demonstratiue assent of him self being the Author and Reuealer of the Christian doctrin it is so far from being fit the Doctors of his Church should conuict Pagans or heretiks by cleerly euidencing to them God reuealed the sauing truthes that it is not possible For though som Diuines haue sayd Faith is consistent with cleer euidence of God hauing reuealed the truth of its obiect because forsooth though the belieuer doth see the truth and by consequence can not doubt of it or be an heretik yet he doth not see it in its proper causes but only in Gods reuelation notwithstanding I say this vnwary opinion of som schoolmen themselues can not well reconcile with it the merit obscurity liberty and obsequiousness of Christian Faith nor shew how 't is possible for any learned Catholik or other man to be an heretik in his iudgment because the malice of Heresy this being an error in the understanding as well as obstinacy in the will consists in doubting or denying inwardly that God did reueal such an article of Faith but if euery learned Catholik doth see by virtue of tradition that he did realy reueal it he can not see nor say the contrary in his mind and by consequence can not be an heretik And yet it s granted on all sides that any learned man without forgetting any part of his learning or knowledge may be an heretik Besides the assent and certainty of Christian Faith doth not enter further vpon its obiect than to say it exists or that the act of Faith is true it medles not with why it exists or with any of its proper or particular causes that is with any reasons why the obiect exists or why the act of Faith is true it is grounded only vpon Gods reuelation and this sayes no more than it is so all other reasons and causes are impertinent as to the nature and vse of Faith Faith being an imperfect knowledge and a total relying vpon the Diuine authority and not vpon the knowledge of proper or any other causes Now it is impossible that the obscurity and nature of Faith can be more or so much destroyd by subsequent euidence impertinent to its end and nature than by an euidence that immediatly and directly opposeth and is inconsistent with its motiue its merit and nature If the act of Faith be not consistent with the cleer sight or euidence of its truth in the proper and particular causes notwithstanding those causes are not its motiue nor considered or toucht by the act or assent of Faith how can its merit obscurity or nature consist and continue with a cleer sight of its truth or of its motiue or which is the same with euidence of the Diuine reuelation This sight or euidence being as destructiue of the obscurity and difficulty wee meet with in assenting to the mysteries and of the trust we repose in God by belieuing which is no less essential to Faith than its truth as it is directly oppofit to the state of obscurity wherin we must be if we trust his word deliuered to vs by the Church as also to the darkness and desguise he must speake to vs in if he will haue vs trust him and merit by Faith or indeed belieue him at all for men do not belieue when they assent to a truth they see or can not deny And it is impossible for them to see that God who is truth itself speakes or reuealeth any mystery without seing also t is truth he speakes or reueals Our aduersaries seem to make the Montebanks saying seing is belieuing the rule of Diuine Faith Q. Vvhy should not the merit of Faith be consistent with the cleer euidence of the truth therof in its proper causes or with cleer euidence of Gods reuealing the mystery belieued Is it not sufficient for a meritorious assent that the VVill applyed the vnderstanding to cleer the difficulties which might retard or suspend the act of Faith before its actual assent Must this assent also meet with obscurity and ouercom a difficulty in saying and not seing that God reuealed what it assents vnto after all our former pains taken in finding out the rule of Faith and examining the nature of Catholik Tradition A. The chief merit of Christian Faith consists in ouercomming the difficulty we find in assenting to more than we see or with more assurāce than wee see there is euidence of truth If we did see or certainly know that God reuealed what we assent vnto by the act of Faith we could not haue that difficulty in assenting to the mysteries therof which we find by experiēce for what difficulty can there be in saying inwardly God reuealed the Trinity or the Trinity is true if we see that God reuealed that mystery and by an immediat consequence that it is true Therfore the proper and immediat merit of an act of Faith as such doth consist in ouercoming the difficulty of actualy assenting that God reuealed the mystery or matter we belieue he did reueale though we see not his reuelation nor any necessary connexion between it and the doctrin tradition or testimony of the Church As for those other difficulties antecedent to this and to the act of Faith which we ouercom and are rather dispositions to make our selues fit to belieue by remouing the obstacles of education and custom or by examining the nature of Tradition and the motiues of credibility than immediat acts of Faith the merit that results from ouercoming those difficulties is not the proper and immediat merit of Faith itself because it is antecedent to it for after all our aforesaid inquiry and examination of the rule and motiues of Faith we find still a great difficulty in assenting actualy or belieuing that God reuealed what Tradition affirms he did this our own experience doth demonstrat and it may be proued by diuers places of holy Scripture as that of Luc. 19. when one hauing bin credibly informed and perhaps seen how Christ wrought many miracles he desired Christ to dispossess his son of a dumb Deuil Christ told him if he could belieue he would deliuer his son from that spirit Vvithout doubt the Father found great difficulty in the very act of Faith whereby he belieued Christs power for though he sayd I do belieue yet he cried out adding Lord help my incredulity And yet this man was very well disposed and informed of Christs power and miracles before he brought his son to him otherwise he would not have taken so much pains to follow him and present his son before him And indeed incredulity as obstinacy also doth suppose as much information and euidence of the motiues of credibility and of the rule of Faith or Tradition as is requisit for the actual assent of Faith otherwise none could be called incredulous or obstinat for not belieuing The faithfull therfore merit and ouercom a great difficulty by the very act of Faith after that all other difficulties precedent to it are cleered or ouercom And
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 boby 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
and plausible an appearance of true miracles to confirm any false doctrin as we see in the Roman Catholik Church Therfore if the miracles of the Roman Catholik Church be not true Gods infinit veracity as also his goodness and prouidence may be questioned This may be explained to the vulgar sort by a similitude Suppose there were in som shire or town of England or Scotland a company of men acting in the Kings name as his priuy or great Councell with all the formes and formalities therof as a Lord Chancellor or Commissioner Tresurer Secretaries members of Parliament Clerks c. and that a considerable part of the Nation obeyed their orders and commands as men authorised by the King who is not ignorant of these publik proceedings and by consequence can not be rationaly thought auerse but rather seem to approue of them especialy if he be able without danger of disturbance to hinder and humble this pretended Councell by declaring them to be but a counterfeit Assembly of Cheats and Rebells and by punishing them accordingly A King I say that might hinder such a counterfeit Parliament or Councell from abusing himself and his subiects by so seeming a legal authority and yet would not can not be thought to haue any truth goodness or iustice because by his conniuance at those impostures which he might haue discouerd without trouble or inconueniencies he doth countenance and confirm that Councell as commissioned by himself This may be easily and aptly applied to the Roman Catholik Church which is inuested with so many miraculous marks of Gods authority and therfore doth act by a warant so seemingly Diuine that Gods bare permission of such a cheat as Protestants suppose the Roman Catholik Church to be would conclude his want of prouidence goodness and veracity and by consequence there can be no excuse or rational hopes of saluation for Protestants or any others that will not submit their iudgment to a Church and doctrin so publikly commissioned and confirmed by Gods great seal Miracles as yet shall more particularly appeare in the ensuing sections SECT I. VVHETHER THE CREDIBLE and constant report there is of true miracles vvrought in the Roman Catholik Church be a sufficient euidence to conuict of damnable obstinacy and heresy such as stight them or vvill not heare of them Q. Is it then vpon this ground of not belieuing the Roman Catholik miracles which are recounted by the ancient Fathers or others Roman Catholiks say that we Protestants are obstinat heretiks and that such of vs as dye not members of your Church are damned Is not this a foolish and vncharitable opinion A. One of the grounds of that censure is the Definition of Heresy which is an error in the understanding and obstinacy in the vvill against any truth or authority that is sufficienly proposed as Diuine Now the great appearance and moral euidence there is of the Roman Catholik Church together with its tradition doth sufficiently propose or declare its doctrine and authority to be Diuine For though it be not demonstratiuely euident that the Roman Catholik miracles are true miracles nor that its tradition and testimony is infallible yet it is moraly euident and by consequence sufficiently euident that its doctrin is Diuine and that God is Author of the same it being confirmed by such Miracles and that by them he doth authorise that Church as Princes do their officers by letters patents under their great seale Miracles being the great seale wherwith Gods Ministery and doctrin is made authentik Q. Vvhat is moral euidence of a miracle A. Moral euidence of a miracle is so credible and so constant a report therof that to deny or doubt of the fact reported argues imprudence in the dissenter and renders his caution of not belieuing both rash and ridiculous because it destroyes at least all historical and human Faith Q. May not a man belieue History and rely vpon human authority though he belieues not the stories of the most authentik Roman Catholik miracles A. No if he discourseth consequently and according to the rules of reason wherof one principal is that the same cause produceth the same effects and the same authority the same assent or belief If therfore the same ancient Fathers or Authors vpon whose testimony or tradition you rely for belieuing a miracle of Christian religion in genral or of the Trinity or Incarnation in particular recount the like miracles of Transubstantiation prayer to Saints or Purgatory you are rash and irrational in contemning that same authority which you credited in as difficult a subiect and as much aboue your comprehension for you ought to belieue both the miracles and mysteries or neither Q. Is moral euidence of true miracles sufficient to conuict of damnable obstinacy and heresy all such as slight that euidence and will not examin the grounds and effects therof A. Yes The reason is 1. because they are a sufficient euidence that the doctrin confirmed by them is Diuine 2. because Christs miracles were only moraly not demonstratiuely euident as miracles for if they had bin demonstratiuely euident as such none of the Iewes could deny them to be Diuine or could think they were wrought by the power of Beelzebub And though it was but moraly euident that Christs miracles were true miracles yet that moral euidence was sufficient to conuict the incredulous Iewes of damnable obstinacy and heresy Q. I desire to Know what it is you call damnable obstinacy A. Damnable obstinacy is a setled resolution of remaining in your own opinion of religion or a neglect of inquiring into the grounds of any other notwithstanding the prudent doubts you haue or would haue had if you had not bin carless of being saued in the way wherin you haue bin educated or made choice of Q. I do agree with you that if one doubts of the truth of his own religion he will be damnd unless he inquires into it or som other untill he doth what he can to be satisfied but I can not be persuaded that a man is bound to doubt of that religion wherin he hath bin bred because he heares of miracles wrought in an other unless his own be so absurd or inconsequent that he must doubt of its truth whether he will or no. A. There are two sorts of doubts 1. is a doubt which occurrs to ourselues by our own observation 2. is a doubt not started by ourselues but by som other more learned in matters of religion and as much to be credited and as litle to be suspected of hauing any design but our saluation in our change of opinion as he whom we most confide in Doubts of our own obseruation are very ordinary being grounded vpon the most obuious occurrences as a publik change of Religion either vpon the score of conscience or interest this last is as suspicious euen to the dullest comprehensions as the other is edifying Not only the change into a thriuing religion but constancy in a persecuted one doth
reuelation But how is it possible that scrupulous and acute Wits or Doubters can assent to Gods reuealing the articles of Christianity or to any truth with greater assurance then there is appearance and euidence of the same Is not euidence and assurance or certainty the same thing in our intellectual assents At least are they not so connected with one an other that they can not be separated or one be greater then the other A. Any thing which is uery reasonable must be possible because reason can not lead to or approue of an impossibility How possible and feasible it is to assent with infallible assurance and the greatest certainty for so we must assent in matters of Faith with only moral euidence is cleer in the scriptures especialy Iohn 20. where Christ our Sauior reprehended St Thomas for not belieuing with the assurance and certainty of Diuine Faith the mystery of the Resurrection though he had but moral euidence for it the testimony of the Apostles not as yet confirmed in grace Christ also Marc. ult reproacht with obstinacy and incredulity against Faith the Apostles themselues for not being content with that sole moral euidence of the Resurrection which they had from the testimony of the three Maries and the two Disciples of Emaus And certainly Christ would not find fault with St Thomas or the Apostles for not doing an impossibility It s possible therfore to belieue by an assent of Faith with more assurance and certainty then there is appearance of the truth or euidence of the Reuelation I confess it is uery difficult to shew how this is don But if wee distinguish the assurance or certainty we haue of truth by seing the truth in itself from the assurance or certainty we haue therof by putting our trust in an other or relying upon his knowledge and integrity we shall find this point much more easy then hitherto hath appeard to most both Diuines and Philosophers The assurance and certainty of our intellectual assents which is produced by the sight either intellectual or sensual of the Truth itself inuolues cleer euidence therof But the assurance and certainty of the Truth which is an effect of the Trust and esteem we haue of an others Veracity integrity power and wisdom is so farr from including a cleer sight or euidence of the truth that it excludes it For Trust is no more consistent with our exacting the possession sight or cleer euidence of that vvherwith vve trust an other than it is vvith doubts cautions and suspitions of his integrity or power Vpon this notion and the true nature of Trust excluding sight or cleer euidence of the thing trusted is grounded that saying I le trust such a man no further than I see him that is I vvill not trust him at all This supposed We may easily comprehend how its possible to belieue or to assent by an act of our Christian Faith with more assurance then appearance or euidence either of the truth or of the Diuine Reuelation Because to belieue or to assent by an act of our Christian Faith is to trust God for his reuelation as well as for the truth reuealed for we belieue God did reueal the mystery and so we must trust him for the reuelation also But if we see the reuelation euidently applied to the mystery reuealed we can not trust him for either seing the truth of the mystery is inseparable and necessarily connected with Gods reuelation therof and we can not trust God for the truth of one of two things that vve know are necessarily connected unless vve trust him for both Therfore if the reuelation be cleerly euident to us by Tradition vve can not trust God for it nor for the truth of the mystery we know is necessarily connected therwith Hence doth follow 1. that seing vve can not trust God for the truth of the mystery reuealed unless vve trust him also for the reuelation vve can not belieue either or any thing the Catholik Church proposeth as matter of Faith if vve exact for that belief conclusiue and cleer euidence that God reuealed the same It followeth 2. That by exacting cleer or conclusiue euidence of the Reuelation to belieue the mystery or matter proposed by the Church we do not only mistrust Gods veracity and goodness but preferr the vvord and veracity of euery honest man before his as it is proposed to us by the Church For vvhen vve heare any honest man speak though vvee do not see the truth of his vvords nor any thing else necessarily connected vvith that truth yet vve belieue him and take his bare vvord for our assent and assurance of the truth But vve will not take Gods word deliuered to us by the Church unless vve see his reuelation which is necessarily connected with the truth of the mystery proposed And in this consists most of the obstinacy and malice of Heresy It followeth 3. That the obstinacy of Heresy is not alwayes grounded upon the passion or inclination of men to sensual pleasures and those nices which Christian Faith shocks and condemns but takes its rise also from the difficulty we find in assenting to any thing without euidence or in trusting euen God for the truth of things vvhich seem to be unlikely Christs Resurrection vvas a thing much desired by Saint Thomas and the Apostles and by consequence they vvere willing enough to belieue it And yet because they thought it an unlikely matter St Thomas vvould not belieue the other Apostles nor these the Disciples of Emaus and the three Maries vvhen they assured them Christ vvas resuscitated And this is the reason why there haue bin so many speculatiue heresies as that of the Arrians against Christs consubstantiality and that of the Greekes against the procession of the holy Ghost c. True it is that the Lutheran and other modern Heresies haue their principal source from sensual pleasures and lendness of life yet no liberty is more bewitching then that of opining euen in speculation and therfore the Church hath bin troubled with confuting many speculatiue heresies in former ages I conclude this Appendix with this aduertisment that many mistakes among Controuersors are occasioned by their not being vvell grounded in School Diuinity especialy in that part of it which treates of the Nature of Faith and Heresy Som confound the Motiues of Faith vvith the Motiues of Credibility as they do the euidence of these vvith that of the Diuine Reuelation and the euidence of this with that of our obligation to belieue it and fancy that the Authors who pretend to demonstrat Christianity or the truth of the Roman Catholik Religion intend to demonstrat God reuealed those mysteries and doctrin vvheras they go no further than to endeauor to demonstrat the reasonableness and obligation of belieuing the same by the euidence of the Motiues of credibility Some of late as Fisher Rushworth and others in England haue attempted to demonstrat or cleerly conclude the euidence of the Diuine reuelation by the certainty of the human Tradition of the Church and therupon ground the certainty of Diuine Faith As their zeal is to be commended so they are to be aduertised that the certainty of Faith must be supernatural and by consequence must haue a higher and more infallible Motiue than the euidence of human Tradition grounded upon that of our senses as all Diuines confess and euen these modern Authors seem to grant I heare a bold Spaniard went further and pretends that Christian Faith is science because the reuelation is euidently concluded from the Motiues of credibility Miracles c. and because St Paul sayes Scio cui credidi certus sum This is but a Spanish conceit Perhaps Saint Paul in his rapt to the third Heauen might haue euidence of the Diuine Reuelation But vve heare of no others that went so far to find out that knowledge I see there are Escobars and Dianas in speculatiue Theology as vvell as in Moral and I think speculatiue errors are more dangerous than large cases of conscience because these carry a certain horror and discredit a long vvith them but erroneous speculations if new seem to vulgar comprehensions especialy of the weaker sex to sauor of wit and many would fain seem witty upon any score euen in matters of Faith wherin the greatest wits must submit to authority and be commanded by the vvill piously affected and supernaturaly assisted to belieue more than we see or comprehend Yet the Spaniard is consequent enough in his error by saying Faith is science For if it be euident that whatsoeuer God reuealed is true and it be euident that God reuealed the Trinity or Transubstantiation it must needs be euident and by consequence Science that these mysteries are true and therfore no man who penetrats these termes can deny their Truth For my part I wish this opinion were true it would be a great ease to all Catholiks vvho find much difficulty in belieuing the articles of Faith So that the Authors and Abettors of Traditionary euidence haue this aduantage of their Aduersaries that we desire they may haue the better of us in this Dispute and if they haue not it must be want of Reason on their side not any preiudice or obstinacy on ours But vve haue this aduantage of them that we may with more ease conuince heretiks euen the wittiest of heresy and obstinacy than they can because its easier to demonstrat or euidently conclude that a man is bound to bilieue God reuealed a mystery of Faith than it is to demonstrat or euidently conclude he did actualy reueale it as it is easier to proue you are bound to belieue this man is your Father than that realy he is so And if we conclude euidently the first we convince the wittiest Diffenters or Disputers in the world of heresy and obstinacy if they do not submit their iudgments and belief to that of the Church