are That every one may see clearly whither or no what I hold as a Tenet of Religion is not found among them but is a meer superstruction Will you refuse to a considerable Person who thinks certainly he has seen in the Law Book a Law which justifies the Action for which he is condemn'd to Die Will you I say refuse him a publick sight of that Book to justifie your Sentence against him but notwithstanding the murmur of the People upon your refusal of his demand suspecting him Innocent savagely cast him If not do not condemn us who hold for certainty Transubstantiation to be so Fundamental that no Christian of the first three Ages would have deny'd it A Subsect Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages I Ask our Adversary did those Christians living then believe as a Fundamental point that they were the true Church planted by CHRIST and continued from the Apostles or not If not then they could not say in their Creed I believe in the Holy Catholick Church If they did believe it I ask again upon what ground was truth warranted to them for three hundred Years and not to the Church till the end of the World Was not Gods promise of Infallibility to his Church made to it as well to the end of the World as for the first three hundred Years Isaiah 59. v. 21. This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee to wit the Church and my Words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart out of thy Mouth nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed saith the Lord from henceforth and forever And to the Ephes 4. cap. v. 11 12 13 14. And he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints c. till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. That we henceforth be no more Children tost too and fro and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine by the slight of Men. If he avow the Church fail'd not in Fundamental Truths I wonder how he can allow Luther and Calvin's Reforming the Church with so much Fire Sword and Confusion for a matter that did not impede Salvation If they Reform'd Her in Fundamentals then She perish'd which is against the Infallible promise of CHRIST If you say they did not Reform it as it lay pure in the Souls of some chosen tho' unknown to others but in the publick Pastors and Teachers who were reprehensible for their grievous Deviations then say I where was the visible Church to which Men should have recourse for the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments Isaiah cap. 2. v. 3. A second Proof and Reason is drawn from that it seems morally impossible that in the begining of the fourth Age if he will have the fall of Religion then the Pastors should propose a number of new Tenets to be believ'd and perswade the People that they had heard them from their Fathers of the third Age not one individual Person in the mean time remembring that he heard them from his Is it credible that not only one Parish or Nation but all Countries who liv'd afore in the Union of the Catholick Church should of a sudden have permitted themselves to be cheated into this perswasion or rather bewitch'd since not one was found for many Ages to have gainsaid it or reclaimed against it Since this then is Morally impossible conclude that these Tenets of R. Catholicks which our adversary calls novelties were the old tenets of the three first Centuries A third reason 't is remark'd that God never permitted any notable Error to rise up in his Church but alwayes stirred up at the same time some man or men to speak and write against it and mov'd the whole Church to joyn with them to destroy it So Athanasius rose up against Arius Cyrillus Alexandrinus against Nestorius Augustin against Pelagius All back'd by the whole Church for the total overthrowing of those Errors Now if the Mass be an Error it is a most damnable one an Idolatry insupportable to give Divine Worship to the Host if it be only a piece of Bread Yet after this Error was broach'd in Gregory the Great 's time in the sixth or seventh Age as Protestants imagin what University or private Man spoke against it then or three hundred Years after It s true about four hundred Years after Berengarius inveighed against it but being better inform'd and by a torrent of Arguments for its Truth overwhelm'd he Recanted and Dyed Penitent Consult then Reason and not Passion and you will see that R. Catholicks have made no superstructurs on the Faith of the first three Ages SECT II. Formal Protestants are Hereticks I Advance to his assertion in which he affirms that we cannot say without Ignorance Calumny and Injustice that a Protestant is an Heretick First I agree with him that an Heretick is he who denyes viz. pertinaciously an Article of Faith or a revealed Verity Next I ask him by what principle he proves that a Protestant does not deny an Article of Faith or a reveal'd Truth I suppose he will Answer because a Protestant believes the CREED and the Holy Scripture I ask him further if a Preacher now of their Congregation should vent a Doctrine not Orthodox and should pertinaciously maintain it against his Brethren as a Truth according to his best Judgment reveal'd in Scripture By what principle will he convince him to be an Heretick He 'l tell you he believes the three Creeds and the whole Scripture and therefore he believes this his dogme because the thinks he finds it in Scripture Is he an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement to his particular Brethren He is known to be as Learn'd as they and of as good a Life as they If you say this Man can't be proven to be an Heretick that is against the Scripture Tit. 3. v. 10. bidding us to shun an Heretick and consequently he may be proven to be one If you say he is an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement not only to particulars but neither to the whole Congregation or the Church of which he was a Member and therefore is justly condemn'd by Her according to Isai 54. v. 17. Every Tongue that rises up against thee in Iudgment thou shall condemn this is the Inheritance of the Lords Servants I conclude without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice that the Protestant Luther the Protestant Calvin c. were Hereticks because they would not submit their Judgment to the whole Church of which they were Members afore they were Excommunicated for their self Opinions Again this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick either is an Act of Faith or Science or Opinion If you say it is an Act of Faith 〈◊〉 then say I 't is false
say the Bible doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation we do not say that the Word of God does not contain all things necessary to Salvation because the Word of God is partly written partly unwritten Put these two together and you have all things necessary to Salvation Nay the Scripture alone has partly Explicitly partly Implicitly in as much as it sends us to the Church all things necessary to Salvation When we say that the Scripture is not absolutely But in some places obscure in others clear what do we say more then Protestants who teach that the Scripture is an Interpreter of it self if you compare the less clear passage with another or others more clear is not this to say that the less clear is obscure which obscurity is taken away by the clearness of the other Neither do we say that the Scripture is Imperfect when we say it is only a part of our Rule of Faith no more then we say the Almighty Power of God is Imperfect when we say 't is only a part of his Infinite Perfection As we do not say that God is Finit because he is a part of this Couple contained in Christ-God and Man or by which we say God and Man are two viz. natures SECT VI. The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith WE acknowledge the Holy Scriptures to be our Rule of Faith but not alone we believe them to be profitable to teach us in Justice that the Man of God may be perfect 2 Tim. 3. v. 16. But not sole sufficient to make him perfect We seem sayes our Adversary to doubt of the Originals of Scripture since we ask a Protestant how he knows it is the Word of God As if the Air Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression proper to God alone did not show this sufficiently as the King's Letters are known by their style and Royal Seal Answer We are so far from doubting of the Scriptures being the Word of God that we believe it with an Act of Divine Faith But we have asked and ask without any Answer that has so much as a jot of Reason by what Principle they will prove to us that the Scripture is the Word of God If besides the Scripture there is no Rule of Faith Not by the Scripture it self because self Testimony is none were it Written in any place of it that this Bible containing so many and such Books is the Word of GOD for the Question returns how know you that this Testimony is the Word of GOD Now to say that she Scripture shows it self is frivolous For I ask what 's that to say the Scripture shows it self Is it that by Reading it rises in the mind of a Man who has a well disposed understanding this apprehension The Scripture is the Word of God By which apprehension he sees it is so before he Judges or believes If so then he does not believe the Word of God to be the Word of God mov'd by the Word of God but by this apprehension which if you say is the Word of God then you admit a Word of God which is not Written and yet to you a Rule of Faith and so you have another Immediate Rule of Faith than the Written Word of God Again that apprehension and inward Testimony of the mind for which it s believed that the Scripture is the Word of GOD and that it shows it self does it rise from this that the Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression move Men to Judge that the Scripture is the Word of God But seeing all these particulars come from such Words Instituted by Men to signifie and that the more or less Majesty of the Style in a Speech or Sentence rises from a certain material placing and disposing of Words among themselves the whole thing is natural and so not the Word of God Next that Simplicity and Majesty of Style and what you please more is not so in every part of Scripture that I am bound for them to believe that that part is the Word of God For I pray what Air Simplicity or Majesty of Style is in the begining of the Gospel of St. Matthew when it s said there Abraham begot Isaac and Isaac begot Iacob what do you find more there then you would find in those same Words written in an Author not Sacred as in Ioseph the Iew Now if you ask us why we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God We Answer because an Infallible Tradition passing through all Ages and always believing it to be the Word of God has conveyed it to our Hands and that General approv'd Councils have confirm'd it by their Sacred Decrees and uncontrolable Authority as often as any Controversie arose among the Faithful either concerning certain Books or the certainty of the Tradition it self If you say you make use of this same Tradition of all Christians hitherto believing it to be the Word of God as a motive of Credibility to you that it is the Word of God I Answer You may but first by claiming to this you leave your own Principle of denying Tradition Next tho' this Universal Tradition be to you a motif of Credibility that the Bible is the Word of God as to the Letter yet you have none for the sense in which you take it Subsect This passage search the Scriptures John chap. 5. makes nothing for Protestants TO prove that the Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith at last our Adversary brings these Words of CHRIST to the Iews Search the Scriptures John cap. 5. v. 39. Answer You must know that there our Saviour was proving to the Iews his God-head or Divinity And he proves it First by the Testimony of St. Iohn Baptist v. 32. and lets them understand how worthy a Person Iohn was of Credit with them Secondly he proves it by his Works v. 36. Thirdly by the Testimony of his Eternal Father viz. This is my Son in whom I am well pleas'd Matth. 3. v. 17. Take notice that CHRIST for their Rule in believing his God-head did not fend them first to the Scripture but to the Testimony of Iohn his Miraculous Works and the Testimony of his Father and last of all he saies Search the Scriptures as if he should have said if you will not acknowledge me to be God for these great Arguments and Motives I have brought Take yet one more which is that since you think you have Eternal Life in the Scriptures Search them and there you will find that I am God because the Prophets in them give Testimony of me And this was said to their Doctors not to every private Person Secondly The Word Scrutamini in Lati◠〈◊〉 Ereunate in Greek is of the presenttence of 〈◊〉 dicative mood Cyrillus takes it in the Indicative as well as of the Imperative and so signisies you do Search the Scriptures as
Petition presented by him but only in General that it was for what he desired or made in favour of him 5. If any be contentious for our not using a vulgar Tongue in our Lyturgy our Answer is with St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 16. we have no such Custome nor has had the Church of God for 1600. Years and more 6. By unknown Tongues the Apostle means not of Hebrew among the Iews Greek among the Grecians or Latin among us of the Western Church which is understood of the learned and civil People in every great City but of Miraculous Tongues which Men spoke in the Primitive Church as a Mark that they had received the Holy Ghost Think you that the Lyturgy is said in the Greek Church in an unknown Tongue because it s said in propâ—â— Greek not now understood by the vulgar SECT VIII The Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation does not destroy experimental knowledge nor deceive our Senses OUr Adversary sayes that Transubstantiation destroyes all evidence grounded in the experimental knowledge of our senses and makes void the proof CHRIST made use of to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit To understand my Answer to this Objection of our Adversary you must know First that the Principle of experimental knowledge is this for example wheresoever are all the Accidents of Bread there is the substance of Bread unless the Author of Nature hinder its presence there Secondly That this conditional must be alwayes added in Reverence to the Almighty Power of God otherwayes by this Experimental knowledge a Combustible thing laid in the Fire burns 'T would follow that the Children in the Furnace of Babylon were burnt contrary to what is said in Daniel 3 cap. v. 50. These two things being known I answer that evidence grounded upon experimental Knowledge stands in its full vigour with our Doctrine of Transubstantiation as is clear to him who in this true Supposition of Experimental Knowledge considers it For we deny Bread to be in the Eucharist where all the Accidents of Bread are because the Author of Nature hinders the presence of Bread to be there as he has revealed it to us in several places of Scripture And consequently I deny that Transubstantiation destroyes more Experimental Knowledge than Protestant's belief that the Angels who appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were Angels and not Men destroys it Had not the Angels appearing to them all the Accidents of Men as our Eucharist has all the Accidents of Bread And did not they look as like men as it looks like Bread Secondly It makes void sayes he the proof Christ brought to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit Handle me and see sayes our Saviour for a Spirit has no Flesh Luke 24. v. 39. which can be no conviction to Romanists who see Bread in the Eucharist if they will trust their own Senses Answ Do Protestants make void the proof Christ made use of to his Apostles when they say that the Angels of which afore that appeared to Abraham Lot and Iacob were not Men but Angels No say you because GOD hath revealed that they were Angels Neither do we Romanists when we say that in the Eucharist that which appears like Bread is the Body of Christ under the form of Bread and not Bread because our Saviour hath Revealed that it is his Body Our Saviours proof says our Adversary that he was not a Spirit shall never influence a Papist to conviction Answer This I deny for in this case we have both evidence of the senses and our Saviours Word and no Revelation contradicting them and therefore are fully convinc'd to believe it But for Bread in the Eucharist we have indeed the evidence of sense but not Christs word but on the contrary we have our senses contradicted by Christs infallible word Must not a Man be in Eclipse or under a Cloud not to see this Disparity To clear then our Adversary in his mistake I let him know that our Saviour undertook to prove that he had a true Body which is the Natural Remote object of our senses by the Judgment of his Disciples senses But never to prove Immediatly an Object or Mystery of Faith such as our Eucharist is by the Judgment of our senses I say Immediatly because having prov'd Immediatly that this was his true Body mediatly he proved in that Circumstance that it was risen again Nay when we come to such Mysteries of Faith we must not only Captivate our Senses but Reason also if we will believe St. Paul 2 Cor. 10. v. 5. As to that he sayes that our Transubstantiation favours the Opinion of the Marcionists its manifestly false to those who know the Marcionists Opinion to wit that Christ had not a true Body but only in appearance For who grants our Transubstantiation must grant that the Body of Christ is there either really and substantially or in appearance But under the appearance of Bread cannot be the appearance of the Body of Christ to wit the Shape Bulk Colour and Extention of all the parts of his Body for how can all these stand together with the proper Accidents of Bread in the lest Particle of the Host And consequently they not being there his reall Body must be there to make the grant of Transubstantiation good Subsect 1 In the Eucharist our senses are not deceiv'd in their proper Object OUr Adversary saies let us torture our discursive faculty never so much we shall never be able to prove that our senses are not deceived representing to us as Bread what really if we are believed is not Bread Answer That our senses are not deceived in their proper Object I prove thus The proper Object of our senses are only the Accidents of Bread in the Eucharist our senses represent to us the Accidents Colour Taste c. after the Consecration just as they did afore then they are not at all deceived in their proper Object You 'l say their proper Object is also the Substance of Bread and in that they are deceived since after Consecration according to us there is no Bread Answer I deny that the Substance of Bread is their proper Object it s the Object of the understanding which from the senses Anticedent representation to him of all the Accidents of Bread infers that the Substance of Bread is there viz. ordinarily and naturally when it is not revealed to him that the Author of Nature has disposed otherwaies So that the Substance of Bread is only improperly by Accident and occasionally called the Object of our senses in as much as they by their Relation to him of all the Accidents of a Substance give him occasion to Judge certainly that the Substance is also there when he has no Revelation from God of the contrary If our Eyes are deceived in Transubstantiation was not the Iews Eyes deceived in the Incarnation representing CHRIST as a Human Person By this solution you have an Answer to all
for them 't is not the Churches fault tho' it may be the fault of some particular Pastor neglecting the Instruction of his Flock CHAP. VII Of our Ecclesiastical Discipline SECT I. Protestants live in Spiritual Slavery not Catholicks The Decree of Innocent the third in the third Cap. of the General Council of Lateran is not a Decree of Faith TO his saying the R. Church imposes besides the written Law so many Obligations on her Subjects that Popery is justly call'd a meer Slavery I Answer She imposes none not contained in the Law of God explicitly or Implicitly Since God has bid Bishops or the Teaching Church Govern the Church viz. the directed Church and Commanded us to hear Her or them 't is no more Slavery to us to Obey Her in Spiritual matters then for the Subjects of a Kingdom to Obey in Civil matters the Commands of a Vice-Roy or a Commissioner The Protestants indeed live in a Spiritual slavery according to their Principles because when they have Grace they are necessitated by it and when they want it they are necessitated by their concupiscence and so are ever without Liberty in Slavery The business our Adversary drives at in this Objection is this that the Church incroaches upon the Temporal Dominions of Princes by deposing Kings untying their Subjects from their Allegiance to them and giving their Lands to such as can Conquer them As may be seen in the third Chap. of the fourth General Lateran Council under Innocent the Third Answer Let our Adversary Read that Decree with the Eyes of a Divine and he 'l find that that Decree is not of Faith and therefore does not oblidge us to believe it The Decrees of Faith in that Council being gathered into the first Chap. Intituled de Fide Catholica The Tenets of the Catholick Faith Let him then learn to distinguish another time a Decree of Faith from a Decree of Precept The first oblidges always and every where the other not always nor every where but may be chang'd the circumstances changing As I said when I told how a General Council may be mended And this I show in this present Precept of the fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third now ceasing For are R. Catholicks in France Germany England Scotland c. admonish'd to take that Oath of Ridding their Lands of Hereticks Or are they thought by the R. Church not good Catholicks because they do not do it Then you see this Oath may be omitted with a safe Conscience and Princes be without fear of having their Subjects free from their Obedience Moreover I say that under the general notion of Potentats Soveraigns are not comprehended no more then Abbots under the General Name of Monks tho' really they are Monks In fine if you will not be satisfied with these solid solutions remember that the Embassadours of Kings were present at the Council so that if they knew 't was mean'd also of their Masters and they did not oppose the Decree afore it was passed volenti non sit Injuria no Injury is done to him who is willing This Decree I know is a common place for Protestants not considering that they hit themselves on the Heel when they bring it against us giving us an occasion to reflect not by a mistake but with Truth upon them since the chief Principle supposed by the first Beginers of their Reformation was that it was Lawful not only to refuse all Obedience but to take Arms against their own Natural Soveraign for the Reformation of Religion If they deny this Principle as never supposed by their Predecessors then they must grant that the first Broachers and Abettors of their Reformation were all Traytors and Rebels since they begun it by Sedition and Rebellion against their Lawful Soveraigns in Germany France Geneva Holland and Scotland What was the great ground of the Bloody Scots Covenant Have we not seen of late a number of Clowns and Crafts-Men by their private Interpretation of the Bible free themselves from all due Obedience to their King and in their Conventicles endeavour to take from him all Royal Power by their seditious Sermons and Declarations as in those who were published at Sanchir and Rouglin Many of which remain so obstinate in their ridiculous perswasions that they will rather Dye then give any acknowledgment of submission to a most Gracious and Loving Prince You 'l say they are not true Protestants Answer I pray in what Fundamentals do they differ from you What a Childish Discourse is this which follows when he says that the Romish Church forbids Her Followers the use of their Rational faculty to find out the true Church Why then does She propose to our Rational Faculty to move it to Assent or to be confirmed in that we have Assented to marks out of Scripture of Her being the true Church Telling us first that we see in Her as was foretold Ephes 4. A perpetual and visible Succession of Pastors since the Apostles time Is it credible that God by a special Providence notwithstanding so many Persecutions would have Conserv'd that perpetual Succession of Pastors to teach Superstition and Idolatry And not Conserv'd a Succession of Pastors among Protestants to teach the true Religion As we then have the same Spiritual Power ever Descending and continued from the Apostles time so have we also with it the same True and Apostolical Doctrine Descending from Father to Son since the Apostles time to us Secondly That there is no Doctrine or Faith now Preach'd to all Nations according to the Command of Christ Matth. 28. v. 19. given to his Apostles but that of the Roman Church It s altogether amazing if the Protestant Doctrine be true and Evangelical Doctrine that GOD has never stirred up any of the Protestant Preachers to go with an Apostolical Spirit through Poverty Afflictions Persecutions c. as the Apostles did to instruct many Barbarous Nations in Africa Asia America but makes use only to give the knowledge of his Holy Name to them of Idolaters and Superstitious Romanists the true Preachers staying at Home with their Wives and Children Thirdly That moreover this Faith and Doctrine altho so Universal yet all the Believers thereof have such an Unity and Agreement among themselves in matters of Faith and such a subordination to the visible Head of the Church that they make as Christ said of his Sheep Iohn 10. v. 16. one Flock and one visible Pastor they both receiving all Spiritual Light Grace and Direction from their invisible Head and Pastor Iesus Christ Fourthly That the Doctrine of the R. Church leads evidently to a Sanctity of Life and Worship of God Almighty by a Sacramental Confession of Sins Fasting Praying Self-denyal Mortifications of the Flesh Good Works keeping GODS Commandements by Vows the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and many Ceremonies by which outward show we make appear our inward respect to God From hence it comes that in all Ages among the Believers of
Heavenly Father is perfect sayes our Saviour Matth. 5. v. 48. Not that we may hope to arrive to his Perfection but that we may never rest in the way of Perfection but alwise strive to draw nearer and nearer to him Our Adversary needs not ask in what pain and trouble Religious who are of a timerous Conscience live under the burden of some Rules because they believe that with the Grace of God they can keep them all and feel so much ease in keeping them that many undertake far more than the Rule prescribes Facile equitat quem Gratia Dei portat he Rides at ease who is carried by the Grace of God saies the following of CHRIST But he should ask in what pain Protestants are who think the least Deviation from the Law by an idle word is a grievous Sin and worthy Hell Fire and who believe that with all the Grace of CHRIST they cannot keep themselves from making Damnable breaches of the Law of God In what pain and anxiety of mind ought they to live Those who told our Adversary that their Yoke was bitter had not merited by their negligence to feel that inward Unction of which St. Bernard speaks nor tasted of that Water of which our Saviour to the Samaritan Woman but living in Religion and breathing still after the World as some wicked Israelites not tasting with the Good the sweetness of the Manna Hungred after the Flesh-Pots of Aegypt So suffering within themselves a perpetual Combat between Nature and Grace the one drawing to God and the other to the World no wonder their Burden was not like that of CHRIST Sweet and Light but heavy and unpleasant by their own Fault If the Devel thought to insnare Men by giving way to their inclination of making Vows he may now leave of as being deceived by a sad experience to himself seeing thousands by the daily observation of their Vow gain signal Victories over him especially if he be more gal'd by the eminent Sanctity and Elevation of one far inferiour in nature to him than pleased in the fall of many who despoiled of Grace are not considerable in respect of him But deceiv'd he is not in giving way to the Ministers common Exhortations to the People to keep the Commandement of God by a practical horror of Sin and embracing of Vertue For when on one side the Minister threatens them with a heavy Judgement if they don't live a good Life and on the other tells them 't is impossible to live so and walk in the Commandements of God is not this to distract a Man or cast him loose and after he was wearied himself striving against the Tyde of his corrupted Nature make him yield to the Stream of Sin impossible to bear up against it and so go down-wards Which was in our Adversaries own Words the Enemies sole aim and main design Roman Catholicks have a more rational and worthy thought of the goodness of God Who Wills the end sais the maxime in moral philosophy affords means to attain it God Wills we keep his Commands will he not afford us Grace with which we may and without which we cannot keep them If Men who are wicked give good things to their Children will he refuse the good Spirit to those who ask it of him Luke 11. v. 13. will he leave Men without Grace who have left all for the pure love of him No Roman Catholicks find the Truth of St. Paul's saying God is Faithful and will not suffer us to be Tempted beyond our force 1 Cor. 10. but will make us find advantage in the Temptation and that they can do all in him who comforts them ad Philip. 4. no there is no Sin or Temptation that Grace can not overcome nor Grace necessary for our Salvation which Prayer can not obtain and a Gift of this in some measure is given to all Men need not fear to undertake prudently to do for God he will still out do them By the same proportion that they go out of themselves for his sake he comes upon 'em by his Grace filling their understanding with surprising Lights and their Wills with Flaming Affections so that seing him now in a fairer day and burning with more Affection towards him they covet to do still more and more for the love of him far from thinking it hard to keep their Vows by which it has been favourably given to them to tye themselves more straitly to him But you who are so secure in your wide way of living and make it your study to diminish the Gospel Obligations be pleased to remember that Christ said Math. 7. v. 14. the way that leads to life is narrow and they are but few who find it CHAP. IX A Recapitulation or short Repetion of the Contents in this Book OUr Adversary out of his foregoing discourse imagining or willing seem to imagin that all his weak Fancies are as many Perswasions telling us he will prove this to Perswasion and he has proven that to Conviction concludes Protestants to be most happy because they do not meet with the Obstacles found in Popery to Eternal Salvation And what are those Obstacles Here he makes a kind of Recapitulation of what he had said 1. The R. Faith is so blind sayes he that it believes Decrees of Errable Councils In this place I will set to your view and consideration the passage he brings to prove that our general approved Councils are Errable in St. Austin's Opinion I had not seen it in St. Austin by reason of his wrong Quotation when I answered it pag. 35. by my knowledge of St. Augustins mind from else where St. Austin contra Epist Fundam c. 5. saies for me I would not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church did not move me to it to wit the Authority of the then existing R. Church which moved him to believe that Manicheus was not an Apostle of CHRIST as is clear out of his Words in that place Again Epist 118. he saies to controvert or question that which is held by the whole Church a General approved Council is insolent madness and Epist 162. he saies that a General Council is the last Iudgment of the Church Would St. Augustin or any Reasonable Person think that Man insolently mad who in the weighty matter of his Salvation would question and appeal from a Judgment that might be Erronious St. Austin having spoken of the Council of Nice and Arimini disputing with Maximinus an Arian Bishop L. 3. c. 14. Whether CHRIST were of the Substance of GOD the Father He sayes sed nunc nec ego Nicenum neâ— tu debes Ariminense tanquam praejudicaturus proferre concilium Nec ego hujus Authoritate nec iu illius decineris Scripturarum Authoritatibus non quorum cumque propriis sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione concertet That is say But now neither ought I to alledge the Council of
that he is condemned by Scripture then Scripture alone cannot be our Judge nor does God himself by Scripture alone decide our differences In the mean time without a Judge we are all loose in our Opinions Hence Confusion Fire Sword Church against Church and Dissention among the People to the Destruction of the Nation And what is the business What is the Quarrel They won't submit their Judgment to mine To yours And why should they submit their Judgment more to yours than you to theirs Who thinks himself to be void of wit or not to abound in Judgment quisquis in suo sensu abundat and if it be true that there is no Infallible Visible Judge why may not I hope that God gives me as much of his Divine assistance as to you since I use as much diligence as you to obtain it My LORDS do you see where we are What would the Law Book do in Scotland if your Lordships Wisdoms were not impowered and authorized by his Majesty to determine Causes What Cause does not find an Advocate to make the Law look favourably upon his Clyant Will we make God less wise to keep an Vnion in his Church than Kings to keep an Vnion in their Kingdom A Holy King most earnest to have Justice administred to his People if it were in his Power and he could with his ease enlighten his Judges with Truth in giving their Sentence would he not do it Does not God as earnestly desire as that Holy King that all Men come to the Knowledge of the Truth in matters of Faith if we may believe St. Paul 1 Tim. 2. v. 4. And cannot he if he please without any difficulty enlighten his Church and influence Her with an Infallible assistance in Her Decisions Why then shall we not think he has done so Since he has established Her to Govern us Act 20.28 and subjected us to Her Obedience Matth. 18.17 What do I say shall we not think he has done so Can a Christian rationally doubt yet of it after Christ's saying to Her Who hears you hears me Luc. 10 and after St. Paul's assuring us Eph. 4. that Christ made some Teachers in his Church that we might not waver And who can but waver and be ready to hearken to others who speak with more applause if he Judge his Fore Teachers Fallible in the great and last concern of his Eternity Grant this My LORDS which is evident enough that the Teaching Church of Christ wheresomever She be is Infallible in Her Decisions of Religion and the main Work is done for we will as easily find Her out by Her Marks set down in the Holy Scriptures as the Sun among the Planets in Sole posuit Tabernaculum suum Psal 18. he has made Her as Visible as the Sun What is unreasonable in all this Discourse But if the great Reason of looking strange on us be the imagined difformity of our Religion from the Word of GOD be pleas'd to cast your Wiser Eyes upon this little Book and with your Reason examine impartially the Reasons we bring for the R. Catholick Religion If here and there our Reasons seem to contradict your senses 't is to obey Faith to Her according to St. Paul Rom. 1. v. 5. We owe Obedience and such that we must sometimes captivate our understanding for this performance 2 Corin. 10. v. 5. 'T is true Reason is the Light of Man but Faith is the Light of a Christian To be a Man I must be Rational but moreover I must Believe to have the Title of a Christian God has given us both our Will and our Vnderstanding He will and with all Reason be Honoured by the one aswell as by the other I Honour him with my Will when I Obey his Law I Honour him with my Vnderstanding when I submit to Faith and seek no other evidence than his Word for all I Believe in order to my Salvation As my doing what otherwaies pleases not my Nature because God commands it is a perfect submission of my Will to his command so my Believing what God reveals to me by his Church which otherwaies I don't understand is a perfect submission of my Vnderstanding to his Word A Word worthy of our Adoration God by the force of his Word Created us by the bounty of his Word Redeemed us and by the Submission of our Judgment to his Word revealed to us by his Church expects to Save us Otherwaies not He that Believes not viz. all that he has revealed shall be Damned undoubtedly Mark 16.16 I know My Lords that if a Man find himself convinced to become a Catholick at this time the very fear of being thought to turn upon the account of Gaining or continuing in Favour is no small Stumbling-Block to Persons of Honour But if you have strong Reason on your side what Reasonable Man can wonder Should not they rather wonder to see you Men before in their Opinion so Reasonable now fail and fall from Reason or of so little resolution as to leave an infinite Good for a Good that is so finite so small I mean a conservation of esteem among the Vulgar Of this last I thought good to mind your Lordships in my great Zeal for your Souls and high respect for your Persons coveting to be in Christ MY LORDS Your Lordships most Humble Servant A TABLE Of the CONTENTS Of this BOOK A Preamble Pag. 1 Answer to what is Objected against the R. Catholicks Speculative Divinity p. 2 Answer to what is Objected against R. Catholicks Practical or Moral Divinity p. 4 Protestants cannot be Sav'd even in the Opinion of our Adversary because they don't fulfill what is requir'd by him to Salvation p. 6 Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of Christ p. 9 It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of Belief p. 11 'T is not a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd p. 13 The formal Protestant cannot be Sav'd p. 16 Formal Protestants are Schismaticks p. 22 Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages p. 26 Formal Protestants are Hereticks p. 29 St. Augustin 's saying of the mending of a former Council by a posterior sully answered p. 31 Another Objection solv'd p. 35 'T is an Article of Faith that General approved Councils are Infallible p. 36 The Infallibility of a General approv'd Council proven by some other passages of Scripture and our Adversary's explication of them exploded p. 39 'T is not necessary the Infallibility of the Church be defin'd in a General Council yet it is in General Councils defin'd by a practical Definition p. 42 We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd General Council is Baptiz'd p. 46 The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity p. 47 A Word by way of entry into this matter p. 50 The Intention of the Minister required by the Church in Baptism explained makes appear the nullity of our Adversaries
of Judgement So a drunken Man Dying tho' he is not Damned for what proceeds from Drunkeness for a Blasphemy uttered in that time yet he may be damned for the Sin which brought him to this distemper of his Reason Neither flatter your self with an invincible Error proceeding from knowledge there is no such an Error of Judgement is an Ignorance of Truth and therefore that Error proceeds from Ignorance and not from knowledge A Fool upholding his Opinion against a number of Wise Men thinks this his Opinion proceeds from his knowledge which others have not and that he speaks with a great deal of sense In the mean while the Wise Men present pitty him seeing all he sayes is but non-sense and that all this Discourse in which he runs out proceeds from his Ignorance So that what he esteems in himself to be Light is truely Darkness CHAP. III. Our Adversary's Negative Proofs for the Salvation of Protestants Refuted SECT I. Formal Protestants are Schismaticks AFter our Adversary had endeavoured tho' as I hope you have sufficiently seen in vain to prove positively that Protestants may be sav'd in his second Sect. pag. 43. His aim is here to prove the same negatively i.e. that in their Religion there is no hinderance of Salvation Two things only as he Imagins may hinder from Salvation Schism and Heresie But Protestants are free from both then they have no hinderance of Salvation as he concluds Schism saies he is a separation from the true Church and the true Church is that of primative Christians We grant all this But Protestants do not differ from the primative Christians this we deny And this which he should have chiefly proven and one which lyes the whole force of debate between him and us he passes over and slips away saying it has been proven by others This way of proving is indeed a new method but not infallible For why shall I believe him that others have done that which he with all their Light given him and his own dar'd not undertake to do himself Since he then could not prove that Protestants do not differ from the primative Christians I will not content my self to say that others have proven that they do differ but I will prove it to him I suppose that Christians in the third age I go no farther then the bounds he allows me did not differ from the second nor the second from the first in their rule of Faith and this supposed I say Protestants now have not the same Rule of Faith which Christians had in the first three Ages then they differ from them The Rule of Faith among those primative Christians was the Holy Scripture as interpreted by Christ the Apostles and their Successors not the Scripture as interpreted by every private Mans best understanding which is the Rule now among Protestants refusing to submit to any Counsel or Synods interpretation of a passage of Scripture if their Judgment stand against it The Disciples of Christ englightn'd as they were did not understand the Scriptures before Christ opened 'em to them and St. Peter Vicar of Christ in that function explaining the Scripture to those of his time told them it did not belong to any private Man to Interpret it 2 Petr. 1 v. 20 and Instanced that many had wrested or miss-Interpreted St. Pauls Words to their own Destruction 2 Petr. 3. v. 16. CHRIST said to Peter feed my Sheep not with Bread but with Doctrine As I cannot Feed that Child who willfully refuses to open his Mouth to receive the Food I offer him no more could Peter Feed those Christians with Doctrine had they refused to open their Ears and to bear it with submission Those Christians then wisely submited to Peter and their followers to his Sucessors being of an equal power to Instruct them for Christ promising to be with his Apostles to the end of the World did not mean with their Persons only who were not to exceed a hundred Years but also with those of their Lawful Successors And so the perpetual Custome of the Church hath been to have recourse in Controversies of Religion to the Sea of Rome it being necessary as St. Ireneus said in the 2. Age for all Churches to have their recourse to her Next to prove to me that the Protestants do not differ from the Primative Christians you must not only say but show me that your whole Church not only some private men takes the Scripture in the same sense their whole Church or leading Church took it in Show me some General Counsel of yours or a Body of Pastors to which you all unanimously submit and then I will understand what your Church holds otherwayes not And because you will not submit to any such Body I can never understand how you agree with the Christians of primative times Neither send me to your professions of Faith â—oâ— first in these all Protestants do not agree We agree say you in Fundamentals I ask what are the Fundamentals in which you agree with all other Protestant Churches Here you are at a stand And I also For if you don't assign me them how shall I know that in them precisely you all agree Beside most of the Articles of those Professions are meer Negatives of Catholick Articles unknown as you say not I to the primitive Christians and I say if they did not know those our Articles neither had they a knowledge of the Negations of them which is posterior to the knowledge of the things of which they are Negations And so not knowing those your Articles they did not in them agree with you But Romanists say you cannot say that they agree with the Christians who liv'd in the first three Ages because they have brought in many Novelties unheard of to them As the Invocations of Saints Adoration of the Holy Host Veneration of Pictures and the Popes power in order to teach us what we ought to believe for if you mean of the deposing power you know tho' some Catholicks hold it none is bound to believe it since the Church hath not defin'd it Ans You say we have brought in Novelties but you don't prove it But I say if those our Tenets you call novelties were not heard of in the first three ages neither were the denyals of them for the denyal is alwayes posterior to the knowledge of the thing deny'd these then denyals brought iâ— by you and believed by you with Divine Faith are Novelties brought in by you and consequently by them you differ from the primitive Christians Do not you believe for Example as an Article of Faith that there is no Transubstantiation If not then we Catholicks who believe Transubstantiation believe nothing contrary to Divine Faith And so of all the rest And by this means you will be found Guilty of Schism for leaving us You say its certain that standing to the Fundamentals we are Guilty of a Superstruction I ask once again what these Fundamentals of Christianity
and approbation from the Sea of Rome I grant And this confirmes the Infallibility of the Church To satisfie us our adversary is pleased to say the Romanists demand how shall we resolve our doubts in matters of Faith if the decision of General Councils be fallible He Answers by setting Reason to Reason and trying the matter by the Authority of the Holy Scripture Here I ask if that Collation or comparing of Reason with Reason and tryal by the Holy Scripture be fallible or infallible If fallible it serves for nothing in a matter of Faith of which we are speaking for since I must give an assent Infallible super omnia above all my doubt must be taken infallibly away If it be Infallible I ask Again is it in clearing doubts in fundamentals or integrals of Religion Not infundamentals for there is no doubt in them they being according to Protestants clearly set down to Men in Scripture If in Integrals then say I since a private man useing that means may be infallibly clear'd in his doubts concerning Integrals then a General Council using the same means may be infallibly cleared in them and consequently infallibly propose them to the People to be believ'd since they are infallibly found to be reveal'd by God in Scripture and consequently he who will refuse to believe them will be justly look'd upon as an Heretick SECT V. We are sure that the Major Part of an approv'd general Council is Baptis'd ANother Scare-Crow from our Doctrine of Infallibility is that a lawful Council ought to be composed of men who have been really Baptiz'd but R. Cath. can never be sure of such an Assembly sayes our Adversary since the Validity of Baptism depends according to them of the uncertain intention of the Minister And upon the same account they are never certain that their Popes are Priests because perhaps the Bishop who ordain'd them had no such intention Answer First that the Synods and general Assemblies of Protestants be lawful the members of them must be of the Elect for if they are not of the Elect Christ did not dye for them according to the Kirk of Scotland and if Christ did not dye for them they are not Christians and if they are not Christians what Spirit influenced them in making your Catechisms and Profession of Faith in which you believe are found all the foundamentals of Christianity They composed them they put them into your hands by their Authority as a motive of credibility you rely upon them How are you more assured that they are of the Elect then that our members of a General Council are Baptiz'd Is it written in their faces O but they have a gift of prayer had not Major Wyer in appearance one and a very great one Answer Secundo We are sure of the Baptism of the Major part of the General Council when we see it approv'd by the Pope because it belongs to the providence of GOD not to permit a General Council unlawful for some hidden defect to have all the outward form of a lawful Council for so he would give an occasion of Error to the whole Church believing it to be a lawful Council if as it might fall out such a Council should propose a false Doctrine to be believed Since the Faithful acknowledge they are bound to hear the teaching Church Matth. 18.23.17 A Subsect The Infallibility of the Church deny'd underminds Christianity OUr Adversary having prov'd as he imagin'd the Fallibility of the teaching Church draws these conclusions The Church is fallible then she imposes no obligation to believe her Decisions as Articles of Faith then who rejects Transubstantiation Purgatory c. are not Hereticks Answer From that antecedent the Church is Fallible he might as well have drawn these conclusions then There is no Faith nor true Religion For if the Church be fallible in her Decisions then she is fallible in teaching us that Christianity is the true Religion then it s only probable that Christianity is the true Religion Again if it be only probable that Christianity is the true Religion theâ— its only probable that CHRIST is God Go further if it be only probable that CHRIST is God then it may be he is not God Is this a pretty Discourse Is not this Discourse rationally deduc'd from that antecedent The Church is Fallible thâ— Church nevertheless which God will have us hear under pain of disobeying him Where is then Faith Where is true Religion If you say the former Discourse is not Rational because you have another Principle to wit the Holy Scripture by which you prove the Infallibility of Christianity I ask by what Principle prove you that the sense in which you understand the Holy Scripture and in which only it is to you a Principle of Demonstrating the Infallibility of Christianity is the Word of God By no other but by your private Light or Spirit but this is Fallible as I shall show anon then if the other Principle of the whole Churches Decision be also Fallible the former Discourse was Rational it following from any Principle you please to take for your religion if your principle carry with it fallibility and consequently onely probability of that which is inferred from it Now I prove that your private Light or private Spirit is fallible You are not sure 't is the Spirit of God that enlightens you afore you have try'd it by the Scripture try the Spirit sayes St. Iohn 1 Iohn cap. 4. v. 1. You won't try it by the Church then you must try it by Scripture Again you cannot read the Scripture in Order to try this Spirit afore you are sure you are enlighten'd and guided by the Spirit of God for if perchance it be the ill Spirit transfiguring himself into an Angel of Light who guids you he 'l make that seem to you true which is false If you can't be sure it is the Spirit of God that inlightens you you can't be sure that the spirit which inlightens you is Infallible then it s fallible and consequently your private Light or private Spirit is fallible And if your private Spirit with all the help of the Scripture is fallible and in your Opinion the Spirit of the Church in a General Council is also fallible I pray what Infallible Principle have we from which we may deduce or Demonstrate the Infallibility of the Christian Religion if we have none we are shaken out of our Faith and have no true Religion Be pleas'd to take notice then that you must assert with us the Infallibility of the teaching Church According to that Ephes 4. v. 11. He made some Pastors and Doctors c. that we be not Children wavering and carried away with every wind of Doctrine Or you have no ground to stand on for Christianity Reflect again how can we but waver in our thoughts and be ready to be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine if we believe that the Church which is Teaching us is fallible
is impossible say they what perfection can be had if all our Actions be Sins Are Sins and perfections Synonima's Can I command my self to think that that man who is confessedly acknowledged to be composed of iniquity and to do nothing but abomination from Morning till Evening lives innocently like an Anchoret an Austere and Godly Life How can Protestant Doctrine give them a deeper fear of Hell if in that same that they fear Hell they believe and see clearly that they cannot be saved Because who fears has not assurance which is the portionâ— of every just Man since he is not just unless he believe that his Sins are remitted by the Merits of Christ And must every man to whom the Gospel is Preached believe this How many then believe a lye Or what reason have you to believe it more then any other to whom the Gospel is Preached Because you find your self to walk more Cautiously then Romanists But how do you walk more cautiously then we Since if you avoid one damnable Sin you necessarily fall into another seeing you cannot do any thing with all the assistance of the Grace of Christ which is not an abomination in the sight of God This is a cold comfort to Protestants and all this sad Doctrine comes from that great Protestant Principle Baptism does not take away Original sin So that as a poysoned Fountain runs nothing but poysonous Water the Soul of Man still remaining corrupted with Original Sin brings forth nothing but corruption How will Souls so foul enter Heaven Protestants smile if from this passage Matth. 12. v. 33. Some Sins shall neither be forgiven in this World nor in the World to come we silly Romanists infer that since no Sin is forgiven in Hell or Heaven there must be a third place in the other World call 't as you please in the which some Sins may be forgiven But may not we rather laughout at the fancy of Men who acknowledging themselves to be all broken out with the runing sores of Original Actual Sin think with an imaginary cloaking of themselves with the Justice of Christ above all is hidden filth they shall enter Heaven as 〈◊〉 as a Plague Person under a disguise enters a 〈◊〉 Hospital â—â—e Master of the Hospital may be deceived I 〈◊〉 but God who hath said that nothing which â—â—s shall enter Heaven Rev. cap. 21. v. 27. â—ot be deluded SECT V. â—he Churches not permitting all Parts of the Scripture indifferently to be read by all is Justified And her high sentiment of this word of God declared MAny stumble at the Churches not permitting indifferently all those who only understand the holy Scriptures in a vulgar Tongue to read them But without reason this is first the great veneration the Church has for the Word of God not to submit his high Mysteries to the Interpretation of every Ignorant Creature while upon all occasions they read it with as little respect as if it were a Romance or a play Book and give their verdict of its meaning the Prophet Malachy in the mean time cap. 2. v. 7. sayes the lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and the Law they shall require of his Mouth Secondly The Church deals with her Children as Christ dealt with his Apostles John 16. v. 12. and St. Paul with the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3 v. 2. Christ did not propose to them all the strong truths while they were week in Vertue I have said he many other things to tell you which you are not able to bear at present Iohn 16.12 And St. Paul gave the Corinthians Milk not then stronger Food saying to them that they were not yet able 1 Cor. 3. v. 2. Wise Parents at a great Table do not let their Children take what they please but give them of Meats presented what they know to be fit for their weak Stomach So the Church allows the learned to feed themselves with the Holy Scripture she gives of the same Table to the unlearned by their Pastors and Teachers what is fittest for them lest having the whole Bible in their hands especially without the Notes for the better understanding of it they wrong themselves as those who as St. Peter 2 Pet. 3. v. 16. speaks wrested some passages of St. Paul as also the other Scriptures to their own destruction Destruction Implyes more then mistakes in Indifferent matters Would it not startle an Ignorant to hear afore the Passage is explained what God said to the Prophet Isaiah cap. 6. v. 10. Blind the heart of the People c. Lest perhaps they may see with their Eyes and be converted Would an Infinite Goodness says an Ignorant command a Prophet to do so Would it not amaze the same to read in the first of Hosea v. 1. That God commanded him to take a Whore and take to himself Children of Whoredom Is it possible sayes the Ignorant that Sanctity it self should speak so With what surprizing passages will an Ignorant Carnal Man meet with in the Canticles Respect then the Holy Ghost in the Conduct of the Church and do not think that her Children who do not nor cannot read the Scriptures live in ignorance Lukewarmness Indifferency without relishing Heavenly things without true Devotion more then Abraham Isaac and Iacob who had the same want but were Instructed to the Piety we read of by the Tradition from others as our unlearn'd are by the Labours of our Pastors and Preachers who not being diverted from their Book and Prayer by the necessary care of providing for Wife and Children Meditate at leasure the Holy Bible and study how they may best deliver to the People the Truths they find there both necessary to Salvation and conducing to Persection And this aboundantly suffices unless you will exclude also among Protestants all those who cannot read from Devotion as if God had design'd only great Wits for Heaven Add to all this that if the Scripture put into every private Mans hand and being understood by him according to his best Judgement be to him a sufficient Rule of Faith which without doubt would breed as much confusion in the Church as the Law Book Interpreted by every private Man without Obligation to submit to the Kings Judges would do in the Kingdom what need have you of Ministers more then Quakers If every one be thus capable to understand the Word why is he not capable to Preach it And if he be capable to Preach it to others or stirr them up to the Faith of Justifying Grace why is he not capable to give also the Sacrament or the Sign of it receiv'd If you say that God has ordained Bishops or Presbyters to Govern the Church I answer 't is not Civily but in Doctrine what will this Government in our case serve for but to make them Hypocrites since they must then believe outwardly what the Minister Teaches and inwardly what their own light perswades them often contrary to the Ministers perswasion When we
Advers inveighs against the rigour of the Catholick Church not knowing sayes he that true Vertue consists mainly in an Intire Victory we should Endeavour to get over our own Passions Answer Holy People Endeavour to get this Victory by the Mortification of their Bodies Iudith that famous Woman chosen by God for the saving of her Nation wore a Hair Cloath upon her Loins not to speak of Her Fasting all the Dayes of Her Life except the Sabbaths New Moons and the Feasts of the House of Israel Iudith 8. St. Iohn the Baptists led a rigorous Life in the Wilderness and St. Paul besides his stupendious Labour by Teaching and Preaching added a chastising or Scourging of his Body least after he had Preach'd to others he should become a Reprobat Himself 1 Cor 9. v. 27. What means he 2 Cor. 4. v. 10. when he says always bearing about with us the Mortification of Jesus in our Bodies that the Life of Jesus may be manifested in our Bodies What was this Life of Jesus a perpetual Mortification of his Body from his Cradle to his Cross Our new inlightned Men find another way to overcome their Passions to wit abstaining from the Chastisement of the Body Deny thy self take up thy Cross and follow me sayes our Saviour Matth. 16. v. 24. But does not our Adversary seem rather to say take thy satisfaction in Eating and Drinking thy fill and so thou wilt be strong to follow him Pamper thy Flesh and so thou wilt be strong to overcome thy Lust Eat and Drink thy fill and I 'll warrant thee thou shalt alay thy Passion of Eating and Drinking for an hour or two But his Experience may have told him that thus he puts a Sword in his Enemies Hand who tho' he lay quiet for a while will rise up more firce hereafter Bellarmine said indeed that if he were Pope he would take away Lent but he added that in its place he would order to Fast on Wednesday all the Year over Does the exchange of fourty Fasts with fifty two favour the inclination of our Adversary to Feasting SECT III. The Proofs our Adversary brings out of Scripture for the Marrying of Church-Men are either willfull or Ignorant mistakes of the Word of God MArriage in the purest Age was not forbidden to Ecclesiasticks sayes our Adversary which he proves by this passage 1 Tim. 3. v. 2. A Bishop must be blamless the Husband of one Wife Answer First was not St. Paul a Bishop Had he a Wife when he said 1 Cor. 7. v. 8. I say to those who are not Married its good for them if they remain so even as I The sense then of that place is that as St. Paul would have the Church Widow to be the Wife of one Husband or to have been only Married once 1 Tim. 5. v. 9. So he would have a Bishop to be the Husband of one Wife or to have been only once Married Otherwayes what does St. Paul say here particular to a Bishop have other Men two Wives Note in the Birth of the Church it was hard to find among new Converts Men of Maturity for the Government of a Bishoprick who had not been once Married especially at Candy of which Church St. Paul speaks here to Timothy because as Strabo writes L. 10. They had an Antient Law by which all of their Republick were forced from their very Youth to Marry Again to prove that Ecclesiasticks may Marry he brings this passage of St. Paul Marriage is Honourable in all and the Bed undefil'd Hebr. 13. v. 4. Answer First the same St. Paul says 1 Cor. 7. v. 38. He who gives his Virgin in Marriage does well but he that gives her not in Marriage does better And 1 Cor. 7. v. 1. 'T is good for a Man not to touch a Woman The former passage is then to be understood thus Marriage is Honourable in all who may Lawfully Marry but not between Father and Daughter Brother and Sister In Church-Men who have vow'd Chastity in Church-Widows who being admitted to the Service of the Church upon their resolution of not Marrying according to St. Paul 1 Tim. 5. v. 11. Incur Damnation if they Marry because they cast of their first Faith as the Apostle speaks to wit to CHRIST Secondly the Greek Text has Timios o gamos en pasi that is Honourable Marriage in all so where Protestants without ground add is Catholicks with ground add be in the imperative mood and so it imports First an Exhortation to those who are Married that they live Faithful to one another not Dishonouring by Incontinency their Marriage but keeping their Bed undefil'd But why will the Apostle that Marriage be Honourable in all keeping their Bed undefil'd Because as he presently adds Adulterers God will Judge Thus you see Catholicks have a ground to supply the sentence not with is but with be or let it be Secondly To those who desire to Marry that they do not offer to Marry when they know they are not free to Marry being engag'd to others or having an Impediment and so make their Marriage when the Impediment is discover'd Dishonourable However our Latin and English Cath. Text have neither is nor be but Honourabile conubium in omnibus Honourable Marriage in all conform to the Greek Original Text. In the third place to justifie the Marriage of Church-Men who have Vow'd Chastity he brings what St. Paul sayes to Tim. 4. v. 3. That forbiding to Marry is a Doctrine of Devils where he speaks of Manicheans Encratists and Marcionists and others of that Cabal as St. Chrysostom remarks in his 12. Hom. upon that passage it is quite another thing to forbid absolutely to Marry then to forbid only those who have Vow'd Chastity to Marry The Catholick Church does not forbid to Marry but only forbids to break a Vow made to God I think no Body will say that it is a Doctrine of Devils to fulfill what one has solemnly promised to God The thing being Lawful in it self Deut. 23. v. 21. When thou shalt Vow a Vow to the Lord thy God thou shalt not slak to pay it for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee Now the Catholick Church shows she Honours Marriage more then Protestants because she looks upon it as a Sacrament which Protestants do not His instance of Zacharie sayes nothing against us for we do not deny that the Priests of the Old Law Married but only we say they did not use their Wives those dayes their turn was to Sacrifice Luke c. 1. v. 23 24. And seeing our Priests must Sacrifice every day they ought to abstain from that Action so remote from the Spirit and dulling it in order to Divine thoughts at that time that our mind ought to be sursum corda raised above our senses hence Origen said Hom. 23. in num It seems to me that it belongs only to him to offer the continual Sacrifice who has dedicated himself to a continual and perpetual