A SECURE AND PRUDENT CHOICE of Belief. Written by a Student in Divinity. Anno M.DC.XXXIX. NOTHING in this world doth more import a Man for his good, both temporal and eternal, than the profession of a true Religion. What more confessed amongst Christians not infected with Atheism? yet such is our poor Condition, that nothing ordinarily is less valued: many stubbornly retaining what they have been taught from their youth; Others embracing what is most common where they live; Others indifferent, merely Animals, their wits serving them no further then how to have good days; Others, loath to take pains, lest thereby their Conscience be moved to Cross their covetous appetites; Others, with a kind of frenzy, persuading themselves of I know not what Ghost: Others, lurking under affected & wilful ignorance, persuaded they are uncapable of their right level in these troubled waters: Multitudes finally, apprehending little difference in points of Religion, sleep securely upon any pillow. Many of these, though of different beliefs, flatter themselves with hope of salvation, when they have little reason to be secure thereof; as it will appear by the infallible rule of a Secure Choice I will propose in this ensuing Discourse: For which purpose. 1. I suppose first, that our Blessed Saviour, when he was to departed in visible presence from this world, his last care was to leave his Church provided with such as should sufficiently govern, teach, and augment it after him, to whom & their Successors for that purpose he promised his especial assistance and protection to the end of the world: As my Father hath sent me, so I send you. Io. 20.21. Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel. Mark 16. Hear we see the Apostles Commission, not only to go as being sent, but also to send others their Successors with the like authority to be successively delivered. That also he left ample power for the perfect government of the same Church, besides these places, that of S. Matth. 28. deserveth special Consideration: All power is given me in heaven, and in earth; going therefore, teach all Nations. Where that illation, Going therefore, implieth a most ample authority for having said all power is given me, he presently practiseth and giveth the like, saying going therefore. Moreover that we may know nothing should be wanting to the perpetual government of this his Church, and that justly it may be esteemed to be directed, not so much by humane wit or industry, as by the spirit of God; he promised Io. 14. And I will pray my Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. 2. It cannot be denied, but these places enforce an eminent, perpetual, and infallible Authority of Christ's Church, to which such ample power is given, & where the spirit of truth is promised to reside. Yet because means are found to delude the force of them (as of any others there may be) I insist not upon them, but for the present only make this Dilemma: Either these Texts are clearly to be understood as they lie, or not: if they are; then there hath ever been a perpetual, absolute, and infallible power of government in the Church of christ established. If not, this only I will gather, as out of other Texts it may be, that scarce any can be produced so clear for the proof of any verity, which may not maliciously be wrested to a strange sense, by tongues sounding nothing more sacredly than Scripture. Thus all Sectaries, though contrary amongst themselves, avouch for their undoubted warrant, Holy Scripture, some understanding it in one sense, others in an other: when indeed the proof is not out of Scripture, but out of their own private judgement. Who then doth not see, how vainly Scripture only, is pretended for warrant of their contrary inventions; and how hard it is to convince the truth by it alone? not for that it containeth not all truth, and all sufficient instruction for salvation, but because following our own private judgement we may err in the sense thereof. Since therefore no man, though of never so entire judgement, can sufficiently show his own sense to be true and the contrary false, as it appeareth by such monstrous Contradictions upon the same Texts; it is evident, that from Scripture alone, we can promise ourselves little, or no security. 3. Secondly, I suppose there is a Church of Christ extant, that beareth the true marks of his promises and providence; renowned for antiquity and continued Succession; perspicious for extent; knit in unity; adorned with unanimous Consent of Doctors throughout the world; established and maintained by Counsels; beautified & enriched with multitudes of holy men, admirable for their Conversation and virtue; strengthened with miracles; finally in Doctrine and Custom professing piety, that any one beholding it may say, here is the finger of God, this is the light, this the hill on the top of hills. 4. Thirdly I suppose what truth itself (Marc. 16.) denounceth; He that will not believe, shall be damned. Whence under pain of Damnation we are obliged not to disbelieve any point proposed unto us in holy Scripture; for Christ specified not any particular article or articles, but to all disbeliefe of his Gospel he denounceth Damnation, Going into all the world, preach the Gospel, he that will not believe etc. Hence it followeth, that amongst different opinions concerning the same Scripture, that part is less secure, that denieth the articles proposed out of it, since for disbeleife Damnation is denounced, not for belief. 5. Fourthly, I suppose as consequent to what is said, that if an article commonly believed, be judged hard by any private man, it is not secure for him to condemn it, relying only upon human discourse, though joined with his own or some others interpretation of holy Scripture, for all this is but in the degree of probability, and not different from the means the Arians, and other impious heretics used; consequently unsufficient to disprove the contrary possessed belief, though it be but supposed probable: but he must produce clear Scripture without addition, diminution, supposition, or interpretation, since these are subject to doubt, & consequently to danger of leading into disbeliefe; who doth not see how impossible this is? 6. Finally, for the end of this prudent Choice, I suppose, as sufficient, in that religion which first believeth many articles, denied afterwards by others, a moral probability of the sense of Christ's word: and this no wise man can deny to a Church ancient, and consisting of Counsels and learned men in all parts of the world: agreeing in one opinion without any alteration evidently proved. To say that any article is improbable, because it is impossible, is to prove by a ground not possible to be proved, and to overthrew all faith, as is manifest. We seek not then what seemeth possible or impossible to our poor apprehensions, but what most probably Christ delivered: and he that with probabilities only denieth what is but probably believed, is not in secure state of his salvation. 7. By these grounds clear enough in themselves, every Christian may easily discern what Religion is secure in practice, to wit, that which removeth him furthest from danger of that sentence, Who will not believe shallbe damned. According to this Touchstone for the better instruction of the common sort, I will examine the chief points now in question, that by these examples the rest may be easily examined. What Choice ought a man to make concerning the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament of the last Supper. 8. TO justify the belief thereof, we have first the words of Christ, joan. 6. where he amply promiseth his body and blood: My flesh is truly meat, and my blood etc. he that eateth my flesh etc. he that will not believe this, but understand it in a different sense from his predecessors, persuaded by those obscure words, the spirit giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing, exposeth him to danger of disbeliefe with the jews, and blasphemy, since Vers. 56. it is said: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. And S Paul to the Col. c. 1. You which were in times past strangers and enemies etc. hath he now reconciled in the body of his flesh through death to make you holy; how then can those words, the flesh profiteth nothing without danger be understood of the flesh of Christ as profiting nothing? is it not profit to us that Christ should dwell in us, and we in him? that we are reconciled in the body of his flesh? 9 Secondly, the words of Christ performing: This is my body; take and eat; do this etc. which words if we wrist to a figurative sense, we must bring clear Scripture for it, else our interpretation is dangerous, denying such a clear mystery upon human motives. Thirdly, we have the testimony of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. If these places be obscure, we have beside the Consent of Nations, the common voice of the whole Christian world for a thousand five hundred years without Contradiction. Finally, in the belief and practise thereof, there is no impiety, but praise and honour of Christ, who upon sufficient grounds is supposed present under the forms of bread and wine; he is received with reverence, the soul being first prepared with hearty sorrow for sins past, accompanied with love, thankfulness, and lively remembrance of his sacred Passion etc. For denial of this belief we have but small authority, not one clear testimony of Scripture that interpreteth those words of Christ as figuratively spoken, all other arguments can be but probable. 10. Now I ask any indifferent man's judgement, what he would do, in case a perfect figure of Christ should visibly appear, commonly acknowledged and worshipped by all with sincere intention. If furthermore it were delivered commonly, that to suspect the apparition, as an illusion of Satan, were a wrong to Christ; will he adventure to spit at it? will he not rather forbear that, and judge it secure to believe and worship with others, since therein he findeth no hurt, but invincible motives to do so? Clear than it is, what we ought to resolve in this point, since for the belief we have invincible motives; in the practice there is no danger of any impiety, as certainly there is in the denial, if we grant but probability in the belief. 11. Only it may be objected, that if Christ be not under those forms of bread and wine, there is danger of Idolatry. But this is a manifest mistake; for Believers adore not bread nor wine, nor any Creature, but Christ, whom upon good grounds they suppose present sacramentally. Know therefore, that Adoration consisteth of outward reverence joined with interior, as of body and soul: the outward is indifferent to God and Creatures, the interior joined with it makes the difference. Exterior reverence applied by our intention to a temporal Lord is but a Civil worship: the same applied by our intention to a Saint, as a Creature of God highly in his favour, is a higher degree of honour, yet within the limits of inferior worship. It is likewise applied by our intention to God our Creator and Saviour, thus it is perfect adoration and due only to God. He than that believeth Christ is contained sacramentally under the forms of bread and wine may securely adore, since his adoration proceeding from his belief, transferreth the outward act from all Creatures, & directeth it to God himself, even in case in his immediate belief he should be mistaken; there remaineth then no danger in the belief, but great danger in the denial. He that will not believe etc. What of the Mass? 12. Mass is a complete performance of that command; Do this in remembrance of me. Luc. 22. Wherein by the Priest, prayers are said for the whole Church, the holy Scripture is read, all the parts and ceremonies thereof represent the life & passion of Christ, who by means of those words pronounced in his name, Hoc est Corpus meum, is daily offered in sacrifice to the honour of God, & profit of his Church. Whence it cometh to pass that faith, gratitude, and love towards our Redeemer is daily renewed; and the known prophecy of Malach. c. 1. fulfilled: From the rising of the Sun unto the going down of the same, my Name is great among the Gentiles: and in every place a pure oblation is sacrificed and offered to my name, according to the most ancient and common Translation. Thus innumerable Believers constantly hold and practise, upon sufficient grounds, without the least show of impiety; why then, may I not securely believe I see not; nor how the denial can be free from danger, since upon Disbelievers only Damnation is denounced. What of Confession & Absolution, commonly called the Sacrament of Penance. 13. HEre a Christian, after due examination of his Conscience with hearty sorrow and purpose of amendment (which acts are necessarily required) confesseth his sins, expecteth absolution by the ministry of the Priest. What danger can there be in this belief and practise? The jews charged Christ of blasphemy, saying: Who can forgive sins but God? Against Christ they sinned, because they believed him to be man only; which error he chastised by miracle. Matth. 9 giving them withal to understand, that men also by power received from him, should forgive sins; for in that they conceived he taught, that man had power to forgive sins, he checked them not, but rather confirmed it: And that you may know (saith Christ) that the Son of Man hath authority in earth to forgive sins etc. And the multitude glorified God who had given such authority to men. Moreover Christ to his Apostles Io. c. 22. saith: Receive ye the holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose sins ye retain they are retained: Likewise Matth. 18. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Questionless, the prime sense of these words import a power given to men to forgive sins: nothing than is presumptuously assumed by the Believers thereof; for though it is proper only to God to forgive sins by his own power and of himself, yet the light of nature teacheth that man may also forgive sins by Commission from him; as it is proper to a King only to forgive Treasons committed against his person, yet by Commission & his name a Subject may have power to do the same without injury to the King, or exceeding the degree of a Subject. Why may not the Minister of God by authority given him forgive sin in his name without offending or exceeding the limits of a dutiful creature? this is at the least probable. In opposition I find no Scripture, but only admirations of a few dangers in comparison of the Believers; evident reason there can be none. Dangerous then is the denial, Belief secure. Qui non crediderit; Who will not believe shallbe damned. What of one Church, and one Head thereof? 14. IN Common Wealths throughout the world, I find an Unity is most sought for, and to that end one supreme governor and ruler; in one house one Master, in one Town one Mayor, in one Company one Captain, in one Army one General, in one Kingdom one King; can it bear any colour of offence, to believe that in the most perfect Commonwealth, instituted by Christ, there is ordained one flock under one Pastor? fiat unum ovile, & unus pastor. We see that in two supreme governements there is no mutual subordination, therefore not properly one; and where there are two Kings, it is sufficient to conclude two Kingdoms. If then in God's Church we admit diverse supreme Governors, we cannot so perfectly call it one Church, as one flock is one under one Pastor; which Christ promised should be so. Whence it seemeth manifest, that for the preserving of unity in God's Church one head is necessary, and that in the belief thereof there is no danger, though there were no Scripture at all to warrant it. For as temporal Kings, though they have no warrant for their each particular regal power out of holy Scripture, yet by law and justice and conscience we are justly obliged, not to question it: So I understand not, with what security a man may deny the authority of one supreme Governor of a Church so many hundred of years prescribed. I need not here heap up texts of holy Scripture for proof of the belief of one Church under one head, since in the belief thereof there is no show of impiety, but in the denial as much danger of impiety, as in denying any Prince his due. Yet that it may appear, that the deniers are not only in danger of injustice, but also of disbelieving Christ's words, I lay down some few Texts to be pondered. Matth. 6. Thou art Peter, & upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Behold one rock, one Church, & that permanent against all assaults. Io. 21. to Peter he said, feed my sheep; which words imply the full office of a Pastor, that is, not only to provide nourishment, but also to govern and defend, without which the office of a Shepherd is not complete. That also these words were spoken only to Peter, it is manifest by that thrice repeated interrogation of Christ, saying: Simon Peter, lovest thou me? especially when he addeth, more than those? whereby he excluded the rest of his Apostles; to which when S. Peter had answered that he loved him, Christ thereupon replied, feed my sheep; as if he should say, the supreme dignity of Pastorship and Vicegerency which I give you, requireth greatiove and charity, & as you truly love me, so be a true Pastor in my Church; & because I give you a dignity above the rest whom you are to rule 〈◊〉 my place, therefore I require that your love to me be singular. 15. This little I have observed, yieldeth such probability at the least, that it is manifest, it cannot without danger be denied, but that God his Church is one, under one head. But grant these places are not clear in themselves, yet the Common voice of the world so long continued, expressed also in the two Creeds, may justly excuse any Believer from the least danger of that sentence Who will not believe etc. Securely then with the Apostles creed we confess to believe the holy Catholic Church: and with the Nicen, One, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church: and not one, unless it have a supreme visible Governor, to whom all are subordinate. What danger can there be in this belief, if fear of God & Conscience only be regarded? What concerning recommending ourselves to the intercession of Saints. 16. TO justify the belief and practice of this point, it is sufficient that it is conformable to reason, and void of injury to Christ. I ask then, why may not we commend ourselves to the intercession of Saints, as well as S. Paul did commend himself to the prayers of living Christians? If it be answered, it is an injury to Christ, who biddeth all come to him; I see not first how S. Paul can be excused, that oft commended himself to the intetcession of inferior Creatures, who should have gone to Christ only, and to no body else. Look what must be answered in excuse of S. Paul, the same must justify our praying to Saints Moreover, to justify S. Paul, and those that commend themselves to the intercession of Saints, it seemeth evident that both he and we go truly to Christ for we go not to Saints to give us this or that, but to obtain their mediation for favours at God's hand; as truly we are said to have recourse to the King for honour, if we desire his Favourites to intercede for us: & as notwithstanding this mediation, we are truly said not to wrong the King, but to seek to him; so by our intercession to Saints we wrong not Christ, but go to him; unless a man should be conceived not to seek to Christ at all, but only to pray to Saints, which in no good Christian can be imagined. 17. If it be answered, that Saints in heaven cannot hear us; I ask, how can this be known? not by Scripture, since it witnesseth that many Prophets saw objects not only absent, but not existent many hundred years after their time, only by divine inspiration: nor by reason; for though were their hearing by corporal ears, there might be some difficulty, yet since their hearing is understanding, which is indifferent to conceive objects, as well absent as present, this difficulty to any will appear vain and impertinent, since we know not, how our soul understands, nor how our eyes see, or ears hear. 18. Hence I gather, that the Believers of this Article though they had no express Scripture for proof thereof, (which for the present I examine not) yet since their practice is conformable to reason, and consequent to the practice of S. Paul, and the whole Church, they may rest secure in the belief, until the deniers bring some clear places of holy Scripture to the contrary; such places, I say, that need no explications, suppositions etc. For these being but probabilities, are not sufficient to make the Believers deny what before they believed, lest perchance by not believing they prove guilty of damnation; from which they are doubtless free, though peradventure the Saints hear them not. As for injury to Christ, I have showed before, there is not the least colour thereof. What Choice may be securely made concerning the making, and worshipping the Image of Christ, and his Saints? 19 FOr the end of a safe resolution in this point, it is necessary first to declare, what kind of worship is pretended due to Images; and for example, I will discourse of the Image of Christ crucified, whereby what may be said of the rest with proportion, it will easily appear. 20. The worship then pretended, never tendeth to the Image, out of an apprehension of any Divinity therein contained, but only out of a faith in Christ represented by that Image, that is, believing Christ worthy of all honour, represented by this picture, in manner as he visibly once appeared. Whence evident it is first, that by such worship Christ is immediately worshipped. Secondly, that no honour due to God, is transferred to a Creature. Thirdly, that whatsoever honour exterior or interior tendeth towards the Image, is not for it, nor resteth there, but by our faith and interior reverence, is referred to Christ, for whom & to whom it is exhibited: for since perfect worship consisteth both in the exterior and interior acts conjoined, the interior giving life, & the very being worship to the exterior, the interior respecting Christ for himself, and the Image only for Christ; no sign of injury to Christ can be imagined. Or in a word, the worship here in question is only an outward honour towards the Image, proceeding from an inward reverence to Christ himself. And as S. Mary Magdalen worshipped Christ as a man out of belief of the Divinity contained in him, or rather as some worship their Communion for the Connexion it hath with Christ, whom it representeth; so in like manner the worship given to Images, is for the Connexion they have with Christ himself. The question than is, whether the worship thus understood be lawful or no? 21. According to the new translations of the Bible, the negative part against the Believers seems justified. Exod. 20. expressly forbidding the making and worshipping of any Image whatsoever. But the first doubt that here occurreth, and that a main one, is; how this latter translation can be justified, reading, Image, against the ancient, Idol, or graved thing, and so interpreted by ancient Doctors, and Fathers. Secondly, grant Image, the right translation, how can we be sure, that the same law is now in force, more than the law of the Saboth or Circumcision? I see not how these two doubts can be solued by clear Scripture which is necessary to repeal an anciently received belief in a Church. 22. Moreover, admitting the word Image, and the Law to stand; it is manifest that place proveth nothing against the worship of Images as explicated before, but only against Idolatrous abuse of them. 23. First, out of the end of the Law, which was, that the honour of God should be inviolably kept, by giving divine worship to him, and to no Creature; therefore in the beginning it is said; I am thy Lord God, thou shalt have no other Gods but me: and after he had commanded, that no Idols, nor other likeness of any thing should be made, he added the cause: For I am thy Lord God; a jealous God; that is, make not to thyself any Idol or Image for thy God, for I am thy God. Where mark, that particle, for, which giveth a reason, why he doth forbid Images; because he was their God, and a ●ealous God: which reason must suppose such a use of Images as should transfer God's honour from him to them; else that particle, for, is impertinent, if due honour of Images may consist with the honour due to God; as that before declared doth, and I will show more hereafter. 24. Secondly, because, if that Command have force now against worshipping, it is likewise of force against all making of Images, in so much that the very King's coin must be proved unlawful: but this is palpably absurd, therefore also absurd, that the Law should now be of force against all Image worship. The first proposition is manifest: for what the Law forbiddeth to be worshipped, it also forbiddeth to be made; or if it forbiddeth them not to be made, how doth it forbidden them to be worshipped? the law expressly saith; theu shalt not make to thyself, nor worship. If any reply, that those first words, thou shalt not make to thyself etc. signify thou shalt not make to worship, intimating that the worship only, and not the making of Images is forbidden; I ask him first, how he can prove this his interpretation by Scripture? If he cannot, I may not without danger receive, or make any Image. Secondly it is manifest that, that interpretation can have no ground in Scripture, unless we also say, that when Gen. 3.4. it is said, Adam and Eve made themselves, or to themselves Aprons; and cap. 6. Make thee, or to th● self, an Ark: & Num. 10. Make thee, o● to thyself, two trumpets, is to be understood of worship. Thirdly, if the fir● part, thou shalt not make to thyself, be understood, thou shalt not make to worship why should it be added, and thou sha● not worship? If then we understand thi● place to be of force against Image worship, we must conclude it to be of forc● against the making, and receiving of all manner of Images, which Chris● himself reproveth, commanding Ca● sars' coin to be given to him. Whence it being manifest, that the second proposition is true, to wit, that this is absurd, it followeth evidently that it is also absurd to say, that the law is now i● force against Image worship. 25. A third and chief reason is, because we have clear warrant out of holy Scripture, both for the making & worshipping of Images; the same Lawmaker commanding Cherubims over the Ark Exod. 25. and a Serpent of brass Num. 21. Cherubims, Lyons Reg 6.7. to be made; how can this stand with a total prohibtion of Images? That Ark represented God not so properly as the Image of Christ representeth Christ, yet David teacheth us, Adore the footstool of our Lord, for he is holy: which he saith not, out of any Command there ever was of adoring the Ark, since there was none; but only out of Consideration, that it representeth in some sort the Majesty of God. josuac. 7. fell prostrate before the Ark: where I see not, what he did more or less than is required in the worship of Images: did josua then break God's command? We read Gen. 8.2. Nu. 22. Ios. 5.14. and else where, how the holy Prophets adored God in Images, or in Angels representing his person, prostrating themselves before them: and though their intention was directed to God, yet their outward worship was directed to those sensible apparitions, or Images representing God to their imaginations; wherein they conceived God as represented, and these Images representing God, morally one object; in the same manner as it happeneth in the honour of Images, and in the worship of the figurative Communion, or as all Civil Nations do, when they honour the Chair of State, or Presence Chamber of a King, without wrong to Christ, or to the King. 26. These three arguments do manifestly show, that whether in the Commandment we read Idol, or Image; by it nothing can be proved, against the declared manner of worshipping Images, unless we will prove a Contradiction in holy Scripture. Moreover since it is clearly proved, by those examples and practice taken out of holy Scripture, that in such worship there is no sign of dishonour to God; it is doubtless more secure with the common practice of the world, to honour them, then by the denial of it to condemn such manifest authority. 27. That in the refusing there is no security, it is also manifest, since the Scripture brought is not clear for condemnation of Image-worship, therefore not sufficient to cry down an ancient practice, proved by sound Texts of Scripture, which can never be reconciled with those words of the Law, unless where Image is read, we read Idol: which word signifieth a Command that no Creature should be made, nor worshipped as God. This use of Images declared is justified both in respect of making and worshipping, by other texts of Scripture without any Contradiction to those words of the Law; when the contrary without any necessity compelleth a man to deny clear reason and Scripture. 28. It may be objected; that since Idolatry hath been begun and maintained by Images, and since men are prone to forget God, and apply themselves wholly to corporal objects, the secure way is to abandon Images, at the least in Churches. This is spoken without reason, or law; Without law, for there can be none brought, since not Images, but Idols were the beginning and maintaining of Idolatry. Images I have proved warrantable in holy Scripture. Without reason: for, whereas an Idol representeth nothing besides itself, and so is worshipped, an Image representeth a true thing, therefore moveth a man to a reverence proportionable to the object represented Whence in reason an Idol occasioneth Idolatry not representing any further object whither our thoughts and honour may be transferred; when contrariwise an Image of a true object necessarily draweth our minds, and reverence to some thing besides itself: so that ask any simple Believer, whether he pray to an Image, or put any Confidence in it, he will say no; ask him again, when he is kneeling before a picture with his eyes fixed on it, whither he directs his prayers? he will say to Christ, or some Saint. What hurt is there in this? S. Marry Magdelen prostrate, kissed and bathed with her tears the feet of Christ: what justified that act, but the union which those sacred feet had with his divinity, which notwithstanding she saw not, but apprehended by faith? Though between Christ and his picture there be not so immediate connexion, yet a moral Connexion there is, such as between the King, and his Picture, Chair of state, Ambassador etc. why then may not a Christian apprehend this connexion between Christ and his Image representing him, and accordingly exhibit due honour, without danger of Idolatry? Whether is holy Scripture, the only Rule of our Faith? 29. HIther to I have showed, that supposing Scripture the only rule, belief is more secure, than denial; for both parties relying upon the same Scripture, can never convince each others interpretation of falsity, as experience sufficiently showeth, and probability at least must be supposed on both parts; in which case finding no further evidence, prudence compelleth me to choose that part which is most remote from danger of Condemnation: Who will not betieve, shall be damned. 30. Now, that there may remain no doubt at all, of the secure Choice of belief; I will show it consequent to reason, & holy Scripture, that we must admit of some other rule besides Scripture. If then belief be grounded not only upon probable authority of Scripture (wherein it is equal at the least with authority of Deniers or Disbelievers) but also upon an other rule apparently known and seen, as it is fit for a rule to be, there can be no doubt of the security of belief. 31. And first, I suppose it is more than probable, or either Physically certain, that there hath ever been a Church, teaching and practising those points of belief aforementioned, not sufficiently disproved in point of Continuance & incorruption in Doctrine, though the gates of Hell have breathed forth all malice against it. 32. Secondly, I suppose holy Scripture as inspired by the holy Ghost to be a certain rule of Christian belief; yet for that it is certain that all is not written that was delivered by Christ, neither doth it any where say, that it is the infallible and sole word of God, and for that it is obscure, & doth not clearly explicate itself, as it is manifest by experience; it can not be an infallible rule for the deciding of contradictory opinions drawn from the same, though it alone may be a sufficient direction to let us know what more securely may be believed. 33. The question than is: Whether besides the Scripture, a Church also, as an unpartial Interpreter thereof, be to be admitted; which is as much to say: Whether the common voice of a Church interpreting holy Scripture, be a more secure rule, than the voice of some particular men, whose private interpretations, as before I shown, are not certain proofs out of holy Scripture, but only probabilities out of their own judgement: which notwithstanding, some will oblige all to admit as Scripture, and contemn the explication of an ancient Church. 34. For the negative part I find no clear Scripture, but such texts as require hard interpretation, and which as much oppose the practice of the first Primitive Church, then admitted as a doubtless rule, as it will appear to any that shall consider them: You shall not add a word. Deut. 4.2. Search the Scriptures. joan. 5.39. These things are written that you may believe. Io. 20.31. All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable. Are not these places of as much force against the Primitive Church? Do they & the like say, that all truth is written? or that what is written is divine Scripture? or that it needs no help of interpretation, no not of a Church but of private spirits? What ground then doth there remain for the enforcing of sole Scripture, as the only rule of our belief? 35. For the affirmative part, we have first, that Article of the Apostles Creed: I believe the holy Catholic Church: How can we believe the Church of Christ to be holy and Catholic, and doubt of God's protection of it in point of true belief and Doctrine? 36. Secondly, the authority of the Evangelists: Math. vlt. Teach all Nations etc. Behold I am with you every day even to the consummation of the world. Math. 18.17. If he shall not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen & publicam. Luc. 10.16. he that heareth you heareth me, and he that contemneth you contemneth me. Besides, the Church is called, the Pillar and firmament of truth. Tim. 3.15. Light of the world. Math. 5.14. Do not these texts probably point at a living rule? 37. Thirdly, since Christ obligeth us to a belief of his doctrine under pain of damnation, it is manifest that by some means he will make it appear unto us; but by Scripture alone it doth not sufficiently appear, for by it we know not what is Scripture, nor which is the true sense of Scripture, else all would soon agree: therefore Scripture is not sufficient alone to deliver unto us our saving faith. But the most undoubted and indifferent Interpreter thereof is an universal Church; so as we may securely be ruled by it, interpreting the said Scripture, and cannot be rejected without danger of disbelieving God's word. Grant to disbelievers probability of reason, yet their danger is certain. 38. SOme may think, that this Discourse proveth Believers secure, but not that This believers are in certain danger, if they be ruled according to the means and capacity God hath given them, and that such are not stubborn Deniers of truth, consequently secure enough. I grant, that invincible ignorance may excuse Disbelievers, as such, from sin; yet it followeth not that continual and final disbeliefe (though invincible) can consist with grace necessary to Salvation: but this I dispute not, nor against these, but against such as do, or may discern a difference between belief & disbeliefe; and who may see that the grounds of belief are at least probable, & the practice harmless; who finally know damnation to be denounced upon disbelievers: notwithstanding adventure upon the denying part, moved only by the same reasons, which they must suppose in confessed Heretics. Let any one define what disbeliever may be guilty of damnation, he shall find thereby, that either he shall condemn these Disbelievers I speak of, or else conclude that there never have been any. 39 Some again may say, if the belief be supposed only probably true, than the denial is also supposed probable. I suppose neither probability in the negative part, nor only probability in the belief; but shunning this dispute as endless, only out of the undeniable probability for the belief, and the security thereof, I convince the danger of the denial. 40. But it may be replied, that at least the Disbeliever by this Discourse, judging the belief but probable, may also judge his own probable, and consequently his danger also but probable. I answer, that notwithstanding the Disbeliever think his opinion probable, he cannot judge his danger only probable. For as probability in the Believer, where no hurt appears, freeth him certainly from danger; so the probability only, which the Disbeliener supposeth, leaveth him in certain danger of disbelieving what Christ hath revealed: first, because his danger is certain in the same degree as the belief is probable; but the belief is certainly probable at the least in respect of the great authority of the believers; therefore the Disbelievers danger is also certain, though he conceive a probability of his disbeliefe. Secondly, because the disbeliefe is as certainly dangerous, as it is certainly not evident (and more evidence is required to free the disbeliefe from danger then is necessary to free the belief; this, though it were too much, containing no hurt) but the Disbelievers doctrine is certainly not evident, therefore it is certainly dangerous. The first proposition is clear, for if there be not evidency for the disbeliefe the contrary ●hen may be true, consequently obliging to belief. The second Proposition, ●hat the Disbelievers doctrine is not evident, appeareth by the novelty, inconstancy, disagreements, and other circumstances incident to it; as also by ●he overswaying authority of the Believers who want not any thing necessarily required to a probability at least, as ●y reflection any one may observe; nei●●her can the want of evidency, in the Articles denied, warrant the Disbelie●ers; else who could believe? or rather who could be charged of heresy? Whence ●he last Consequence of the Reply is ●alse, for though to some their disbeliefe nay seem probable, out of a probable judgement, that Christ delivered not such words, or in such a sense; yet their ●anger is certain, because the contrary ●eliefe is certainly probable at least, which may convince them, that they ●eaue the secure belief, wherein there can be no danger, and choose that p●● whereon Christ's denunciation 〈◊〉 fall. Nor may this argument be retort against Believers though their doctri● be supposed but probable, because their Belief there is contained 〈◊〉 harm or danger as in the disbelieue● and danger known breedeth an obligation of further inquiry, & remoue● all ignorance which only can excuse ●●rour in belief. 51. Again it may be replied, that a● this hindereth not, but that Disbel●uers may conceive their disbeliefe probable, consequently at least not impu●●ble to sin, and therefore free fro● danger. I answer, that if a man conceive his disbeliefe probable, he ha●● reason justly to doubt, especially if h●● probability arise out of apprehension of probability in the contrary belie●● which alone maketh the disbeliefe dangerous in practice: as if a man shou●● probably think Baptism not necess●●ry for infants, he may not neglect 〈◊〉 since in this the danger is apparent: b● case invincibly he conceive his opinion true, I meddle not, as impertinent this purpose, and a metaphysical case ●mongst understanding men. 52. If it be asked, what degree of probability Believers may be conceived to ●aue? I answer, that as great as can be ●or any thing. They have Scripture, Tradition, Consent of Nations, reason, ●euer clearly disproved as it is evident; ●ince in numerable daily answer all objections made against them: or let any body set down what is sufficient to make an opinion apparently probable, that he shall clearly find in the doctrine of Believers. 53. But Disbelievers will say, that they believe in God's word, and deny only what they find not contained in it. This is not in question; and who will not believe God's word? The Devils (as S. james witnesseth) believe and tremble: the question is, whether they disbelieve nothing, or by their denials put not themselves in danger of denying what is sufficiently delivered as God's word, forging or rejecting it accord 〈◊〉 to the Touchstone of their fancy. N●ther is it in question, whether what 〈◊〉 mighty God hath revealed in Script● ought to be believed; but what God ha●● revealed: and this is not only the wri●ten word, but the sense, which we ●●ceiue, not perfectly from the bare lette● but by the help of prudent rule which to reject is dangerous, especial● on their part that deny Articles prob●●bly delivered. 54. In Conclusion of this Chapter, will answer one objection, by man esteemed a secure Quietus est; They say God obligeth not men to impossibl● ties: since then at least the vulgar sort o● people cannot discern those differences, wherein learned men do disagree●ech one may securely rest in that religion he is taught, believing the Cree● etc. This Discourse supposeth holy Scripture the only rule of belief: about th● true sense whereof, since it is evident learned men do not agree, and no private man can be judge between these differences, it is manifest that who relieth only upon Scripture, cannot be secure that his disbeliefe is true, or that he refuse not to believe what he is commanded to believe under pain of damnation. To say, that every one may securely believe according as he understands, is but a desperate shift and concludeth an impossibility of any heresy. The objection than convinceth the necessity of a Church as a living rule; for God obligeth us not to impossibilities; but it is impossible for any to discern the monstrous differences of private men's interpretations of God's word: Therefore he obligeth not to the belief of his word upon these private interpretations: But he obligeth us to believe; therefore by some other way then by Scripture alone, he maketh it possible: this can be no other but the Church. The Conclusion. 55. THus I have sufficiently showed the security of believers, exemplifyed in a few Articles most in question, containing no harm, nor opposite to any known Law of God, as the better part of the Christian world ever hath witnessed, but at least most probably conformable to Christ's express word: I see not what part of this can be doubted. Consequently to this, I have also showed in what manifest danger Disbelievers are: first by rejecting and contemning the authority of an ancient Church, & the only known Church when Luther began this denying belief, confessed to have been the true Church, and as yet not convicted of corruption in faith, nor as much as charged by any greater authority than itself: Let them take heed, that be not spoken of them, He that despiseth you, despiseth me: Who will not hear the Church let him be reputed as a Heathen and Publican. Secondly, by choosing the disbelieving part, out of seeming reasons, exposing themselves to needles dangers of that sentence: Who will not believe etc. For if the contrary belief must be supposed probable, as undoubtedly it must, than the disbeliefe may with probability be a denial of Christ's word, consequently may be, it deserveth damnation; this is evident to reason, and no judicious man can deny it. If any fear, that as disbeliefe of what Christ delivered maketh him a liar, so also belief of what he delivered not; let them but observe the disparity between Believers & Disbelievers; those deny what Christ delivered as manifestly as he delivered other truths: But Believers upon the same grounds that move them to belief of other articles, suppose the points controverted delivered by Christ, which if they were not delivered they are only guilty of mistake, not of making Christ a liar. Who then seethe not how much it concerneth a Christian not rashly to deny what anciently is delivered by the Church? On true belief God's favour dependeth, on this our eternal welfare. We expect but one death, one irrevocable judgement, one Eternity of happiness or misery. This is promised to Disbeliefe, that to true Believers. Shall a Christian adventure upon seeming probabilities, and leave security? Belief is secure, void of harm; to Disbelievers it is said: Who will not believe, shall be damned. Let then all Disbelievers examine their Disbeliefe, and hearken to the admonition of S. Augustin. cap. 1. de Baptis. Graviter peccat, qui in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus, certis incerta praeponit. Heavy is his sin, who in matters concerning the safety of his soul, preferreth uncertain means before certain. THE CONTENTS of this Discourse. THe Preface. pag. 3. What choice ought a man to make concerning the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament of the last Supper. pag. 11. What of the Mass. pag. 15. What of Confession and Absolution, commonly called the Sacrament of Penance. pag. 16. What of the Church, and one Head thereof. pag. 18. What concerning the recommending our selves to the intercession of Saintes. pag. 22 What choice may be securely made, concerning the making and worshipping the Image of Christ & his Saints. pag. 25. Whether is Holy Scripture the only Rule of our faith. pag. 35. Grant to Disbelievers probability of Reason, yet their danger is certain. pag. 40. The Conclusion. pag. 48. FINIS. THE CONVICTION OF NOVELTY, AND Defence of antiquity. OR DEMONSTRATIVE ARGUMENTS of the falsity of the new Religion of England: And truth of the Catholic Roman faith. DELIVERED IN TWELVE PRINCIPAL Sylogismes, and directed to the more scholastical wits of the Realm of great Brittany, especially to the ingenious students of the two most renowned universities of Oxford & Cambrige. AUTHOR R. B. Roman Catholic, and one of the English, Clergy, and Mission. — GRATIAS AGO DEO MEO PER JESUM CHRIstum pro omnibus vobis quia fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo. Rom. 1.6. QVISQVIS ES ASSERTOR NOVORUM Dogmatum queso te ut parcas Romanis auribus, parcas fidei quae ab Apostolico ore laudata est. S. Hier. ep ad Pamachium & Oceanum. CATVAPOLI, Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS. Anno M.DC.XXXII.