Christ as offered vpon the Cross is a general fountain of graces and pardons and the foundation of the sacrifices of the old as well as of the new Testament wherof they all were but types or figures therfore that Diuine and bloudy sacrifice of the Cross can not be so peculiarly attributed to the law of grace as to be called the proper sacrifice of the Christian and Catholik Church Q. Is not the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass the same sacrifice A. They differ not in the substance because the same Christ is offerd in both and Christ himself is the chief Priest in Both. But they differ in the manner for in the sacrifice of the Mass Christ is offered vnder the species or appearance of bread and wine and in the Cross he was offered in his own shape Q. If the substance of the sacrifice be the same what need is there of that of the Mass is it not sufficient that Christ offered himself vpon the Cross once for all A. It is a general rule grounded vpon reason and the concurrence or custom of all Nations which euer professed any Religion that euery particular Religion must haue its sacrifice peculiar to itself because Religion being Diuine worship and sacrifice being an action professing the Diuinity of that which is worshipt it inuolues a contradiction to say Religion and no sacrifice or to say that a religion can continue and the sacrifice therof not continue Seing therfore the Christian and Catholik Religion doth continue and that the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross or Christs passion doth not continue the sacrifice of the Cross can not be the proper and peculiar sacrifice of the Christian Religion and Catholik Church Q. It is not sufficient that the effects of the sacrifice of the Cross continue in the Church though Christ suffered but once for the cause may be sayd to continue in its effects A. It can not be properly sayd that the cause continues in its effects Otherwise it might be properly sayd that the Priestood and sacrifice of Noe after the deluge chap. 8. Gen doth yet continue because the effect therof viz. the assurance of not suffering an other deluge doth and will continue vntill the end of the world Q. If all the sins of the world be pardoned or at least be sufficiently satisfied for by the sacrifice of the Cross what vse is there for the sacrifice of the Mass or how can it be a propitiatory sacrifice in virtue wherof sins are pardon'd and satisfied for A. It is not against the sufficiency or infinitness of the sacrifice of the Cross that sins be forguien and satisfied for by the sacrifice of the Mass not only because the same Christ is offered in both sacrifices but because the sacrifice of the Mass is a commemoration of that of the Cross and doth apply the sufficiency of the same to the pardon of particular sins that were not committed before Christs passion as we say of Baptism and other Sacraments And if the sacrifices of the old testament were propitiatory in virtue of Christs passion before he came to the world there can be no ground to deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is a Propitiatory sacrifice in virtue of the same passion after that he sufferd CHAP. IV. OF THE CHVRCH OF GOD and of Diuine faith Q. Though I know that they who worship God as he commands are his Church yet there being so many Congregations of Christians pretending themselues alone to be those worshipers and the true Church or at least a part therof I would willingly know whether there be any certain and cleer signes wherby the true Church and its members may be discerned from all false and heretical Congregations and what signes these are I am satisfied that any two or more Congregations dissenting in any doctrin can not constitute that Catholik Church out of which there is no saluation because such Congregations can not haue either vnity or verity in that doctrin wherin they disagree and by consequence seing God who is truth itself and infinitly auers from falsood can no more countenance or confirm with supernatural signs the least than the greatest falsood that Church or Churches which propose contradictory Tenets whether fundamental or not fundamental can no more be the Catholik or part therof than God can forfeit his veracity or incline and oblige men to belieue contradictory points wherof one must needs be false A. That there are certain and cleer signes wherby the true Catholik Church of God may be discerned from all false and heretical Congregations is as euident as Gods veracity and his inclination to truth or as it is that God did not institute a Church wherin there could be no peace concord or order but all must haue bin disorder confusion and dissention For if the testimony of euery of those Congregations were as credible by supernatural signs of their being the true Church as they are confident in their pretentions of being so the most learned and prudent men might liue and dye safely in the state of perplexity and all the world at best must haue bin seekers or sceptiks and there being no reason in such a case to belieue why rather one sect than an other should be the true Church Therfore God being the Author of truth peace order and vnity his Church can not be a Congregation of dissenting or perplexed people changing from one faith to an other for want oâ— discernable and supernatural signes which none but the true Church ought to haue to the end all men may find it out and therby be directed to embrace the true Diuine worship and doctrin These signes must be supernatural that is signes aboue the sphere and power of natural causes at least they must seem so not only to the vulgar people but to the wisest men and greatest Doctors after a diligent scrutiny and mature consideration of all causes and circumstances because they must be such as produce in us an euident obligation of belieuing that God alone is the Author of the Doctrin proposed as Diuine and that he hath authorised that Church to propose the same The signs must not only be obseruable but obuious to euery vulgar comprehension and perceptible euen by our senses The reason is because many of the mysteries which are to be belieued with Diuine faith exceed human capacity and therfore as well the learned as the ignorant are to be instructed therin by the Church and must take its testimony for a sufficient proof of their obligation to belieue without doubting that God reuealed those things which it proposeth in his name and they can not comprehend though they be credibly reuealed Now to belieue that things so difficult as many mysteries which the Church proposeth are true and reuealed by God and that any man or Congregation of men is authorised by his Diuine authority to propose and press such things vpon our vnderstandings this belief I say can not
causarum cognitionem arrogare c. He is therfore cursed by the Protestant vvriters as bearing the mark of the beast in acknowledging the Popes supremacy and for subduing all Christian Churches to his iurisdiction so Frigiuillaeus in his palma Christiana dedicated to Q. Elizabeth pag. 35. saying that Constantin preferred the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople before others yet attributed the Primacy before all to the Roman And pag. 34. saith that Constantin gaue the povver of the beast to Pope Iulius vvhich Iulius presently exercised for Constantin also carried the mark of the Dragon in his armes c. And Mr Napper in his Treatise vpon th Reuelations dedicated to King Iames saith After the year of God 300. the Emperor Constantin subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Siluester from vvhich time till these our dayes the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outvvard and visible Church Q. Pardon Sir that I interrupt you from proceeding further in the Proof of Constantins being a Papist I am fully conuinc't he was of your Popish Religion and seing Mr Napper sayes to King Iames that Popery possessed and gouerned the visible Church euer since that time I would willingly know whether it was so before Constantins time or whether that Emperor bestowed this supremacy vpon the Pope and pulld down Protestancy to set up Popery A. To satisfy your curiosity I will remit you to your own Protestant writers the Centurists and others I will only tell you that one of the most learnest protestant writers called Philip Nicolai took great pains in this matter in his work de regno Christi undertaking to discouer the first beginning and increase of the papal dignity or supremacy and concludeth at last with these words pag. 221. Primatus affectatio communis fuit infirmitas Apostolorum ac etiam primorum Vrbis Romae Episcoporum The affectation of the Primacy was an infirmity common to the Apostles as also to the first Bishops of Rome Mr Midleton likewise in his Papistomastix pag. 193. saith that perusing Councells Fathers and stories from the Apostles forvvord vve find the print of the Popes feet Vve may therfore follow securely steps so ancient and so authentik If Popery were not the right way to heauen certainly the ancient Councells would haue condemn'd it the Fathers would haue declin'd it and the Histories would haue recounted how it entred into the Church and supplanted the former Religion that Christ and the Apostles had preach't And yet not a vvord of this change or corruption in Councells Fathers or any History This is the greatest of Miracles that the doctrin and publik profession of Popery being in itself so contrary to Protestancy vvhich is supposed by its Professors to haue bin the pure and primitiue Christianity should steale so early and so insensibly into the Church notwithstanding the vigilancy of those primitiue Pastors and the great concern of euery faithfull to obserue and oppose the least nouelty whatsoeuer in matters of doctrin any change or corruption therof inuoluing a damnable heresy Q. Though the conuersion of all heathen Kings and Nations were as you say to Popery and performed by Papists and that it is not credible God vvould permit so general a peruersion vvherby the end of instituting his Church would be frustrated yet I vvould vvillingly know vvhether you can produce any Miracles against our Protestant doctrin vvherby we differ from the Papists A. See D◠Humfry in Iesuitismi p. 2◠rat 5. p. 5. 627. Bishop Bale in Act. Rom. Pont. pag. 44.45 46. Osiand in Epit. Cēt. 6. p. 289. 288. And the Magdeb. Centur. 6. cap. 20. All the Miracles that moued the Pagans to be Papists were wrought against Protestancy I will instance it in the conuersion of our Saxon Ancestors vvho vvere Pagans and made Papists by the preaching and Miracles of St Austin the Monk Apostle of England The Protestant writers confess he conuerted the Saxons to the Chaos of Popish Ceremonies and superstition and specify worship of Images praying to Saints Purgatory Mass Transubstantiatiation holy water c. And yet themselues confess with St Bede that his doctrin and that of the ancient Britans of that time B p. Iuel in his pageant of Popes B p. Goduin in his Catalogue of Bishops p. 1. Fox in his Acts and Monum printed 1576. pag. 463. difered only in a ceremony of Baptism and in the day of celebrating Easter St Austin confirming his own practise therin by a confessed Miracle of restoring sight to a blind man Now it being euident by our English Chronicles and the Protestant vvriters vvherof Mr Iohn Fox Bishop Goduin and Bishop Iuel are to be particularly noted as being most eminent that the ancient Britans after receiuing the Catholik Faith in the Apostles time held the same untill Austins coming and neuer forsook it for any manner of false preaching of other nor for torments c. It must be concluded that the ancient Britans were first conuerted to Popery and so continued untill Austins time and that his and their doctrin was the same in all particulars contrary to Protestancy and confirmed by Miracles But because you seem to desire a dogmatical Miracle that is one vvrought in confirmation of Popery not only as it is Christianity in general but at it is Christianity in particular and opposit to Protestancy I will endeu or to satisfy your curiosity hoping therby to setle your conscience CHAP. IX St. BERNARDS VNDENIABLE Miracles vvrought by God to confound Protestants and confirm the doctrin of the Sacrifice of the Mass Transubstantiation Purgatory Prayer for the dead Prayer to Saints their vvorship and that of Images Chrisme the Popes supremacy c. SAint Bernards learning sanctity and Miracles are so generaly confessed by all Protestant writers that Doctor Stillingfleet in his late Comedy of the Idolatry and Fanaticism of the Church of Rome durst not bring him vpon the stage Vvhitaker de Ecclesiâ pag. 369. saith of him I do realy belieue Bernard vvas a true Saint Osiander cent 12. saith Saint Bernard Abot of Clareual vvas a uery pious man c. Gomarus in speculo Ecclesiae pag. 23. saith one pious man your Church had in many years Bernard your Saint And Pasquils return into England pag. 8. 13. saith he vvas a good Father and one of the lamps of Gods Church He was so famous for his learning humility deuotion and Miracles that after his refusal of all Ecclesiastical dignities he gouerned not only the Church but the temporal Princes were sayd by him and submitted to his iudgment King Henry 2. of England forsook a Schismatical Pope which he had supported against the King of France by saint Bernards persuasion The King of France gaue ouer troubling the Bishops for his sake VVilliam the Duke of Aquitain was conuerted from a deuouring wolf to a meek Lamb by his words All the world lookt upon saint Bernard as the Apostle of that age wherin diuers heresies were
world to be a cheat or any thing less than his own great Seal wherfore at the sight therof all men are bound under pain of damnation to belieue God alone is the Author of Christs and the Roman Churches Miracles and doctrin iust as subiects are bound under pain of death to obey the King and Magistrats Orders when signed and sealed with the usual and authentik marks of their supreme authority They are bound I say to obey though they haue only moral euidence that he is King and that his Seal and Orders are true and not conterfeit Q. Methinks this argument may be retorted against your self For if notwithstanding the moral euidence we haue of such persons being our Parents or lawfull Kings and of their seales and Orders not being counterfeit we are bound only to honor and obey them in our outward actions but wee are not bound to assent inwardly without any Kind of doubt that such men are our Parents or our legitimat Kings or that their hands and seales are not counterfeit If I say this moral euidence can not oblige us to such inward assurances and assents how can the moral euidence of Christs and the Roman Churches Miracles being true and supernatural Miracles oblige us under pain of damnation to belieue vvithout any Kind of doubt Christs Diuinity and the Roman Catholik doctrin At least this much followeth from hence that the moral euidence of the aforsaid Miracles and signs of the Church can only exact from us an outward conformity to its decrees not an inward assent to its doctrin A. The extent of euery authority ought to be measured by its appearance If its appearance be only human or natural it reacheth no further than to regular those outward moral actions which are necessary for the gouernment and peace of the Commonwealth it hath not any thing to do vvith directing the soul by inward acts and undoubted assents to its supernatural end If the appearence of the authority be supernatural and moraly euident to us by prodigies profecies or other visible signs that it is so then it claimes a iurisdiction ouer the soul and may exact from it such inward acts and assents as are proportionable to that supernatural end for vvhich God hath instituted his Church and adornd it vvith those Diuine marks and miracles vvhich Christ himself mentions Marc. 16. and haue bin visible in the Roman Catholik euer since the Apostles This undeniable Maxim being layd as a foundation there can be no difficulty in seing the disparity there is between the human authority of Commonwealths and the spiritual and supernatural of the Church by virtue of their different appearances the miracles and signs of the Church making so supernatural a shew as to declare God alone is the Author of its doctrin and authority is extended to the soul and to the inward acts and assents therof regulating them as it is fit for the saluation of mankind No human or natural authority of Kings or temporal Princes can reach so far because the appearance therof is only natural Q. Vvill not the appearance of Anti-Christs Miracles be supernatural Did not those of the Magitians of Egipt look like supernatural and indiscernable from those of Moyses How then can a supernatural appearance or a moral euidence of prodigies being true Miracles exact or pretend to any authority ouer our inward acts of the will and understanding shall we submit our iudgments to Anti-Christs doctrin because his Miracles will seem to be supernatural If not why should we submit our iudgments to the Roman Catholik Church because it s most authentik Miracles seem to be supernatural A. This argument only proues that true Miracles euen those of Christ do not cleerly euidence or conclude their own supernaturality or their being true Miracles It is so hard a matter to distinguish between true and false or Anti Christian Miracles that our Sauior sayes euen the elect would be seduced by the last if for their sake and by Gods particular prouidence those dayes would not be shortned and therfore he warnes his Disciples and all the faithfull to beware of Anti-Christs Miracles for ressembling so much his own and giues certain signs wherby men may discouer that he who works them is Anti-Christ Christs Miracles therfore as those also of the Church being first and as it were in possession of Gods authority by being his great seale and confirming his doctrin do by that precedency and Christs prediction of conterfeit Miracles manifest their supernaturality in a different manner from Antichrists and all other lying prodigies which haue bin or will be wrought to confirm any doctrin contrary to that of the Catholik Church Out of all which we conclude that euen Christs Miracles and à fortiori those of the Church if taken without his prediction and their own precedency do not cleerly euidence to us that they are true Miracles and by consequence can not cleerly euidence to us the Diuinity of Christ or that God reuealed the articles of Christian Religion And the same must be sayd of Catholik Tradition euen as it is confirmed by these Miracles of the Church So that this Tradition is not the Motiue but the Rule of Faith vvhich directs us infallibly though not cleerly to Gods reuelations and therfore doth not demonstrat or undeniably conclude that euer God reuealed any one article of that Faith though the same Tradition as confirmed by the signs of the Church doth demonstrat or at least undeniably proue that we are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue and that most certainly that God reuealed euery point which the Roman Catholik Church doth propose as an article of Faith This much of Miracles in general Now let us return to Saint Bernards and consider it in particular St Bernard makes the same proposal to the Henricians and people about Tolouse that Elias made to the Iewes and Baalists He appeald to Gods omnipotency for the manifestation of the truth And spoke with such confidence of success as if the attempt of the miracle had not only bin consulted with God but had bin commanded by him Consider now I pray whether it be credible to any person that hath common sense or whether it be consistent with Gods infinit veracity and goodness that vpon so publik a trial of both and wherof depended the damnation or saluation of so many Souls God would play the Neuter and permit the Deuill abuse the sincerity and sanctity of Saint Bernard to seduce the poor simple people by working Miracles which saint Bernard himself and the wisest of that age took to be Diuine and were in appearance as much aboue the power of nature as those were which Christ wrought If this be as inconsistent with common sense as it is with Christianity not one illiterat Protestant in the world who hath any sense can be excused by inuincible ignorance from damnation no learned Protestant from heresy For heresy is obstinacy against doctrin sufficiently proposed as
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
make great impression vpon all sorts of people as also relations of miracles credibly reported These impressions and the inspirations which follow them raise doubts and these if not endeuored to be cleered are a sufficient cause of damnation The doubts which are raised in ourselues by the example or the discourse of others who haue no design vpon us but the saluation of our souls are also damnable to us if we neglect the cleering of them by all the wayes that a buisness of so great importance doth require And the more diligent we must be in the search by how much more the persons interested in maintaining our persuasion I mean such as liue by the ministery therof deterr us from so rational a scrutiny which they would neuer dissuade us from if they did not feare a discouery of their own wickedness and of their causes weakness Q. I pray sir apply this discourse to the Protestants and Roman Catholiks of England A. I beg your pardon sir I am loath to offend the Parliament But I will apply it to the Arians and Roman Catholiks of Spain The Heir of that Croun Prince Hermenegild hauing bin bred an Arian doubted of the truth of that pretended reformation this doubt was ocasioned by the discourse he had with St Leander Archbishop of Seuil At length he was conuinc't of the falsood of that Arian heresy and reconciled to the Roman Catholik Church The King his Father would needs haue him receiue the Arian communion which the Prince refusing to do the wicked Father for fear of his people sacrified the Heir apparent of the Croun to their fury and caused him to be murthered This change to and constancy in the Roman Catholik Religion together with a report of som miracles wrought so much upon all the people of Spain that a litle after they all turned Catholiks and a law was made that none but Catholiks should haue employment in that Kingdom Hence you may inferr what strong influence the example of a religious and resolute Prince hath euen vpon the most uulgar iudgments and how damnable it is in all people not to examin the motiues of so edifying a conuersion as that wherby one hazards and waues the greatest temporal interest and how certain it is that God will punish as well in this world as in the next all such as resist or neglect the impressions and inspirations which men feel in themselues to follow a religion so generously professed and preferrd before all the greatness and glory of an Imperial Croun Q. If Princely suffering vpon the score of conscience be so great a miracle why shall not the Lady Iane Grayes suffering and Queen Elizabeths also for the Protestant religion be miracles and confirm that profession as the true Catholik Add to these the patience and constancy of those glorious Protestant Martyrs recounted by Iohn Fox in his Acts and Monuments SECT II. OF THE DIFFERENCE BETVVEEN Catholik constancy and heretical obstinacy and vvherin doth each consist A Your obiection is material and I shal endeuor to answer it as cleerly and in as few words as I can but depending of a proper notion of heresy it inuolues som difficulty Experience and history hath proued almost in euery age that som heretiks suffer with as great resolution all Kind of torments and death itself for their false religion as Catholiks do for the true one And yet we all agree in terming the heretiks resolution obstinacy and the Catholiks constancy The reason is because the heretik suffers for adhering to a particular opinion and to his own priuat iudgment The Catholik for conforming himself to the belief of the uniuersal Church and for submitting his iudgement to the same Therfore St Paul sayes that an heretik is condemned by his own proper iudgment 2. Petr. 1. 2. No profecy of Scripture is made by priuat interpretation and St Peter tells us that the true interpretation of Scripture is not that of a priuat man but of the Church And the very word Heresy signifies a particular choyce or a wilfull diuision and declining from the first doctrin This supposed there can be no difficulty in declaring why an heretik may without any miracle suffer with great resolution the greatest torments for maintaining his heresy Because men are naturaly inclined to follow their own opinions and to maintain their own choice and therfore we see what endeuors are used in vain to persuade an humorsom and wilfull man or woman to recall any foolish Act they did of their own heads and how hard it is to conuince them that it was ill don Now euery heretik makes his religion his own act not by an humble submission of his iudgment to the Church as Catholiks do but by a proud preference of his own vnderstanding before that of all others This needs no other proof than that pitty which euery pittifull Protestant euen the women hath of the most learned Roman Catholiks ignorance and Idolatry In this pride and preference of their proper iudgment and in the wilfulness of continuing in their own choice doth consist the obstinacy of heretiks as the constancy of Catholiks takes its denomination from that religious perseuerance which is grounded vpon so rational a resolution as it is to submit and stick to the doctrin of a Church signalised with so many supernatural and uisible marks of being trusted by God to teach and preach the true Catholik Faith as hath bin demonstrated in the 5. Chap. Q. I grant that the difference between Catholik constancy and heretical obstinacy is that this is a more wilfull than rational adherency to a mans proper opinion or to a priuat interpretation of Scripture against the testimony and tradition of the Church and Catholik constancy is a religious perseuerance in a resolution of submitting our iudgments to the same Church but how will you make it appeare that our Protestant interpretation of Scripture is a priuat one or that we are guilty of pride seing we follow the interpretation of the Church of England and submit our iudgments therunto A. I will make that heretical obstinacy appeare in those very Protestant Saints and Martyrs which Iohn Fox doth celebrat for their constancy And to begin as you do with the most innocent of them all the Lady Iane Grey shee did wilfully choose and preferr before the Catholik a new religion or an interpretation of Scripture that was not as old as herself though she was very yong It had bin hatcht by Cranmer and confirmed by the Parliament of Ed. 6. but some fiue years before she suffered and was then Known and declared by an other Parliament 1. Mar. to be heresy and contrary to the publik sense and continual tradition of the Catholik Church and therfore was called by the Protestants themselues a Reformation of the old doctrin So that though the Church and Parliament of England in the reign of K. Ed. 6. called it à Common prayer or a publik worship yet was it