , why may not we Protestants expect that he will do the same for our conuersion , if we be in errors . I am sure we desire to saue our Souls : And certainly God is as willing to saue us as any others . I wish we could see such Miracles wrought by any Bernard , or other Saint . We should soon be Papists .

A. One of the reasons why God doth not work now such Miracles for the conuersion of Protestants , is , because he hath wrought them for the Henricians : For , the same errors against Transubstantiation , Mass , Prayer to Saints , Worship of Images , &c. being common to both sects , the same Miracles confute both equaly , and may now conuince Protestants , as well as they did anciently the Henricians , of heretical and damnable obstinacy . And therfore it s not likely Protestants would becom Papists , though they had seen an other St Bernard work the same Miracles to confirm the Roman Catholik Faith against Protestancy ; that in effect hauing bin don against it in the case of the Henricians . I am the more apt to belieue the sight of such Prodigies would not conuert you , because your Protestant Authors grant the matter of fact of St Bernards Miracles against the Henricias doctrin , and of S. Dominik against the Albigēses Tenets ( wherin these also agreed with Protestants ) and only answer that they were Antichristian Miracles , wrought by the Deuills power to confirm the Idolatry of the Mass , and Images , &c. or at least they were feigned by idle Monks . Take it in their own words . See the Cēturists , and Osiander in Epitom . cent . 9.10.11 . pag. 213. The Miracles which superstitious Monks relate , are either feigned by themselues , or wrought by Satans enchantments , and therfore ought to be enlisted amongst Antichrists Miracles because they were wrought to confirm manifest Idolatry , and to establish the wicked worship of Images , veneration of Reliques , Inuocation of Saints , sacrifice of Mass , &c. True it is that Osiander speaking of Saint Bernards Miracles , Cent. 12. pag. 310. saith , Not that I think St Bernard was a Magitian , but that I think it probable Satan wrought the Miracles , wherby the Saint himself and others were deceiued . And this is the common answer all Protestants giue to our Miracles , when they can not deny the fact , nor discouer any fraud . And certaintly they would giue now the same answer to the most euident and undeniable Miracles , if any were wrought before theyr eyes .

Q. Am I who can not read , or understand Latin and other languages , wherin all this you say and quote , is written , bound to belieue the matter of fact , and conform therunto my Faith ? What if a Protestant Minister or Bishop tells me all you say are lyes ? Whom must I belieue ? Or am I obliged under pain of damnation to suspect his sincerity and doctrin , if he will not encounter you , or any other who offers to make good what you say , by shewing the passages in the books themselues ? I confess I think I am . Howeuer I pray tell me what I ought to do in such a case .

A. You see how in less than two hours time you may know by your Bishops or Ministers carriage and courage in examining any plain book that relates Miracles and matter of fact , whether the Protestant Religion be true or false . If he will resolue to conferr , or rather to conster the words of the book , you will easily iudge of the truth by their sense : to which you must keep him ( and the Catholik also ) without any other digressions , or discourses : all your buisness must be , to know whether the Miracle or matter of fact be so in the book as I told you ; and that , you may know from any honest man who can read and understand it , as well ( perhaps better ) than from your Protestant Minister or Bishop .

As for the answers which the most learned Protestants giue to the argument of our miracles , they are so weak , that none but wicked and obstinat persons can be satisfied ther with . Their first answer is , that our miracles haue bin feigned by idle Monks . This is so damnd an answer that they dare not stick to it , because it is not possible that such publik transactions as St Bernards , or St Dominiks preaching , and Miracles against the Henricians and Albigenses , could be imposed vpon the world , there being as many Obseruers as there were persons either curious , or concernd in two so contrary parties . Why did not som one of the Henricians , or Albigenses publish and declare the imposture , when their Religion was so discredited therby ? Why should Pope Alexander 3. venter to be laught at , and deposed from the Apostolik see for canonizing St Bernard , 12. years after his death , if his Miracles were not so authentik , that they could not be contradicted ? What design could the world and that age haue in conspiring to impose such Miracles vpon their friends and posterity , and in damning themselues therby , for St Bernards sake ? The same argument may be applied to St Dominik , St Francis , St Vincent Ferrer , St Francis Xauier , or to any other of our Roman Church , whose miracles haue bin wrought in publik assemblies , and not contradicted as false or fraudulent by any of those ages that were witnesses to them , or wherin they were first spoke of . And this is of such force , that our Protestant . Aduersaries grant it to be true , and therfore recurr to the Deuills power for their answer , and the confutation of our Miracles , as the obstinat Iewes did against them of Christ .

WHETHER TRADITION , TOGETHER with the Miracles of Christ and of the Church do demonstrat or undeniably conclude that God reueald the articles of Christian Faith ; Or whether they only demonstrat , or cleerly proue , that we are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue that God reuealed them ? And whether it be cleerly euident , or more than moraly euident , that they are true supernatural Miracles ?

Q. I do think the Parallell between Christs Miracles and those of the Roman Catholik Church , or between the obstinat Iewes and the Protestants , doth not hold . Christs Miracles were so euidently supernatural or Diuine , that if the obstinat Iewes would consider the visible circumstances therof , they could not deny them to be true and Diuine Miracles . But the Miracles of the Roman Catholik Church ( I speake of the most authentik ) are no such ; for , we Protestants examin and consider all the circumstances of them , and yet we can , and do deny them to be true Diuine Miracles .

A. The parallell doth hold , and you will think so if you reflect upon it . 1. It is a mistake to belieue that Christs Miracles were so cleerly supernatural and Diuine as to force an assent or acknowledgment of their being so , from the Iewes and Gentils that saw them ( and therfore could not but admire them , and consider their surprising circumstances . ) For , if the Miracles had appeared to them supernatural and undeniably true , no assent of their Faith could be a free act ; and that wherwith St Peter own'd Christs Diuinity , Math. 16. and for which he deserued to be made the Rock or foundation of the Church , would not haue bin so particularly applauded , and rewarded by Christ himself ; the other Apostles hauing seen and considered as much as he the Miracles of Christ which moued St Peter to that Confession of Faith , and yet no assent of Christs Diuinity flowed necessarily from that their sight and confideration ; neither was it forc't from St Peter ; but was a free act and assent of his ( after seing all the Miracles and considering their circumstances ) to say , Thou art Christ , Son of the liuing God . The obstinat Iewes therfore did consider all circumstances of Christs person and Miracles as much as those who belieued them to be Diuine , nay more , because the Scribes , Pharisees , and the Doctors of the law searcht and pry'd more narowly into his actions , and were better able to iudge of their being natural or supernatural , than most of those , who belieued his Miracles were Diuine , and himself the Messias . And this appeareth in many passages , as in that of the blind man , whom they cast out of the Synagogue ; for they understood the Miracle better than himself , and were sufficiently conuinc't of the cure , and matter of fact . It was not therfore want of consideration of the circumstances of Christs person and Miracles that made the learned Iewes obstinat , but their abundance of pride , which made them auerse from submitting their iudgments to Christs doctrin , notwithstanding they had moral euidence of the Diuinity of his person and of the supernaturality of his Miracles .

Q. I can not comprehend how Christs Miracles or any others , can oblige men to belieue his doctrin , or conuince them of obstinacy and heresy , for not belieuing it and his Diuinity , unless it be first made cleerly and undeniably euident to them , that the Miracles are true and supernatural . As for your Moral euidence of their being true Miracles , it is not strong enough to build therupon so absolute an assurance as is requisit in our acts or assents of Christian Faith , which excludes all doubts , and euen all moral possibility of falsood .

A. I often told you that the certainty and assurance of Christian Faith is not grounded vpon the euidence of Christs Miracles ( or any others of his Church ) being true Miracles ; or of its Tradition being infallible ; but upon Gods Veracity , which is so infinitly auers from all Kind of falsood , that he will no more permit any to be so probably and plausibly fathered upon him as the Roman doctrin is , than positiuely promote it . Now , Christs Diuinity and the doctrin of the Roman Catholik Church being confirmed by such prodigies and signs as haue a moral euidence of being supernatural and true Miracles , this makes it moraly euident to all men , that none but God is Author of that doctrin and of the prodigies which confirm it . This moral euidence of God being the Author , is not indeed ( as you say ) strong enough to beare and ground upon itself the assurance of an assent or act of Christian Faith ; but it is a prudent and sufficient inducement to belieue most certaintly , and without any Kind of doubt , that God would not permit so great an appearance of his authority as the miracles of Christ and of the Roman Church manifestly shew to all the 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 ( without 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 with 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 which God hath instituted his Church , and adornd it with those Diuine marks and miracles which 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. Will 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 , which 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 Diuine . And if Transubstantiation , the Mass , Intercession of Saints , worship of Images , Purgatory , &c. be not sufficiently proposed as Diuine doctrin by the testimony of the Church , and these Miracles of St Bernard , and other Roman Catholik Saints ; and in a coniuncture that the same doctrin was as much questioned by the Henricians ,

Aug. l. 22. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. ad sanctum Martyrem orare perrexerunt , &c.

He that belieueth in me , the works , that I do , he shall do , and greater . Ioan. 14.

Nazian. in Epitaph . Gorgoniae . Orat. II. saith ,

Prostrating herself before the Altar , and calling upon him who was honoured and worshipt therupon , O admirable thing ! she presently felt her self deliuered from her si●ness , and so she returned eased both in body and mind &c.

as now it is by Protestants , neuer any doctrin hath bin yet sufficiently proposed as Diuine ; nay not the doctrin of Elias , nor of Christ himself ; because neither hath bin confirmed by greater Miracles than ours . I need not repeat others more ancient , as that ( which St Austin sayes he was witness of ) when Palladia recouered her sight by praying to St Steuen ; or that which St Gregory Nazianzen recounts of his sister Gorgonia recouering sudenly her health , by adoring the blessed Sacrament vpon the Altar ; or that of the Image of Christ erected by the woman he cured of her flux , wherof see Eusebius hist. lib. 7. c. 14. or that of the Crucifix in Berito , alleged in 2. Concill . Nissen . act. 4. or that recounted by Optatus , l , 1. contra Donatistas , to confirm the reseruing and taking the Communion in one Kind ; as also the holy oyle , or Chrisme ; or that of the person raised from death to receiue the extreme Vnction , mentioned by St Bernard in vit. Malach. Or that of Confession related by St Bede hist. l. 5. cap. 14. These and innumerable others , are superfluous , seing those of St Bernard are sufficient to conuince that no Protestant , who hath so much sense as to belieue Gods goodness and veracity , can be saued , if he denyes any one particular of the Roman Catholik doctrin , when he is credibly informed that this authority is confirmed by such Miracles as those of Saint Bernard , and other Saints of our Church , which are related in the publik Acts and Process of their Canonization .

AN HVMBLE ADRESS To the Honorable House of Commons .

MAy it please you , Honorable Sirs , who are the Preseruers of our liberties ( except the chief , which is that of conscience ) to take in good part , that the meanest of his Maiesties subiects humbly beg of you to consider , whether it be not a damnable sin , to persecute Souls for professing the Religion of your Christian Ancestors , confirmed by so many credible signs of Gods approbation and protection , that the wisest and wariest men of the whole world ( both in this and former ages ) were conuinc't they were true Miracles ; and yourselues haue no reason to belieue the contrary , but that preiudice wherunto the principles of your education from your infancy , and the interest of your Teachers led you , before you could discern the truth of their doctrin , or the intricacy of their design . Reflect I beseech you , upon the frailty of your Ministers , and the fallibility of your Church , and weigh with yourselues , whether it be not more credible that your English Congregation seasoned with two such Ingredients as frailty and fallibility , may be mistaken in mysteries of Faith , than that God would permit the whole Catholik world , and such men as Saint Bernard , and the other Roman Catholik Saints , to be deluded and seduced by the Deuils lying prodigies ; and that , in a conjuncture when Gods veracity and honor Iay at the stake in a publik trial of true and false doctrin . Would any of yourselues stand by in such an occasion as an idle spectator , or unconcerned person , and permit a Rogue or a Fool clad in your liuery , produce counterfeit letters , and deliuer seditious orders in your name ? Would any of you suffer poor people who wish you well , to be destroyd by such wicked practises ? Would you condescend so far with your greatest Ennemy , as to wink at his malice , and at the uniust meanes he applied to ruin your well meaning Tenants ; or friends ? Certainly you would disclaim in the fourbery , and neuer wink at a fraud so preiudicial to the people , and as contrary to your noble inclinations , as to the principles of honor , and truth which you profess .

Be pleased then to haue as good an opinion of Gods inclination to honor and truth , as of your own . Let not the first impressions vpon your tender undiscerning years , grown at unawares into a settleness through education and custom blind your riper and more manly iudgments to be persuaded , God can permit such Miracles as we haue recounted , to be only mistakes of the Roman Church , and human or Diabolical artifices ; or that he would suffer his greatest Enemy to seduce innocent Souls by cheats so like supernatural seales of the Diuine doctrin and ministery , that such prudent , learned , and conscientious men as the Roman Catholik Church hath had in all ages , could ( after a seuere scrutiny ) conclude to be the work of Gods omnipotency , and aboue the power of all natural causes . This well considered , will , I hope , make you more Kind to your Roman Catholik Kindred and Neighbors , and to the Religion of all your Ancestors before Queen Elizabeths reign . But if you slight this humble aduice , grounded vpon so cleer euidence , I feare that God , who is a jealous God , and no less concerned for his honor , and veracity , than infinit goodness , and an infinit auersion from falsood inclines him to be , will visit you in the fury of his iustice , and deny to you in your greatest need , that mercy which yee deny to tender consciences ; he will heare the loud cryes of innocent bloud which penetrat the Heauens , when they find no relief vpon earth . God direct you in all your wayes , and resolutions ; and make us either thankfull for your moderation , or strengthen us with constancy and patience against your persecution .

FINIS .