Opinion Our Adversary foreseeing this our negative adds dare we say that Protestants are neither Learn'd nor Pious and then with a triumphing Jock he quots that Verse of Horace Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici To our Imagin'd confusion But fair and softly Would you think that a publick Professor of Philosophy should from a copulative deny'd inferr the negative of both the members as it from this deny'd copulative Our Adversary is a Souldier and a Physitian He should presently say then according to you I am neither a Souldier nor a Phisitian Who would not laugh at this Illation And consequently if I desire you not to laugh Reader or Hearer it is not at us but at him for his simplicity il ne faut pas chanter devant la Victoire saies the French-Man He should not have aplauded himself afore a clearer Eye then his had seen his Victory When I say Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious I don't say they are neither Learn'd nor Pious there 's a great difference between these two propositions I say that Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious because they who are Learn'd viz. in matters of Faith see the Truth and they who are Pious embrace it when they see it Since Protestants then do not embrace the R. Catholick Faith which has appear'd as the only true to all Antiquity as I may easily show and clearly shines to Men who have not their understanding vailed 2 Cor. 3.15 out of the Holy Scripture as I shall make appear anon either they do not see it and those are not Learn'd or they see it and do not embrace it according to that video meliora proboque deteriora sequor that is to say I see what is Good and approve of it but in the mean time I practice what is Evil and those are not Pious But while I say they are not Learn'd and Pious in order to Salvation I don't deny that many of them are very knowing Men in matter of Philosophy Astrology Mathematicks and such like Sciences and also Men of moral Lives But Quid mihi proderat saies St. Augustin Ingenium per omnes Doctrinas liberales agile cum in Doctrina pietatis errarem What did it avail me to have had a Wit fitted for all Liberal Arts whilst I was Ignorant of the Art of saving my Soul erring in the Doctrine of Piety Out of the True Church there is no Sanctity and without True Sanctity there is no True or solid Piety Let me give our Adversary one Light more by which he may see the weakness of his Argument I give and not grant that it is a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd and suppose that Sempronius relying on it becomes a Protestant Now I say either Sempronius certainly believes that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture for they are no where else or not If the former then he does not rely upon a probable Opinion only for his being a Protestant but upon a certainty if the latter then he is not a true Protestant who has the Articles of his Faith not from Church or Apostolical Tradition but from Scripture only So a Man can never become a Protestant who must believe that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture relying only on this Principle 't is a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be Sav'd I ask again our Adversary whither this Principle a Man may follow a probable Opinion in matter of Religion Be a true or false Principle If false then a Man may prove a true Religion by a false Principle If true then a Man may prove the Religion which is false in the Opinion of our Adversary to be a true Religion by a true Principle which is absurd viz. the R. Catholick Religion is proven to be true because Catholicks of whom many are Learned and Pious nay some Protestants whose Authority makes with him a probable Opinion hold it to be a saving and consequently a true Religion SECT IV. The formal Protestant cannot be sav'd ALtho he thinks he has won the cause by his last Argument yet he brings another to prove that a Protestant nay a formal Protestant may be sav'd And to prevent our answer he sayes that R. Catholicks as he was taught distinguish the formal Protestant from the material in this that the material is in an invincible Ignorance the formal in a vincible Ignorance But before he goes further I must tell him that he is either short of Memory or that he took ill up his Lesson of the formal Hereticks For R. Catholick Divines teach not that he is a formal Heretick who lives in a vincible Ignorance altho' grosly culpable and affected too if he be not pertinacious but he only is a formal Heretick who with obstinacy defends an Errour Hence St. Aug. Epist 162. speaks thus Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt c. parati corrigi cum invenerint veritatem nequaquam sunt inter Hereticos reputandi id est Who defends their Opinion tho false and perverse but without any obstinacy ready to submit when the Truth shall be shown them are not at all to be counted Hereticks So when our Adversary tells me that a formal Protestant may have stronger Arguments viz. as they appear to him against Transubstantiation then for it he is in an invincible Ignorance and so may be Sav'd I infer from that antecedent not and so may be Sav'd But and so is only a material Protestant according to the notion of a material Protestant given and agreed upon by our Adversary and so indeed the material Protestant may in this case be Sav'd not the formal But then he will tell you there is no formal Protestant for who knowing his Error defends it is an Hypocrite c. not a True Protestant Answer There are likely many such among those who pass in the esteem of their Brethren for true Protestants Men I say carried away either by Passion or Interest to speak against their knowledge As among R. Catholicks there are but too many who are led by Interest or Passion to do that which they know to be Damnable and against their Conscience And now not to speak of those who have been and are known to be of this Category I bring you a Reason for the proof of what I have said which is this It 's certain all the Arguments R. Catholicks bring for the proof of their Religion are not clearly and with full satisfaction solv'd by Protestants or else why would so many of their Learn'd Men as I could Name some come to us for Truth 's sake not only without any Humane inticement but on the contrary with great Worldly prejudice and renouncing of natural satisfaction which is not remark'd in our Learn'd People going to them when their Lives after they have left us are considered without passion Now if this be true that our
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
Arguments are not fully solv'd by them many of their Learn'd Men must see this as I was told of a Minister in France when I was among the French who when his Wife startl'd by what he uttered in a Discourse said to him after if that be true why do we live as we live He answered Her Que Diable veut tu que je fasse avec toy mes Enfans that is What the Devil wilt thou have me do with Thee and my Children To wit if he Liv'd according to what he thought Thus they seeing the R. Catholick Truth and Teaching Protestancy are formal Protestants who as long as they remain so cannot be Sav'd Many of the material Protestants are it may be much held in their way by the Physical Arguments they frame to themselves against Transubstantiation And this depends much of the notion of a Body which hath been given them in Philosophy For if they have been taught for example that the nature of a Body consists in an actual extension of its parts and that accidents are not distinct from the substances it presently appears to them impossible that the whole Body of CHRIST can be in every the least particle of the Host and there under the sole Accidents of Bread But we Catholicks when we see such notions cannot stand with what the Holy Scripture saies the Holy Fathers unanimously teach and the whole Church hath believed from the Apostles time down to us we condemn them knowing that Reason must captivate it self to Obey Faith not Faith submit her self to Reason Don't think for what I have said that I acknowledge a material Protestant who has no doubt in his Faith secure as to his Salvation no I do not indeed deny but that he may be Sav'd but I do not absolutely say that he will be Sav'd for he seing so great changes in the Protestant Religion since its rise the R. Catholicks alone remaining alwayes the same seeing Preachers who were thought Learn'd and Good-men and who had stood stiff to the Covenant as conform to the Word of God now solemnly renounce it acknowledging they have got a new Light he can't I say well but doubt whether he ought to follow them in this Light or in the Light for which they said before as much as for this And since they changed from the former it may be hereafter they will change from this to a third there being no more infallibility in this then in the former And if he doubt he is bound to enquire and hearing that the R. Catholick Church believes Her self to be infallible in what She delivers of Faith Infallibility if it were true being as confess'd by all a certain means to settle Men in Conscience and secure them from all doubts in matters of Religion he is bound to enquire and try if Romanists have any solid ground to bring for this their Tenet and if he find it good in Charity to himself he 's bound to embrace it Next tho' a material Protestant have no doubt he is not in an equal condition in order to Salvation because if he fall into grievous Sin he has no other Remedy then an Act of Contrition or of Sorrow for it purely for the Love of God he has offended which is not so easily had Whereas the Catholick has frequent Sacramental Confession and by it pardon from God which is clearly intimated to us in Io. 20. chap. v. 23. The Sins which you remit are remitted to them A Protestant may say I believe from that passage it not ill but Lawful to Confess to a Minister of the Church but not that we are bound But weigh then say I the following Words Whose Sins you retain or do not pardon are retained are not pardon'd this can't be understood of Protestants Excommunication for if you don 't or can't pardon with what Authority do you or can you retain Both parts belonging to the Function of the same Ministers of God Also the Excommunication is not a formal retaining of Sin but a thing destinct and a sign of your retaining it posterior to the retaining of it Moreover how can the Priest know which Sin he may remit and which he must retain if you do not Confess them to him And St. Augustin in Confirmation of this Confession sayes in his 49. Hom. of the 50. Hom. Tom. 10. Do Penance as it is practised in the Church and let no Man say occulte ago apud Deum ago I do it secretly in the â—ottom of my Heart Ergo saies he Sine causa dictum est quaecunque Solveritis c. Matth. 16.19 Frusâ—ramus Evangelium frustramus verba Christi did Christ then say that in vain sayes He to the Ministers of the Church Whose Sins ye remit are remitted to them We frustrate the Gospel and make void the Words of Christ Besides many as some Apostats come to have no doubt in the Protestant Religion by a punishment from God Eo quod charitatem veritatis non receperunt ut salvi fierent ideò mittes iâ—lis Deus operat onem Erroris ut credant mendacio saies St. Paul ad Thess 2. cap. 2. v. 10. Because they have not cherish'd oâ— embrac'd the Truth which God out of Love manifested to them that by it they might be Sav'd therefore â—od will send them the Operation of Error to believe â—â—ing He will send i. e. saies St. Augustin L. 2. de Civit. Dei cap. 19. Will permit the Devil to do those things viz. to bring them to believe lying These People conscious to themselves of their tepid or vicious Life in the Religion they were in ought not to ground themselves upon their want of doubt in the way they have taken but to use much humble Prayer to God to enlighten them Here I add something our Adversary saies to justifie himself in a Letter to a Friend Sure I am saies He that a knowing Man as one may have Reason to think me to be in such matters can never resist a known Truth So if I be in an Error 't is not an Error of Will but Iudgement for which God damns no Man provided this Error be invincible as undoubtedly mine is allowing what your prepossession inclines you to believe that I am really mistaken There being an invincible Error but less reflected on that comes from knowledge as well as an other more talked of in the Schools that proceeds from want of knowledge Answer Did not Origen and Tertullian resist a known Truth If not why were they condemned If they did resist it may not you also Were they less knowing than you Or less Vertuous in their Moral Life then you One fault was found in them to wit that they would not submit their Judgement to the Church And this is found in you Tho' God damns no Man for an Error of Judgement He may damm a Man for the Sin to punish which he withdrew his Grace and for want of which Grace this Man sell into that Error
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
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 CHARLES the first our Lawful Soveraign I grant the Loyal party now has a Horrour of that deposing Power But it must be confessed the Royal party it self had not that horrour when being of the Church of England they deposed in like manner Queen MARY of Scotland Lawful Heir of that Kingdom Since then the Actions of both the Church of England and Kirk of Scotland or of both the Prelatick and Presbyterian party make our History blush at what they have done in this matter should not either of them be asham'd to cast up so often to the R. Catholick Religion that some of Her Children have Written not with assurance but with a fear that the contrary Opinion was true that there is a deposing Power in the Pope SECT II. Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of CHRIST OUr Antagonist advances an other proof to show that a Protestant can be Sav'd God sayes He illuminates all Men that come into this World Iohn 1. v 8. then he adds are not Protestants Men Answer They are Men and illuminated by God but if they resist this Light which is given them and equivalently tell God as those wicked Men of whom Iob spoke Iob. 21. v. 14. Scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus We will not have the knowledge of thy Wayes They will be found more remote from Heaven then if they had not receiv'd it He urges we R. Catholicks grant that Infidels who have never heard of CHRIST may be Sav'd and inconsequently deny that hope of happiness to Protestants Answer There 's no ill consequence here to deny a capacity of Salvation to him who puts a hinderance to it and to grant it to him who puts none The Infidel who hath never heard of CHRIST doing what lyes in him by living according to the Light of Nature make 's way to Grace But the Protestant who rejects Faith offered to him by God and his Church willingly shuts up the avenue to a further Grace and untill he remove this obstacle by an humble submission of his Judgment to Faith he continues in an impossibility to please GOD. O! but you are uncharitable sayes He to perswade the simple People that a Protestant can't be Sav'd I ask him can a R. Catholick be Sav'd If he saies no where is his Charity for us If he affirms we may then they who according to Protestants are Idolaters may be Sav'd If so whom will you exclude from Heaven But to return to his Objection since he denies Charity to us and we only Faith to him Charity being a greater Vertue then Faith according to St. Paul is not he in this more Uncharitable to us then we to him He goes on do not Protestants believe all Fundamentals contained in the three Creeds and Scripture I Answer First since that there are Fundamentals as condistinguished from Intigrals or not Fundamentals is a Fundamental point with him I ask in what CREED or Book and Chap. of Scripture is this Fundamental contained If he can't find this then that hereafter he speaking with Catholicks may distinguish a Fundamental from an Integral as he calls it Let him take this notion of a Fundamental from us to wit that all things contained in Holy Scripture are Fundamentals in this sense that we are bound to believe them under pain of Damnation when they are sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church as reveal'd by God in the Scripture For to disbelieve God revealing that Christ meâ—t a blind man on the way of Iericho destroyes as much his veracity as to distrust him revealing that his Son became man By this notion of Fundamentals we perfectly distinguish the Faithful foul from a Infidel or Sectarian And therefore it is not given without ground or reason Again when Christ commanded the Gospell to be preached to Men did he command the things only which you call fundamentals to be Preach'd or the whole Gospel if things only you call Fundamentals why were the Apostles so exact to give us the whole Gospel that it 's thought Damnable not only to add but to pair from it If he commanded the whole Gospel to be Preached and consequently to be believ'd how can he be sav'd who refuses to believe the least Integral of it when it 's sufficiently proposd to him as reuealed by God SECT III. It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of belief NOw I come to his Achiles this dreadful Argument to Romanists this Argument in in his Judgment above the reach of all Rational Solution It runs thus Who Follows a probable Opinion neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently But who bolds that Protestants may be sav'd followes a probable Opinion Then he neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently The major saies he is Commonly admitted by Iesuits and others And a probable Opinion is that which Learned Prudent and Pious Men hold But that a Protestant may be sav'd is an Opinion that Learn'd Prudent and Pious Men hold then it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be sav'd Ans I distinguish the major in matter of Faith on which absolutly depends Salvation he does not Sin who follows a Probable Opinion I deny in other matters I grant If we hold a Priest to Sin and all Judicious Men think we ought to do so in our Principles who makes use in the Baptism of a dying Child of that which is only probably Water having at hand sure Water Because he makes a mortal breach of Charity against his Neighbour exposing the Child's Salvation Am not I damnably Injurious to my self to follow a probable Opinion in matter of Faith without which I cannot be sav'd when I have my choice of taking a sure way am not I bound to be as Charitable to my self in a matter of that consequence as to my Neighbour Again can my understanding tell my Will that she may prudently command him to give a certain and infallible assent super omnia above all that may be said such as the assent of Faith is to an object to command which she is only mov'd by a probable motive what it an Angel come after this assent is made from Heaven and tell me the thing I assented to is false as I fear'd or might have reasonably fear'd 't was having only a probable motive to beleive the contrary Might not he accuse me not only of Imprudence but also of boldness to make my self believe that God said it and so Father upon him as other articles of my Faith this which is found to be false which I might have justly fear'd having only so slender a ground as a probable Opinion is to believe it A Subsect 'T is not a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be sav'd MOreover I deny that it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be Sav'd First Because the Church has defin'd the contrary which definition excludes all probability from that Opinion Secondly I deny that Learned and Pious Men hold that
and so it may be leading us wrong This thought frustrates and makes void the design of CHRIST who made some Pastors and Doctors a purpose that we might not waver To confirm more this Catholick Tenet of the Infallibility of the Church conceive well that that Religion cannot have true Faith which rejects this Principle of Infallibility by which all Errors in Faith have been condemn'd and admits the Principle of a private Light by which all Errors in Faith have had their rise in the Church and without which Men could not so much as pretend to defend them CHAP. V. Of the Roman Catholick Faith and Doctrine SECT I. A Word by way of entry into this matter OUr Adversary sayes our Faith is so blind that he hath heard many of ours say if a General Council had defin'd white to be black they would believe it Whereby we are seen disposed sayes he to admit of any Error if it be Authoriz'd by a General Council Answer First such Arguments fetch'd from the Testimony of an Antagonist are of no weight since according to the Methode of the School we are bound to credit no more brought by an Adversary then what he proves In the second place I ask him if clear Scripture should tell him that Black is White would he believe it or not Would he not believe it Then he would prefer his private Light to clear Scripture which to do is Impious Would he believe it Then he is found dispos'd say I to admit of any Error if it be set down in clear Scripture He 'll say to me the case is not alike because the Scripture is the Word of God and the Decree of a General Council the Word of Men. But by his Favour we hold that this also is the Word of God tho uttered to us by the Mouth of Men according to that of the Acts cap. 15. and v. 18. It hath seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and us If he say 't is impossible that God should say by the Scripture that Black is White I say 't is also as impossible he should say it by a General Council giving it out as a Decree of Faith But absolutely speaking can't that Assembly of those Men advance such a proposition I Answer Absolutely speaking they can but then we would not believe it because that proposition neither belonging to Faith nor good manners which are the whole and adequat Object to which their Infallibility extends it self as we R. Catholicks hold it layes no Obligation upon us to believe it Moreover to give something to what our Adversary sayes he heard say Since in Aristotles Principles an Accident is really distinguish'd from a Substance what if God by his Almighty Power should put the Colour of White in the Subject in which is the Colour of Black would this imply a Contradiction And in this case would not this proposition be true Black is White or the Subject having the Colour of Black is the Subject which has the Colour of White SECT II. The intention of the Minister required by the Church in Baptism explained makes appear the nullity of our Adversaries Objection TO prove that Protestants may be sav'd more easily and with greater security then Romanists our Adversary sayes we teach that Baptism is absolutely necessary to Salvation and no Baptism a true and real one if the Minister when be pronounces the Words has not an Intention to Baptize which no doubt happens frequently sâ—â—es he since the Intention may be easily diverted to his other designs and affairs Answer First if as Protestants think Baptism is absolutely necessary to none Catholicks are not really less secure as to their Salvation because they think it necessary Secondly If I ask any Minister after he haâ— Christened a Child if he did not Intend to do what CHRIST ordain'd to be done in Baptism and what is ordinarily done by his Church Without doubt he 'l tell me he did And this is all the Intention the Church requires in the Priest Baptizeing If you say the Priest or Minister may be diverted from this Intention by a thought of his other affairs so say I may he be diverted by the same from that Intention which you require to wit of pronouncing the Words and applying the Water and so you have as much to fear you are not Baptiz'd as we But that which hinders us both to fear is this that we do not require an Actual Intention or a Reflection of my understanding that my will Intends which Actual Intention is indeed lost by a Distraction or thought of another thing and this seems to be the mistake of our Adversary by his saying the Priest's Intention may be easily diverted to his other affairs but only a Vertual Intention which stands with an Actual thought of another thing then that I am doing as when a Man playes on the Virginals and speaks to another of something else both at once We say this motion of his Fingers is not of it self but proceeds from a motion of the Will and a direction of the understanding tho' not sensible or preceptible by Reason of the weakness of these two Acts compared to the strength of an Actual Intention This Intention is called Vertual because it is 〈◊〉 were the Vertue or Vicar of the Actual Intention left by it to supply its place in order to do that which was first Actually Intended with a sensible and strong reflection of the understanding upon the Intention of the Will Neither is it destroyed by the explicite thought of another thing so this other thing be not incompatible with the Action to which this Vertual Intention moves and directs For Example my speaking of some other thing suffers at the same time my playing on the Organ which playing is directed by the Vertual while I have an Actual Intention to speak of another thing Now to prove that in Baptizing this Vertual Intention is sufficient not denying but that the Actual is most laudable I desire Men consider we have no other in all our Moral Actions which have a notable duration and succession of parts Would you have a Man who is going a Foot ten miles to a Market talking earnestly with another of Buying or Selling all the Way Actually intend and successively reflect beside all his other Discourse upon every individual step of his Journey This were to make his Head fitter for the Hospital then for the Market when he comes thither Yet to every individual step his Foot is mov'd by the Will intending and the understanding directing not Actually then Vertually as I have explain'd From all this you see the R. Catholick is really as secure in matter of Baptism as the Protestant and has as little Reason as he to fear its nullity But if by a Diabolical malice which is a case more Metaphysical than Moral the Priest or Minister had not a sufficient Intention and the Invalidity of the Baptism were wholly unknown to the Person Baptized then
Arians but not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation no more than the Doctrine of the Son's Consubstantiality with the Eternal Father Which is Spirit and Life imparting to the worthy Receiver of the Eucharist the Spirit of God or an increase of his Grace which leads to Eternal Life It gives no occasion of Idolatry or Hypocrisie by teaching that the Accidents are not to be Ador'd but the Body of Christ under them And that we ought not to come to it upon the account of pleasing Men but moved by our Faith of Christ's Real Presence there by a Love of him and a hope of Happiness from him 7. We rely on Saints not as Mediators of Redemption yet Moses Act. 7. is called a Redeemer Lytrootees but of Intercession that the Merits of Christ may be applyed to us We rely not on any thing we add our selves to them it being so small as the Church witnesses in Her Prayer for the Sunday of Sexagesime O God who sees we confide in no Action of our own grant mercifully c. acknowledging when we have done all we can we are but useless Servants to God tho' enabled by the Grace of Christ not useless to our selves 8. Our Divine Worship is pure without any vain Devotion or Honouring of that which should not be Honoured but not without many Sacred Ceremonies which serve to make us we being sensible Creatures sensible of inward Graces for warrant of which we have upon Record Ceremonies used by Christ and since he is the chief Agent in our Sacrifice why may not he use Ceremonies by his Vice-Gerents as well as by himself 9. We Adore God in Spirit and Truth endeavouring to make our minds joyn with our outward Sacrifice to the true God moved often by the Picture of Christ Bleeding on a Cross to morn with him and rue our by past Actions which were cause of so excessive a Torment and grief to him But not so Foolish as to think there is any Divinity in the Picture or Vertue in it to do us good Also Conscious to our selves of our own unworthiness by our hainous offences we go often to God by the Meditation of the most Blessed Virgin and other Saints in Credit with him warranted sufficiently by Eliphas Iob. 42. and the Centurion's Example Luke 7. v. 7. The one being Commanded by God to do so and the other praised by CHRIST for so doing If you ask me how the Saints in Heaven know I am praying them I ask how do they know the conversion of a Sinner upon Earth Luke 16 v. 7. if they know when I convert my self to God can't they as well know when I am praying Again how did Samuel know the thoughts of Saul Sam. 1. c 9. v. 20. and how knew the Prophet Ahijah the wife of Ieroboam 1 Reg. 14 They knew by Gods Revelation to them and so does God reveal to Saints in Heaven things which regard them upon Earth and this belongs to the felicity of their state to hear our Prayers present them to God and obtain from him favours to us Because he will this way Glorifie them for Glorifying him upon Earth according to his promise 1 Sam. 2. v. 30. Thus we Read Apocal. 5. v. 8. That the 24 Elders had Golden Vials full of Odours which are the Prayers of Saints To wit of Holy People upon Earth which the 24 Elders presented to God as the Angel offerd up the like having a Golden Censer upon the Golden Altar which was before the Throne Apoc. 8. v. 3. 10. Our Ecclesiastical Discipline is conform to that of primative times not because we say so for Protestants say as much for theirs but because R. Catholicks speak now as they spoke then and do now as they did then St. Ambrose L. 5. Epist 33. ad Marcellam his Sister saies at a certain occasion I begun to say Mass caepi Missam facere St. Augustin L. 9. Confes chap. XI sayes his Dying Mother desired him to be mindful of Her at the Altar and in the 12. chap. he sayes He did not Weep in his Prayers while the Sacrifice of our Redemption viz. of the Mass was offered for his Dead Mother Her Corps being set down beside the Grave If a Protestant Bishop should Write thus to his Sister at ten a Clock I begun to say Mass what would she say Certainly my Brother 's not well he is raving and if another should relate that his Protestant Mother desired him to Pray for Her after her Death you would fay without doubt she had lost her Judgment Why Because we do not Pray for People after their Death By this you see Protestants do not speak nor do as they spoke and did in primative times then their Religion and Ecclesiastical Discipline is not conform to that of primative times 11. Our Vows against which our Adversary so eagerly inveighs altho St. Augustin thinks our Vows should be kept by those Words of his Ser. 10. de Diversis If it displeased God sayes he speaking of the Sacriledge of Ananias and Saphira to withdraw of the Money which they had Vowed to God how is he angry when Chastity is Vowed and is not performed for to such may be said that which St. Peter said of the Money Thy Virginity remaining did it not remain to thee and before thou didst Vow was it not in thy own Power For whosoever have Vowed such things and have not payed them let them not think to be condemned to Coporal Death but to Everlasting Fire are the great helps our Church-men have to serve God in all freedom of Spirit for not owing the use of their Body to a Consort their Spirit is not drawn from Heaven in that violent way to the Earth nor have they their mind entangled with those cares which must needs attend Wise and Children Here I leave my Adversary wishing him most happy and for a Fare-well I mind him of these Words of our Saviour to St. Paul Act. 9. v. 5. Durum est tibi contra stimulum calcitrare FINIS ANSWER TO THE POSTSCRIPT I Reduce the substance of what our Adversary in his second Edition saies to the Reader and in his Post-Script to 6. Propositions and add to every one its Answer 1. He has changed his Title and calls now his Book Protestancy proved safer than Popery Answer Then Popery is safe for the quality which is found in the comparative is also in the positive tho' in a meaner Degree Hence in his Opinion to Live and Dye in Idotry as he thinks we Catholicks do is a safe way to Salvation Let the Reader consider to what absurdity our Adversary brings himself 2. He saies his Book is a new Method because the Methods hitherto made use of by Learned Protestants for the Establishment of Protestancy have been for the most part negative Answer All those Learned Protestants who have endeavoured to prove that the Protestant Religion is conform to the Word of GOD did not they endeavour to prove