say the Bible doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation we do not say that the Word of God does not contain all things necessary to Salvation because the Word of God is partly written partly unwritten Put these two together and you have all things necessary to Salvation Nay the Scripture alone has partly Explicitly partly Implicitly in as much as it sends us to the Church all things necessary to Salvation When we say that the Scripture is not absolutely But in some places obscure in others clear what do we say more then Protestants who teach that the Scripture is an Interpreter of it self if you compare the less clear passage with another or others more clear is not this to say that the less clear is obscure which obscurity is taken away by the clearness of the other Neither do we say that the Scripture is Imperfect when we say it is only a part of our Rule of Faith no more then we say the Almighty Power of God is Imperfect when we say 't is only a part of his Infinite Perfection As we do not say that God is Finit because he is a part of this Couple contained in Christ-God and Man or by which we say God and Man are two viz. natures SECT VI. The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith WE acknowledge the Holy Scriptures to be our Rule of Faith but not alone we believe them to be profitable to teach us in Justice that the Man of God may be perfect 2 Tim. 3. v. 16. But not sole sufficient to make him perfect We seem sayes our Adversary to doubt of the Originals of Scripture since we ask a Protestant how he knows it is the Word of God As if the Air Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression proper to God alone did not show this sufficiently as the King's Letters are known by their style and Royal Seal Answer We are so far from doubting of the Scriptures being the Word of God that we believe it with an Act of Divine Faith But we have asked and ask without any Answer that has so much as a jot of Reason by what Principle they will prove to us that the Scripture is the Word of God If besides the Scripture there is no Rule of Faith Not by the Scripture it self because self Testimony is none were it Written in any place of it that this Bible containing so many and such Books is the Word of GOD for the Question returns how know you that this Testimony is the Word of GOD Now to say that she Scripture shows it self is frivolous For I ask what 's that to say the Scripture shows it self Is it that by Reading it rises in the mind of a Man who has a well disposed understanding this apprehension The Scripture is the Word of God By which apprehension he sees it is so before he Judges or believes If so then he does not believe the Word of God to be the Word of God mov'd by the Word of God but by this apprehension which if you say is the Word of God then you admit a Word of God which is not Written and yet to you a Rule of Faith and so you have another Immediate Rule of Faith than the Written Word of God Again that apprehension and inward Testimony of the mind for which it s believed that the Scripture is the Word of GOD and that it shows it self does it rise from this that the Simplicity Majesty and way of Expression move Men to Judge that the Scripture is the Word of God But seeing all these particulars come from such Words Instituted by Men to signifie and that the more or less Majesty of the Style in a Speech or Sentence rises from a certain material placing and disposing of Words among themselves the whole thing is natural and so not the Word of God Next that Simplicity and Majesty of Style and what you please more is not so in every part of Scripture that I am bound for them to believe that that part is the Word of God For I pray what Air Simplicity or Majesty of Style is in the begining of the Gospel of St. Matthew when it s said there Abraham begot Isaac and Isaac begot Iacob what do you find more there then you would find in those same Words written in an Author not Sacred as in Ioseph the Iew Now if you ask us why we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God We Answer because an Infallible Tradition passing through all Ages and always believing it to be the Word of God has conveyed it to our Hands and that General approv'd Councils have confirm'd it by their Sacred Decrees and uncontrolable Authority as often as any Controversie arose among the Faithful either concerning certain Books or the certainty of the Tradition it self If you say you make use of this same Tradition of all Christians hitherto believing it to be the Word of God as a motive of Credibility to you that it is the Word of God I Answer You may but first by claiming to this you leave your own Principle of denying Tradition Next tho' this Universal Tradition be to you a motif of Credibility that the Bible is the Word of God as to the Letter yet you have none for the sense in which you take it Subsect This passage search the Scriptures John chap. 5. makes nothing for Protestants TO prove that the Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith at last our Adversary brings these Words of CHRIST to the Iews Search the Scriptures John cap. 5. v. 39. Answer You must know that there our Saviour was proving to the Iews his God-head or Divinity And he proves it First by the Testimony of St. Iohn Baptist v. 32. and lets them understand how worthy a Person Iohn was of Credit with them Secondly he proves it by his Works v. 36. Thirdly by the Testimony of his Eternal Father viz. This is my Son in whom I am well pleas'd Matth. 3. v. 17. Take notice that CHRIST for their Rule in believing his God-head did not fend them first to the Scripture but to the Testimony of Iohn his Miraculous Works and the Testimony of his Father and last of all he saies Search the Scriptures as if he should have said if you will not acknowledge me to be God for these great Arguments and Motives I have brought Take yet one more which is that since you think you have Eternal Life in the Scriptures Search them and there you will find that I am God because the Prophets in them give Testimony of me And this was said to their Doctors not to every private Person Secondly The Word Scrutamini in Lati◠〈◊〉 Ereunate in Greek is of the presenttence of 〈◊〉 dicative mood Cyrillus takes it in the Indicative as well as of the Imperative and so signisies you do Search the Scriptures as
Objection p. 52 We have security for the Salvation of a Child dying immediatly after Baptism Protestants have none p 57 Our Adversary's Exception against our Doctrine of Purgatory retorted upon Protestants p. 59 The Churches not permiting all Parts of the Scripture indefferently to be Read by all is justified And Her high Sentiment of this Word of God declared p. 61 The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith p. 65 This passage search the Scriptures John chap. 5. makes nothing for Protestants p. 65 The Reason why the Mass is not said in the Valgar Tongue p. 70 The Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation does not destroy experimental knowledge nor deceive our Senses p. 74 In the Eucharist our Senses are not deceiv'd in their proper Object p. 77 Transubstantiation neither inclines us to Idolatry nor Hypocrisie with some questions about the Protestants Communion p. 80 Roman Catholicks do not agree with Heathens in their Veneration and use of Images p. 85 The Protestants do not Adore GOD in Spirit and Truth nor the Roman Catholicks the Cross as GOD. p. 88 Invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary does not withdraw us from God nor dishonour Christ p. 93 Protestants live in Spiritual Slavery not Catholicks The Decree of Innocent the Third in the third Cap. of the General Council of Lateran is not a Decree of Faith p. 96 St. Pauls saying whatsomever is Sold in the Shambles c. 1 Cor. 10. v. 24 25 27. makes nothing against our abstinence from Flesh upon forbidden dayes p. 103 The Proofs our Adversary brings out of Scripture for the Marrying of Church-Men are willfull or Ignorant mistakes of the Word of God p. 107 Religious Vows are allowable p. 111 The three Religious Vows of Poverty Chastity and Obedience are Evangelical Counsels p. 113 Vows put not a Man in a worse condition more then the Law of God p. 118 What is the Fruit of these Vows well observed p. 119 Answers the rest of this matter of Vows p. 122 A Recapitulation or short Repetition of the Contents in this Book p. 127 Answer to the Poscript p. 137 A Reason to prove the necessity of an Infallible Visible Guide p. 13â— ERRATA Pag. 5. Lin. 15. apponent R. opponent P. 7. L. 36. the first of R. the first part of P. 8. L. 3 after least add L. 4. after faction add P. 10. L. 4. can't R. can't L. 10. you R. you Ibid. L. 33. meet R. met P. 11. L. 2. a Infidel R. an Infidel P. 14. L. 26. Augustin R. Augustin L. 4. Conf. c. 5. P. 23. L. 10. one R. on L. 36. before R. before P. 24. L. 17. of the world blot out after the P. 24. L. 24. after Her add L. 3. c. 3. P. 37. L. 20. a possibiliiy R. a possibility P 39. L. 17. for all R. for since all L. 28. runs R run P. 40. L. 26 full out R. fall out P. 58. L. 23. to a R. to be a P. 59. L. 8. canses R. causes P. 72. L. 29. a vulgar R. an unknown P. 79. L. 31. indentification R. identification P. 82. L. 5. splear R. sphear P. 83. L. 22. is not R. and it is not P. 86. L. 36. oscuratus R. obscuratum P. 92. L. 22. Ghost R. Host P. 93. L. 19. Intercessors R. Intercessors P. 95. L. 15. stahding R. standing P. 99. L. 11. ascent R. assent L. 12. ascented R. assented to P. 112. L. 3. tates R. States P. 128. L. 18. that is say R. that is to say P. 129. L. 27. we distinguish R. our distinguishing P. 130. L. 4. the disformity R. difformity P. 133. L. 28. meditation R. mediation P. 140. L. 23. ascent R. assent AN ANSWER To A little Book call'd PROTESTANCY To be Embrac'd OR An infallible Method to reduce ROMANISTS FROM POPERY to PROTESTANCY A Preamble THIS Rare Method so taking in the Fancy of its Author may have some Vanity in it but sure no Verity being found to be Compos'd Chymera-like of two Qualities which destroy each other It is said to be Infallible and New If Infallible it must be according to Protestants the Word of God or at least contained in it and by consequence Ancient and so not new If new it is not the Word of God nor contained in it and so not Infallible Again if new it is a meer Work of Reason and so not a Way to lead Men Infallibly to Truth in matter of Religion CHAP. I. Of our Speculative and Moral or Practical Divinity SECT I. Answer to what is Objected against the R. Catholicks Speculative Divinity I Find our School Divinity is tax'd by our Adversary of a double Sacriledge which is that it both hinders Devotion and enervats Faith But this is a false surmise for how can it be possible that She which alone among all our Sciences makes it Her task to propose to us explain and confirm the Object of Faith and Devotion I mean first God and his Divine Attributs and next how we should Honour Him and behave our selves with his Majesty in our Worship to him should not promote but hinder Faith and Devotion Is it credible say I that this Science with all the endeavour and afforded Light should not help but rather remove us from our end If some short-fighted People think She moves more doubts then She satisfies with Her Solutions The fault is in their weak sight or tainted understanding not in Divinity As when in some the Ill affected Pallate loaths Meats which otherwaies are most wholesome Many things altho' most certain to R. Catholicks are discussed in this Science and brought by Reason to a rigid Tryal by which means doubts which do or may arise to the Enemies of our Faith find a clear Solution Thus Reason then overâ—ome by the very Arms of Reason does not only captivate Her self to obey Faith but moreover freely yields and joynes with Her against the Enemies of our Religion So against the Iews we demand if it was possible that God should become Man Against those who deny the veracity of Scripture if God can lie Against those who hold the Decree of Reprobation in God afore any foreseen Demerit either of Adam or his Posterity This Question is moved whether a Soul alltogether Innocent may be by an infinite Goodness designed to the Eternal Pains of Hell Against Athiests this Querie is made whether or no by the light of Nature one may demonstrate the existence of a God Thus different Questions are made concerning the possibility of different things Be cause the Enemies of our Faith as they easily pass from the denyal of the possible to the denyal of the actual existance of a thing so from the conviction of a possibility they are more easily drawn to avow the actual existence of a reveal'd Object Neither is this the work as our Adversary deems of idle Men unless he thinks them to do nothing
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
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
are That every one may see clearly whither or no what I hold as a Tenet of Religion is not found among them but is a meer superstruction Will you refuse to a considerable Person who thinks certainly he has seen in the Law Book a Law which justifies the Action for which he is condemn'd to Die Will you I say refuse him a publick sight of that Book to justifie your Sentence against him but notwithstanding the murmur of the People upon your refusal of his demand suspecting him Innocent savagely cast him If not do not condemn us who hold for certainty Transubstantiation to be so Fundamental that no Christian of the first three Ages would have deny'd it A Subsect Other Proofs that we agree in Faith with those of the first three Ages I Ask our Adversary did those Christians living then believe as a Fundamental point that they were the true Church planted by CHRIST and continued from the Apostles or not If not then they could not say in their Creed I believe in the Holy Catholick Church If they did believe it I ask again upon what ground was truth warranted to them for three hundred Years and not to the Church till the end of the World Was not Gods promise of Infallibility to his Church made to it as well to the end of the World as for the first three hundred Years Isaiah 59. v. 21. This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee to wit the Church and my Words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart out of thy Mouth nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed nor out of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed saith the Lord from henceforth and forever And to the Ephes 4. cap. v. 11 12 13 14. And he gave some Apostles some Prophets and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints c. till we all come in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God c. That we henceforth be no more Children tost too and fro and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine by the slight of Men. If he avow the Church fail'd not in Fundamental Truths I wonder how he can allow Luther and Calvin's Reforming the Church with so much Fire Sword and Confusion for a matter that did not impede Salvation If they Reform'd Her in Fundamentals then She perish'd which is against the Infallible promise of CHRIST If you say they did not Reform it as it lay pure in the Souls of some chosen tho' unknown to others but in the publick Pastors and Teachers who were reprehensible for their grievous Deviations then say I where was the visible Church to which Men should have recourse for the hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments Isaiah cap. 2. v. 3. A second Proof and Reason is drawn from that it seems morally impossible that in the begining of the fourth Age if he will have the fall of Religion then the Pastors should propose a number of new Tenets to be believ'd and perswade the People that they had heard them from their Fathers of the third Age not one individual Person in the mean time remembring that he heard them from his Is it credible that not only one Parish or Nation but all Countries who liv'd afore in the Union of the Catholick Church should of a sudden have permitted themselves to be cheated into this perswasion or rather bewitch'd since not one was found for many Ages to have gainsaid it or reclaimed against it Since this then is Morally impossible conclude that these Tenets of R. Catholicks which our adversary calls novelties were the old tenets of the three first Centuries A third reason 't is remark'd that God never permitted any notable Error to rise up in his Church but alwayes stirred up at the same time some man or men to speak and write against it and mov'd the whole Church to joyn with them to destroy it So Athanasius rose up against Arius Cyrillus Alexandrinus against Nestorius Augustin against Pelagius All back'd by the whole Church for the total overthrowing of those Errors Now if the Mass be an Error it is a most damnable one an Idolatry insupportable to give Divine Worship to the Host if it be only a piece of Bread Yet after this Error was broach'd in Gregory the Great 's time in the sixth or seventh Age as Protestants imagin what University or private Man spoke against it then or three hundred Years after It s true about four hundred Years after Berengarius inveighed against it but being better inform'd and by a torrent of Arguments for its Truth overwhelm'd he Recanted and Dyed Penitent Consult then Reason and not Passion and you will see that R. Catholicks have made no superstructurs on the Faith of the first three Ages SECT II. Formal Protestants are Hereticks I Advance to his assertion in which he affirms that we cannot say without Ignorance Calumny and Injustice that a Protestant is an Heretick First I agree with him that an Heretick is he who denyes viz. pertinaciously an Article of Faith or a revealed Verity Next I ask him by what principle he proves that a Protestant does not deny an Article of Faith or a reveal'd Truth I suppose he will Answer because a Protestant believes the CREED and the Holy Scripture I ask him further if a Preacher now of their Congregation should vent a Doctrine not Orthodox and should pertinaciously maintain it against his Brethren as a Truth according to his best Judgment reveal'd in Scripture By what principle will he convince him to be an Heretick He 'l tell you he believes the three Creeds and the whole Scripture and therefore he believes this his dogme because the thinks he finds it in Scripture Is he an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement to his particular Brethren He is known to be as Learn'd as they and of as good a Life as they If you say this Man can't be proven to be an Heretick that is against the Scripture Tit. 3. v. 10. bidding us to shun an Heretick and consequently he may be proven to be one If you say he is an Heretick because he will not submit his Judgement not only to particulars but neither to the whole Congregation or the Church of which he was a Member and therefore is justly condemn'd by Her according to Isai 54. v. 17. Every Tongue that rises up against thee in Iudgment thou shall condemn this is the Inheritance of the Lords Servants I conclude without Ignorance Calumny or Injustice that the Protestant Luther the Protestant Calvin c. were Hereticks because they would not submit their Judgment to the whole Church of which they were Members afore they were Excommunicated for their self Opinions Again this proposition a Protestant is not an Heretick either is an Act of Faith or Science or Opinion If you say it is an Act of Faith 〈◊〉 then say I 't is false
Scripturae Neither am I bound to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini neither ought you to stand to the Authority of this nor I to the Authority of that Let us set matter to matter cause to cause reason to reason the thing is to be examin'd by the Authority of Scripture How ever I explain the passage without difficulty Thus St. Agustin seeing that the Authority of the Council of Nice was of no force with the Arian who rely'd upon no other Council but that of Arimini To draw him out of his hole he provok'd to an Authority common to both viz. to that of the Holy Scripture And this is common in the Schools for Men to lay aside their private priaciples and argue from one which is agree'd on by both parties The sense then of St. Augustin if this passage be his may be this neither am I so tyed to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini that we may not make use of another principle which is common to both SECT II. 'T is an Article of Faith that General approv'd Councils are Infallible AN Article of Faith saies our Adversary must either be clearly contained in Scripture or defin'd by some General Council But that the Decisions of General Conneils are Infallible is neither clearly contained in Scripture nor defin'd by a General Council Therefore 't is not an Act of Faith sayes he that the Decisions of General Councils are Infallible He demands in what Book Chapter and Verse of Scripture or in what General Council this Article is contained Answer First either he Argues out of Protestant or Catholick Principles If out of Protestant Principles then he added ill the second part of his disjunctive since 't is of no weight with them If out of Catholick Principles he oversaw himself in bringing the first part of his disjunctive because 't is deny'd by Catholicks For we deny that it is requir'd that an Act of Faith be clearly set down in Scripture nay that all our Articles be contain'd there or in General Councils either since these two are not our adequat and total Rule of Faith but are compleated in the being of our Rule by Apostolical Tradition which enters in and assures us with equal Authority Wherefore I first deny the Major which failing the whole Argument concludes nothing 2. Giving not granting the Major I deny the Minor and say that Article of Faith is clearly contained in the same Scriptures in which its clearly contained according to Protestants that their General Synods do not Err in the Decision of Controversies arising among them for if as they think it is elearly proven by those passages that their Synods do not Err because they are directed by the Holy Ghost I say it s clearly proven by the same that our General Councils cannot Err because they are directed by the Holy Ghost a possibiliiy of Erring being as repugnant to the Holy Ghost as an Actual Error And by this their acknowledging that their General Synod may Err tho it does not Err they discard their Synod of Authority and disown themselves to be that Body of Pastors which CHRIST conserv's in his Church that hearing them we may not waver like Children and be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine Ephes 4. v. 11. and 14. For if I believe the Body of my Teachers to be fallible I fear and waver in my believe of what they have said and taught me For possibili posito in actu nullum sequitur impossibile There 's no impossibility or absurdity if that which is possible be brought to an Actual Being and so CHRIST would be disappointed in the aim he had when Ephes 4. He made some Pastors in his Church that we might not waver 3. I prove our assertion thus 'T is an Article of Faith to believe the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity because it s clearly set down in Scripture according to Protestants as all other things necessary to Salvation But that a General approved Council or the teaching Church is Infallible is as clearly set down in Scripture as appears by many passages of the same for Math. 18. v. 17. God sends us to the Church for instruction and threatens us there with Damnation or the punishment of an Ethnick if we do not harken to Her and consequently tells us that she is Infallible for his Goodness woul dnot oblidge me under pain of Damnation to hear a Church which might lead me wrong Who hears you hears me saies CHRIST to his Disciples going to preach Luc. 10. but who hears CHRIST is infallibly sure to be well instructed then also he is infallibly sure who is instructed by the Church St. Paul saies that Christ made some Pastors as I said above Ephes 4. v. 1. Why That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every wind of Doctrine Hence we inferr that they are Infallible in what they teach us in matter of Faith for if I thought them fallible I might still waver which would make void the aim of CHRIST in giving us those Pastors and Teachers that we might not waver Then 't is an Article of Faith to believe that a General approv'd Council or the Teaching Church is Infallible If our Adversary still deny this I desire him to quote to me as clear passages out of Scripture to prove the most Blessed Trinity as I have brought for the Infallibility of a General Council or the Teaching Church And since I am confident he cannot he has as much Reason to believe the Infallibility of the Church as an Article of Faith as he has to believe the Mystery of the most B. Trinity to be one SECT III. The Infallibility of a General approv'd Council proven by some other passages of Scripture and our Adversary's explication of them exploded I Ask in the case of General approv'd Councils Erring would not the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church contrary to CHRISTS promise Math. 16. v. 18. For all are not Doctors according to St. Paul 1 Cor. 12. v. 29. The Teachable Church is bound to hear the Teaching Church otherways how are these bound to teach them or feed them with Doctrine as CHRIST commanded the Church when he said to Peter Feed my Sheep Iohn 21. v. 15 16 17. if they are not bound to receive the Food they give them Now if they hearken to them teaching by their fallibility Erronious Doctrine the Blind leads the Blind and so both fall in the Ditch Math. 15. v. 14. or runs Headlong to Hell And does not thus Hell prevail against them And what an Interpretation The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it is this of our Adversary That the Church of CHRIST will remain altho' Invisible notwithstanding the Persecution of Tyrants as in the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST 1. Who saies the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST was Invisible Did not the Faithfull then know one another and where
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
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
owed to God to a Creature Mindfull of this wonder no more that a Man who leaves God may become as void of Reason as a Calf To return then to our Foolish Israelits was that way of speaking these are thy Gods in the plural number a representation of one God in one Essence and Nature From the Golden Calf let us come to our Images they are called the Books of Ignorants but in our Adversaries Judgement ought rather to be term'd the Books of Ignorance because they are the occasion of many Errors sayes he For Example the Picture of an Old Man representing God the Father a Dove the Holy Ghost are apt to make the Ignorant sort believe they have indeed some such shape Answer VVe must then blot out of the Holy Scripture all these expressions and ways of speaking by which God is said to Heare to See to repent Gen c. 6. v. 6. Lest the Ignorant People think that God has Ears and Eyes and sorrow in his Hart as we have Now reflect that these Pictures are not representatives of God the Father or of the Holy Ghost immediatly but of an old Man and a Dove which are the Symbols of God the Father and the Holy Ghost in as much as they in some sort represent to us the destinctive perfections of those Divine Persons As the old Man is the Principle of his son and not mutualy principal'd by him so God the Father is the principle of God the Son and God the Holy Ghost and is not principal'd by them Also the puritie and fecundity of the Dove makes us more sensible of the Sanctity we are said to receave particularly from the Holy Ghost as a fountain of purity and of the fecundity of his grace brought forth in us The occasion then of Deception if there be any is not in the Images but in the things Immediatly represented by Them I hope the Zeal of our Antagonist will not be so blind on this account as to study the Extirpation of Doves and ridding the World of old Men since it is not to be thought that Christians are easily to be found of so gross an imagination as to think that the Nature or Essence of God or the Holy Ghost can be Painted out to our Eyes altho ' they may be Painted in that Figure it pleased them to appear as God appeared to Daniel with the Hairs of his Head as pure Wool Daniel 7. v. 9. And the Holy Ghost in Form of a Dove Luke 3. v. 22. SECT II. The Protestants do not Adore God in Spirit and Truth nor the R. Catholick the Cross as GOD. ALtho' our Adversary think it undeniable that Protestants Adore more than R. Catholicks in Spirit and Truth because they Adore God immediatly sayes he without having recourse to Images Yet I think I reasonably deny both parts of his proposition the first because as a Protestant to make me believe that he has Faith must prove it by his Works according to St. Iames 2. v. 18. so to perswade me that he Adores God in Spirit he must manifest it to me by his outward respect to him Shall I say that Mans Heart Adores God whose Hand does not do his duty to him Protestants do not give to God the chief Adoration which is due to him as he is above all Creatures I mean a proper Sacrifice which was ever esteemed by all and is the great Act of Religion and how shall I believe that their Spirit Adores him Self-denyals and Mortifications of the Flesh instituted and practised by the Antient Church out of a respect to God they retrench and how shall I know that in Spirit they Adore him He requires as an Homage from Men to keep his Commands saying my Yoke is easie and my Burden is light and Protestants tell him flatly they can't do it Is this to submit their Judgment to his and so in Spirit Adore him Neither do they Adore him in Truth Who knew which way God was to be truly Ador'd or according to his will before he reveal'd it Now that he has reveal'd it in the Holy Scriptures and addrest us to the Church for the understanding of this way of Adoring in these Words Matth. 18. v. 17. Who will not hear the Church let him be to the c. Since Protestants will not hear Her shall I say that doing contray to his Command they Honour him truly or in Truth Adore him When Saul sent to destroy Amalek spared the best of the spoil 1 Sam. 15. as he excus'd himself to Samuel to Sacrifice to God did he in that truly Adore God No but his own will transgressing the Command of God so Protestants taking a way of their own to serve God contrary to his Command in his Holy Word they do not truly serve him nor in Truth Adore him When our Adversary condemns our serving of God by the help of Images he condemns himself For he can't Adore God without thinking of him this thought a good will cherishes drives away others which hinder or weaken it strives to conserve it and beggs of God to continue it and so shows by all this a great respect for it And why so much respect for it Because it helps the will to move more frequently and attentively to GOD. And at last this good thought is found to be an Image for it is an Act of the understanding and every Act of the understanding is a representation of its Object and this representation is an Inâ—ge presupposing another Image more material in the Imagination And this same is all the use Romanists make of Images O but you Adore sayes he confessedly the Cross cultu latriae with that Soveraign cult belonging to God only and what can we instance in defence of our Innocency Answer This assertion is false I instance First the second Council of Nice Act. 7. Where it saies that Pictures are to be Worshiped but not with the cult of Latry which is the Worship we give to God And speaking particularly of the Cross saies our Adoration of it is only a Salutation Aspasmos and brings a number of Examples of it as Iacob is said to have Ador'd Esau Gen. 33. v. 3. And Abraham the Sons of Heth for the Field he received from them for the Burying place of Sara his Wise Gen. 23. v. 7. I instance secondly for our Innocency of this Crime the Council of Trents Words Ses 25. de Invoc Vener reliquiarum S. S. Sa. Imag. mandat Sancta Synodus c. Imagines Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in Templis presertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum Vel quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda vel uti olim fiebat a gentibus quae in Idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis
Nice nor you the Council of Arimini as to prejudge one another to wit because Austin was cast by the Council of Arimini as Maximinus was cast or condemned by the Council of Nice Nec ego hujus Authoritate nec tu illius detineris that is neither am I taken convinced by the Authority of this of Arimini or you by the Authority of that of the Council of Nice viz. because as I reject the Authority of the Council of Arimini so you reject the Authority of the Council of Nice Scripturarum Authoritatibus non quorumcumque propriis sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione concertet Let mater contend with matter cause with cause and reason with reason by the Aurthorities of Scriptures which are not proper to each of us as the Nicene Council is to me and that of Arimini to you but common witnesses to both 2. Now see how he has falsified this passage to make appear that St. Augustin did not stand to the Authority of an approved General Council Where he saies neither am I bound to the Council of Nice nor you to that of Arimini St. Austin saies Neither ought I to alledge the Council of Nice nor you the Council of Arimini Is this the same in Words or Sense He goes on Neither ought you to stand to the Authority of this i. e. of the Council of Arimini nor I to the Authority of that i. e. of the Council of Nice St. Austin has the quite contrary saying neither am I taken convinc'd by the Authority of the Council of Arimini nor you by the Authority of Nice Now be pleased to look back to pag. 35. and there you will find my Explication of the passage and how it does not hurt us at all or imply any apprehension in St. Augustin of Fallibility in a General approved Council 2. That Romanists are subject to be tortured with doubts of their Baptism 3. That we have an inticement to Sin by relying on Purgatory 4. That one distinguish Venial from Mortal Sin opens a Door to loosness 5. That we don't allow every one to read the Scripture 6. The Novelty of Transubstantiation the occasion of Idolatry and Hypocrisie in it 7. Our relying on the Mediations of Saints and our own Merits 8 Our mixing Superstition and Idolatry in our Divine Worship 9. Our not Adoring God in Spirit and Truth but under corporal shapes and having our recourse to the help of Saints 10. The diâ—â—ormity of our Ecclesiastical Discipline from primative times 11 Câ—r not serving God with freedom of Spirit but indangering our Souls by Vows Answer First our Faith does not believe the Decrees of Errable but of general approved and consequently infallible Councils as I have shown Chap. 4. in 3. Sections After all this I avow our Faith is an obscure knowledge and as St. Paul speak Hebâ— â—â— v â— a perswasion of things not appearing Buâ— 't is not so weak as that of Protestants that it needs the evidence of sense to support it 2. We have no reason to be tortured with doubts of our Baptism as may be seen in what I said Chap. â— in the 2. and 3 sect But Protestants have when they read in the Gospel Io. 3. v. 3. unless one be born over again by Water he can not see the Kingdom of Heaven Because they know their Church doth not look upon it as a thing necessary to Salvation and that many are wilfully at least among the Presbiterians permitted to Dye without it 3. We have no incitment to Sin by our belief of Purgatory because we believe the Pains of that place are greater than any Torment we can suffer in this World And who would willingly purchase to himself the pleasure he may enjoy by his Venial Adhesion to a Creature by the pains of the Stone Colick Gout Of Fire Rack Wheele and all that ever was suffered in this Life by a Malefactor But the less Godly of Protestants may have some encouragement to slight Sin believing that an Act of Faith at their Death will do the turn and if they be of the Elect they are sure to have it 4. We admit the destinction between Mortal and Venial Sin strongly grounded on Scripture a just Man falls seven times or often and rises up again Prov. 24.16 who remains just in his fall does not incur Damnation by it And Luke 1. v. 6. If Zachary and Elizabeth did not keep the Commandements of God perfectly in the Protestants sense At least their breaches of the Law were not Damnable bereaving them of their Justice and of the Friendship of God From Matth. 5. v. 23. You see there are some Sins Guilty of Hell others not Guilty of Heil Fire and such Sins we call Venial call them as you please so you distinguish them from failings depriving Men of the Friendship of GOD. But this does not open the Door to loosness for the reason I brought in my third Answer but the denying of this distinction opens the Door to a perpetual disturbance of mind dread and fear in a Protestant of Dying suddenly as many Dye after he has spoken an idle Word for this idle Word according to our Adversary is a Damnable breach of the Law of GOD and deserves his Eternal Wrath as being of an illimated Malice as he speaks and can't be forgiven in the other World but must be repented here under pain of Damnation Luke 13. v. 5. I suppose he won't say that Protestants have a Priviledge to repent afore hand for Sins to come 5. The Church does not indeed allow every Ignorant Person to read indifferently the whole Bible least by their misunderstanding some hard passages they find Death where others find Life As the Manicheans from that passage of Io. 8. v. 12. I am the Light of the World held that Christ was the Sun as St. Austin relates Trac 34. in Io. And the Seleutians misunderstanding that passage Math. 3. v. 11. he will Baptize you in the Holy Ghost and Fire made use of Fire instead of Water in Baptism witness the same St. Aug. Heresi 59. But she orders the Pastors to give out of it as St. Paul did not all to all but Milk to some and stronger Food to others See out of the following passage of St. Augustin that 't is not necessary that every one read the Holy Scripture Homo saies he fide spe charitate subnixus eaque inconcusse retinens non indiget Scripturis nisi ad alios instruendos Itaque multi per haec tria etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt Aug. L. 1. de Doctr. Christi c. 19. A Man born up by Faith Hope and Charity and immoveably retaining them has no need of the Scripture unless it were to teach others So many by these three live in the Desert without the Scriptures 6. The Term Transubstantiation is new as the Term Omousios of the same substance against the
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
suffices an efficacious desire of it which without thinking of it is included in an Act of true sorrow for our Sins for having offended God or an Act of the Love of GOD which every Christian being bound often to make is supposed to make and so remains without trouble upon that Head As I have said in Baptism so in the Collation of Priest-hood suffices a Vertual Intention in the Bishop which Morally cannot be wanting without the Malice of a Devil But if it should sall out which is most rare if really 't was ever heard of â—irst it may be Piously believ'd least the Faithful be often deceiv'd in that Adorable Sacrifice of the Altar from which they expect so much that either God gives by his Church the power of Priest-hood to those who are in all appearance ordain'd as the Church gives Jurisdiction in favour of the Faithfull to the very Apostats of administring the Sacrament in a danger of Death or that he will both manifest by his providence over his Church that want of Intention in the Ordainer that it may be supplied by a reordination and move those in Authority whom it concerns to command it to be done So that if such a thing be divulged and come to the hearing of high superiors and they take no notice of it after the case is sufficiently proposed to them t is a sign the rumor is groundless And by this is partly answer'd what our adversary affirmes of a Bishop in France who as he saies before his death confessed that he had ordained many but alwayes without a due Intention Add if it be true that since the Church did not command such Priests ordain'd by him to be re-ordain'd nor suspended them till then from the function it s to be thought that Bishop was look'd upon as a Person troubled with scruples at that time and in the fear of Death to make his Conscience sure not distinguishing sufficiently actual Intention from virtual accus'd himself not to have had a due Intention because he thought he had not an actual or something of that nature not regardable Another story our Adversary relates of a Person in pain for his Baptism being in danger of Death at Sea of which he saies he was an Eye witness I only desire him to call to mind and see if he was not rather an Ear witness of what he heard related by another than of what he saw himself for which I have some Ground and if it be so let him remember that the persons pain was not about the Intention of the Minister but absolutely whither or not he had been Baptiz'd remembering of the conjuncture of circumstances in which he was born viz. a Bastard of a Catholick Father among the Presbyterians who would not Baptize a Bastard unless the Father gave obedience to the Church or Synod However I ask our Adversary if he was an Eye witness whither the doubt seem'd to him rational or not If it seemed rational he being a fit Minister of the Sacrament he should have Baptiz'd him under condition if not he should have pacified him making him remember what we teach to wit that in case our Baptism had not been valid an efficacious desire of Baptism included in an Act of true sorrow for our Sins or pure love of God suffices SECT III. We have security for the Salvation of a Child dying immediately after Baptism Protestants have None HAving retorted the Difficulty of the Intention the R. Church requires in Baptism upon the Intention our Adversaery himself requires and must require of applying the Words and Water for 't is a humane Action And having shown how Catholick Doctors bring both him and us handsomly and solidly off by a Virtual Intention I shall make appear now that we have in this case of Baptism security for our Salvation and they have none we standing to our Tenets and they to theirs Take me a Protestants Child validly Baptiz'd by a Minister as we grant they can let the Child dye afore the use of reason what becomes of him according to the Catholick Tenet we hold it goes straight to Heaven What becomes of him according to the Protestant Tenet They say it may be he 's sav'd viz. if he was one of the Elect and consequently the Parents were of the Faithful and it may be he 's damn'd if the Parents were not of the Faithful to wit Spiritual Children of Abraham or the Child tho' of Faithful Parents was not of the Elect for I hope they will not say that Faithful Parents have never a Wicked or a Reprobat Child And how shall I know Faithful Parents but by their Fruits or Works and how shall I know that their Works are good Since many wicked People have had seeming good Works Nay how shall I know a man to have Faith by Works that are all damnable and worthy of Death as Calvin speaks Inst l. 3. cap. 12. n. 4. Sins as Beza terms them and Works of the Devil v. Bez. Tom. 1. operum pag. 665. and Works of Darkness as Luther calls them Tom 1. operum fol. 196. Edit Wittemb shall abominations in a Man be marks to me of a supernatural gift of kindness given by God to him Next suppose that the Parents be of the Faithful who told you the Child is one of the Elect To us his Baptism is a sure mark of his Election You have no such see you then how in this case we have security and you have none The other Motive he brings to a Protestant is that Protestants are sav'd more easily If he means only that Protestants in their way to Salvation trouble themselves not with taking so much pains as good R. Catholicks do freeing themselves from any Obligations and Mortifications of the Flesh we take upon us grounded in the Holy Scripture I grant 't is so but this easie way is woful since the Word of God warns all to strive to enter by the narrow way Matth. 7.13 Enter by the narrow Gate for wide is the gate and broad is the way which leads to Perdition SECT IV. Our Adversary's Exception against our Doctrine of Purgatory Retorted upon Protestants FRom our Doctrine of Baptism he passes to our belief of Purgatory and says that it flatters Sinners in their Imperfections causes them to live more loosly and takes from them the fear of Hell If this be true then according to that Maxim of Logick Oppositorum opposita est consequentia the consequence of contraries is â—ontrary the contrary Doctrine which is that of â—otestants must advance perfection cause a more Austere life make Protestants walk more cautiously and fear more God's dreadful Judgment certain if they dye in Sin they shall be lyable to his Wrath for ever as if they dye in the Lord they shall from their Labours But this is evidently false for what perfection 〈◊〉 had but by observing the Law of God 〈◊〉 Domini Immaculata convertans animas Psalm 〈◊〉 2 3 8. But this
is impossible say they what perfection can be had if all our Actions be Sins Are Sins and perfections Synonima's Can I command my self to think that that man who is confessedly acknowledged to be composed of iniquity and to do nothing but abomination from Morning till Evening lives innocently like an Anchoret an Austere and Godly Life How can Protestant Doctrine give them a deeper fear of Hell if in that same that they fear Hell they believe and see clearly that they cannot be saved Because who fears has not assurance which is the portionâ— of every just Man since he is not just unless he believe that his Sins are remitted by the Merits of Christ And must every man to whom the Gospel is Preached believe this How many then believe a lye Or what reason have you to believe it more then any other to whom the Gospel is Preached Because you find your self to walk more Cautiously then Romanists But how do you walk more cautiously then we Since if you avoid one damnable Sin you necessarily fall into another seeing you cannot do any thing with all the assistance of the Grace of Christ which is not an abomination in the sight of God This is a cold comfort to Protestants and all this sad Doctrine comes from that great Protestant Principle Baptism does not take away Original sin So that as a poysoned Fountain runs nothing but poysonous Water the Soul of Man still remaining corrupted with Original Sin brings forth nothing but corruption How will Souls so foul enter Heaven Protestants smile if from this passage Matth. 12. v. 33. Some Sins shall neither be forgiven in this World nor in the World to come we silly Romanists infer that since no Sin is forgiven in Hell or Heaven there must be a third place in the other World call 't as you please in the which some Sins may be forgiven But may not we rather laughout at the fancy of Men who acknowledging themselves to be all broken out with the runing sores of Original Actual Sin think with an imaginary cloaking of themselves with the Justice of Christ above all is hidden filth they shall enter Heaven as 〈◊〉 as a Plague Person under a disguise enters a 〈◊〉 Hospital â—â—e Master of the Hospital may be deceived I 〈◊〉 but God who hath said that nothing which â—â—s shall enter Heaven Rev. cap. 21. v. 27. â—ot be deluded SECT V. â—he Churches not permitting all Parts of the Scripture indifferently to be read by all is Justified And her high sentiment of this word of God declared MAny stumble at the Churches not permitting indifferently all those who only understand the holy Scriptures in a vulgar Tongue to read them But without reason this is first the great veneration the Church has for the Word of God not to submit his high Mysteries to the Interpretation of every Ignorant Creature while upon all occasions they read it with as little respect as if it were a Romance or a play Book and give their verdict of its meaning the Prophet Malachy in the mean time cap. 2. v. 7. sayes the lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and the Law they shall require of his Mouth Secondly The Church deals with her Children as Christ dealt with his Apostles John 16. v. 12. and St. Paul with the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3 v. 2. Christ did not propose to them all the strong truths while they were week in Vertue I have said he many other things to tell you which you are not able to bear at present Iohn 16.12 And St. Paul gave the Corinthians Milk not then stronger Food saying to them that they were not yet able 1 Cor. 3. v. 2. Wise Parents at a great Table do not let their Children take what they please but give them of Meats presented what they know to be fit for their weak Stomach So the Church allows the learned to feed themselves with the Holy Scripture she gives of the same Table to the unlearned by their Pastors and Teachers what is fittest for them lest having the whole Bible in their hands especially without the Notes for the better understanding of it they wrong themselves as those who as St. Peter 2 Pet. 3. v. 16. speaks wrested some passages of St. Paul as also the other Scriptures to their own destruction Destruction Implyes more then mistakes in Indifferent matters Would it not startle an Ignorant to hear afore the Passage is explained what God said to the Prophet Isaiah cap. 6. v. 10. Blind the heart of the People c. Lest perhaps they may see with their Eyes and be converted Would an Infinite Goodness says an Ignorant command a Prophet to do so Would it not amaze the same to read in the first of Hosea v. 1. That God commanded him to take a Whore and take to himself Children of Whoredom Is it possible sayes the Ignorant that Sanctity it self should speak so With what surprizing passages will an Ignorant Carnal Man meet with in the Canticles Respect then the Holy Ghost in the Conduct of the Church and do not think that her Children who do not nor cannot read the Scriptures live in ignorance Lukewarmness Indifferency without relishing Heavenly things without true Devotion more then Abraham Isaac and Iacob who had the same want but were Instructed to the Piety we read of by the Tradition from others as our unlearn'd are by the Labours of our Pastors and Preachers who not being diverted from their Book and Prayer by the necessary care of providing for Wife and Children Meditate at leasure the Holy Bible and study how they may best deliver to the People the Truths they find there both necessary to Salvation and conducing to Persection And this aboundantly suffices unless you will exclude also among Protestants all those who cannot read from Devotion as if God had design'd only great Wits for Heaven Add to all this that if the Scripture put into every private Mans hand and being understood by him according to his best Judgement be to him a sufficient Rule of Faith which without doubt would breed as much confusion in the Church as the Law Book Interpreted by every private Man without Obligation to submit to the Kings Judges would do in the Kingdom what need have you of Ministers more then Quakers If every one be thus capable to understand the Word why is he not capable to Preach it And if he be capable to Preach it to others or stirr them up to the Faith of Justifying Grace why is he not capable to give also the Sacrament or the Sign of it receiv'd If you say that God has ordained Bishops or Presbyters to Govern the Church I answer 't is not Civily but in Doctrine what will this Government in our case serve for but to make them Hypocrites since they must then believe outwardly what the Minister Teaches and inwardly what their own light perswades them often contrary to the Ministers perswasion When we
if he should say since you do Read diligently the Scriptures you can't but find my Divinity there since they give clear Testimony of me by the Prophets Our adversary shuts up this matter of Scripture by shuting us up as he Imagins or will seem to Imagin in a circle while we prove the Scripture by the Church and run back saies he to the Scripture to prove the Church Answer To those who admit the Scripture and deny the Church we prove the Church by the Scripture to these who deny a part of Scripture but hold the Infallible Authority of the Church we prove the Scripture by the Church to those who deny both Church and Scripture we prove first the Church by the signal marks of the true Church set down in the old and new Testament of which some alone are of sufficient force to move a Pagan and having Established Her Authority by Her acknowledging the Scripture to be the Word of God we prove it to be the Word of God In this Discourse you see no Circle but in the Imagination of our Adversary Now let us see if he who thought to catch us be not caught himself For therefore with him Scripture is the Word of God because it shows it self and wherefore doth it show it self but because it is seen by those who only disclose as he speaks those Divine Letters And wherefore again is it seen to those who open those Divine Letters but because it shows it self And so while he walks between it is seen and it shows it self neither sees 〈…〉 thing himself nor shows or can show any thing to others who desire to see because he can't show what he sees not nor the Scripture show what it infallibly contains without another infallible Rule of Faith SECT VII The Reason why the Mass is not said in the Vulgar Tongue OUr Adveriary advancing in his Reflexions upon our Religion sayes that our Prayers in an Unknown Tongue is not a small hinderance to Piety and Devotion What Comfort sayes he can the Ignorant sort reap at Mass Answer Either he means our Private Prayers or our Publick If our Private Prayers I attest his own Conscience all English and Scots Protestants who converse Familiarly with us if they do not know that we have our Manuals of Devotion in English If he means our Publick Prayers Then he supposes two things which are false The first that that publick Action which is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass is or ought simply to be called a verbal Prayer The second that that less considerable part of it which consists in Words is in an unknown Tongue The Sacrifice of the Mass being of its Nature and by the Intention of Christ the Instituter of it and chief Officer in it an Action ordain'd to acknowledge his Fathers Supream Dominion over us to give him thanks for his Favours bestowed upon us for a continuation of them and a Satisfaction for our Sins it is a prayer but a real one and is more the object of the Eye then of the Ear Moreover is it not enough that the Mass is Printed in Vulgar Tongues And that the Council of Trent Sess 22. cap 8. Commands the Pastors to explain it to the People altho it be not said but in the Tongues of the Church In the Greek Church in Greek in the Latin in Latin to keep an uniformity among the Faithful of each Church and that the expression of the Churches Liturgy keep its Majestie not subject to the changes of Vulgar Tongues to which those are who speak them under pain of passing sometimes for Ridiculous Neither is that to be call'd an Unknown Tongue which little Boyes are ordinarily taught in the Schools and which they come often to speak Regularly before they can express themselves handsomly in their Mothers Tongue Neither do our Country Clowns speak unknown Tongues because they don't easily understand one another But Grant the Latin Tongue is an unknown Tongue is it not enough that all those prayers are found explained in Books Neither does the Devotion of the Ignorant consist in their hearing or knowing what the Priest says but in knowing what he does And in offering up with him the same Sacrifice which is also theirs sure if they be well disposed to receive great good by it I pray did the People in the entry of the Temple hear what Zacharie said when he was Officiating far from being so much as seen by them Luke 1. cap. v. 10. and the People wondred that he stayed there so long v. 21. But what shall we say of those Extemporary prayers made by some Protestants who being weak in Spirit yet resolved to follow the strain of their Brethren speak a great deal of none-sence Is that a known or an unknown Tongue when the Hearers can't make sence of his words but only knows his meaning is to pray To this he adds a bare Lecture of Scriptures sometimes of a Prophet obscure in his Expression they know not whither it s to be understood in the Literal or Figurative sense yet what a sighing and sobing What a mournful Looks in their Eyes And murgions in their Faces If this Prayer and lecture of Scripture neither of them being understood can move these People to so much Devotion because they know this is said and read to Honour God why may not the Sacrifice of the Mass which Catholicks believe to be the highest Honour that can be given to God upon â—arth move those who are present to Devotion although they don't understand in particular what is said by the Priest to God 'T is enough that the Priest understand it who in his own and in all their Names makes the Sacrifice I end this Section with some Reflections 1. That S. Paul 1 Cor. 14. does not speak of a publick Prayer approved by the Church and consequently not subject to Error But only of a new Prayer of a private Person made to others which might be subject to Error and therefore he would not have it made in a Vulgar Tongue but in a Tongue that others might judge of it as appears by his saying in the 29 v. Let the Prophets speak two or three and let the other judge 2. St. Paul saies v. 29. forbid not to speak with Tongues i. e. in an unknown tongue I say then what Christian dares forbid what the Apostle allows 3. St. Paul saies there v. 15. I will pray with the Spirit i. e. in an unknown Tongue and I will pray with the understanding also i. e. in a known Tongue If he prayed in an unknown Tongue as well as in a known Tongue why may we not also 4. As altho' an Inchanter understands not the words of his Charm the Devil understands them and obeys them so altho the Ignorant understand not the words of his Prayer the Devil understands them and fears them and God understands them and helps him as the King does a Favour to an Idiot who understood not the
of the World What Man saw the Nothing out of which all was made and upon that account was moved to say the Being of the World was a Miracle Let him know then that God has made two sorts of Miracles the one of necessity Visible because they are motives to us of Credibility or to move us to believe Such were the Miracles by which CHRIST proved his Divinity Moses that he was sent by God such were and are the Miracles by which the R. Catholick Church proves that she is the true Church of CHRIST Other Miracles God has made which are meer Objects of Faith and matters to us of submiting our understandings to his Word as our will to his Command These matters on one side must not be Visible for what submission is there of my understanding to assent to what I see on the otherside they must be strange and above Nature to give worthily to my Faith the Name of a Soveraign and pure Submission such as is due to the veracity of God Of this Nature are the Mysteries of the Incarnation in CHRIST and Transubstantiation in the Eucharist He ends his Battery against Transubstantion in the Eucharist with this Argument these Words This is my Body c. are not a true and real Testament for he sayes not I leave you my Body which is the usual manner of uttering our selves in Testaments therefore they may be taken in a Figurative sense Answer First CHRIST calls his last Supper the New Testament shall I believe him or our Adversary This Cup the New Testament in my Blood which shall be poured out for you and for many 〈◊〉 Is not the Testament of any other then 't is Christ's Legacy to his Apostles and others of the Faithful Secondly No Testator ever made his Testament more clearly and expresly Other Testators ordinarily make their Testament only by Words CHRIST by Words and deed By deed in as much as being to depart he gave them with his own hands By Word saying Take eat this is my Body When they took did not he give And to give to them and give it to be given to others is not that the same as to leave When a Souldier dying in the Camp gives his Sword to his Companion is not that as much as to say I leave it you St. Augustin sayes in the Old Testament the New lyes hidden and in the New the Old lyes open Was not then the Old Testament a true Testament and a Figure of the New the Law having a shadow of good things to come Heb. 10. v. 1. and is the Figure more a true Testament then the Testament figured After I have answered the difficulties our Adverversary finds in Transubstantion I would willingly ask him some Questions about their Tenet in the same matter First if the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ be but Bread and Wine and at the most have nothing more than the Ministers Blessing above Common Bread and Wine is it not as much Superstition to give them that respect they receive from Protestants as it is in us to respect Agnus Dei's and Holy-Water Secondly They can't increase or improve in the Justice they are supposed to have applyed to themselves before by believing that all their Sins are forgiven by the Merits of Christ what is then the effect of their Communion Thirdly Since according to Protestants the Body of CHRIST cannot be Eaten but by Faith and again since this Faith must be not a Faith of Miracles nor an Historical Faith but a saving Faith or a fiducia a confidence that their Sins are forgiven them by the Merits of CHRIST I infer then they cannot Eat the Body of Christ unworthily for by Eating CHRIST's Body with a saving Faith I save my self by Eating it unworthily I damn my self but I can't save and damn my self both at once then I can't Eat the Body of CHRIST unworthily But this contradicts St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. cap. v. 27. If you say with Dr. Taylor that Christ's true Body is there viz. in the Sacrament really but yet that the reallity and verity of his Body cannot be there since Protestants believe that Christ does not come from Heaven to the Sacrament Is not this to shut up a Chymera between these two Words He 's there as a nothing between two Dishes CHAP. VI. Of the R. Catholicks Divine Worship SECT I. Roman Catholicks do not agree with Heathens in their Veneration and use of Images OUr Divine Worship sayes our Adversary is not unlike that of the Antient Heathens we adore God in Pictures as he was ador'd by Heathens in the Sun we Worship those Images as representations of that Invisible and Soveraign being we â—all God Answer That 〈◊〉 may make Catholicks Idolaters he makes Idolaters Worshipers of the true God For if they adore God in Creatures they had then the Faith of 〈◊〉 true God and all their Worship and Religion was directed as to its last End to the true and invisible God Wherefore then are they said by St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. cap. v. 20 to have Sacrificed to Devils and not to God All the Gods of the Gentils are Devils sayes David Psalm 95. then those to whom they directed their Worship was not God then they and Romanists do not agree in their Religious Worship He sayes again that relative Worship was severely punish'd in the Israelites For he can't imagine they adored the Calf as a true God unless we suppose them as void of Reason as the Calf it self Answer They believed the Calf to be a God able to bring them out of Egypt if we may believe the Scripture Exod. 32. These are thy Gods Israel who have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt And 1 of the Kings according to Protestants cap. 12. v. 28. Jeroboam made two Golden Calves and said to them go up no more to Jerusalem behold thy Gods Israel Tho our Adversary can't imagin this Who could have imagin'd that those great Philosophers of whom St. Paul speaks 1 Romans v. 23. to whom God had given great Lights by which they came to the knowledge of him should have chang'd the Glory of an incorruptible God into the Adoration of Men Birds four-footed Beasts and Serpents Does not St. Paul speak plain here I grant then they were as void of Reason in that as the Calf they Ador'd What is a Man left by God But what was the Reason of this their fall from Reason Hear it from the same Apostle v. 21. having known God they did not Glorifie him as God nor thanked him for so great a benefit but proudly vanish'd in their thoughts for which ill behavior and ingratitude how did he punish them By a with-drawing of his Light obscuratumest insipiens cor cor eorum and as a Man in the dark runs his Head against a Wall they wanting the Light of Grace run themselves into the shameful passions of corrupted Nature exchanged Truth with Lyes and gave the Honour they
Advers inveighs against the rigour of the Catholick Church not knowing sayes he that true Vertue consists mainly in an Intire Victory we should Endeavour to get over our own Passions Answer Holy People Endeavour to get this Victory by the Mortification of their Bodies Iudith that famous Woman chosen by God for the saving of her Nation wore a Hair Cloath upon her Loins not to speak of Her Fasting all the Dayes of Her Life except the Sabbaths New Moons and the Feasts of the House of Israel Iudith 8. St. Iohn the Baptists led a rigorous Life in the Wilderness and St. Paul besides his stupendious Labour by Teaching and Preaching added a chastising or Scourging of his Body least after he had Preach'd to others he should become a Reprobat Himself 1 Cor 9. v. 27. What means he 2 Cor. 4. v. 10. when he says always bearing about with us the Mortification of Jesus in our Bodies that the Life of Jesus may be manifested in our Bodies What was this Life of Jesus a perpetual Mortification of his Body from his Cradle to his Cross Our new inlightned Men find another way to overcome their Passions to wit abstaining from the Chastisement of the Body Deny thy self take up thy Cross and follow me sayes our Saviour Matth. 16. v. 24. But does not our Adversary seem rather to say take thy satisfaction in Eating and Drinking thy fill and so thou wilt be strong to follow him Pamper thy Flesh and so thou wilt be strong to overcome thy Lust Eat and Drink thy fill and I 'll warrant thee thou shalt alay thy Passion of Eating and Drinking for an hour or two But his Experience may have told him that thus he puts a Sword in his Enemies Hand who tho' he lay quiet for a while will rise up more firce hereafter Bellarmine said indeed that if he were Pope he would take away Lent but he added that in its place he would order to Fast on Wednesday all the Year over Does the exchange of fourty Fasts with fifty two favour the inclination of our Adversary to Feasting SECT III. The Proofs our Adversary brings out of Scripture for the Marrying of Church-Men are either willfull or Ignorant mistakes of the Word of God MArriage in the purest Age was not forbidden to Ecclesiasticks sayes our Adversary which he proves by this passage 1 Tim. 3. v. 2. A Bishop must be blamless the Husband of one Wife Answer First was not St. Paul a Bishop Had he a Wife when he said 1 Cor. 7. v. 8. I say to those who are not Married its good for them if they remain so even as I The sense then of that place is that as St. Paul would have the Church Widow to be the Wife of one Husband or to have been only Married once 1 Tim. 5. v. 9. So he would have a Bishop to be the Husband of one Wife or to have been only once Married Otherwayes what does St. Paul say here particular to a Bishop have other Men two Wives Note in the Birth of the Church it was hard to find among new Converts Men of Maturity for the Government of a Bishoprick who had not been once Married especially at Candy of which Church St. Paul speaks here to Timothy because as Strabo writes L. 10. They had an Antient Law by which all of their Republick were forced from their very Youth to Marry Again to prove that Ecclesiasticks may Marry he brings this passage of St. Paul Marriage is Honourable in all and the Bed undefil'd Hebr. 13. v. 4. Answer First the same St. Paul says 1 Cor. 7. v. 38. He who gives his Virgin in Marriage does well but he that gives her not in Marriage does better And 1 Cor. 7. v. 1. 'T is good for a Man not to touch a Woman The former passage is then to be understood thus Marriage is Honourable in all who may Lawfully Marry but not between Father and Daughter Brother and Sister In Church-Men who have vow'd Chastity in Church-Widows who being admitted to the Service of the Church upon their resolution of not Marrying according to St. Paul 1 Tim. 5. v. 11. Incur Damnation if they Marry because they cast of their first Faith as the Apostle speaks to wit to CHRIST Secondly the Greek Text has Timios o gamos en pasi that is Honourable Marriage in all so where Protestants without ground add is Catholicks with ground add be in the imperative mood and so it imports First an Exhortation to those who are Married that they live Faithful to one another not Dishonouring by Incontinency their Marriage but keeping their Bed undefil'd But why will the Apostle that Marriage be Honourable in all keeping their Bed undefil'd Because as he presently adds Adulterers God will Judge Thus you see Catholicks have a ground to supply the sentence not with is but with be or let it be Secondly To those who desire to Marry that they do not offer to Marry when they know they are not free to Marry being engag'd to others or having an Impediment and so make their Marriage when the Impediment is discover'd Dishonourable However our Latin and English Cath. Text have neither is nor be but Honourabile conubium in omnibus Honourable Marriage in all conform to the Greek Original Text. In the third place to justifie the Marriage of Church-Men who have Vow'd Chastity he brings what St. Paul sayes to Tim. 4. v. 3. That forbiding to Marry is a Doctrine of Devils where he speaks of Manicheans Encratists and Marcionists and others of that Cabal as St. Chrysostom remarks in his 12. Hom. upon that passage it is quite another thing to forbid absolutely to Marry then to forbid only those who have Vow'd Chastity to Marry The Catholick Church does not forbid to Marry but only forbids to break a Vow made to God I think no Body will say that it is a Doctrine of Devils to fulfill what one has solemnly promised to God The thing being Lawful in it self Deut. 23. v. 21. When thou shalt Vow a Vow to the Lord thy God thou shalt not slak to pay it for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee Now the Catholick Church shows she Honours Marriage more then Protestants because she looks upon it as a Sacrament which Protestants do not His instance of Zacharie sayes nothing against us for we do not deny that the Priests of the Old Law Married but only we say they did not use their Wives those dayes their turn was to Sacrifice Luke c. 1. v. 23 24. And seeing our Priests must Sacrifice every day they ought to abstain from that Action so remote from the Spirit and dulling it in order to Divine thoughts at that time that our mind ought to be sursum corda raised above our senses hence Origen said Hom. 23. in num It seems to me that it belongs only to him to offer the continual Sacrifice who has dedicated himself to a continual and perpetual