A SOVEREIGN REMEDY AGAINST ATHEISM and Heresy. FITTED FOR THE WIT and want of the British Nations.  
BY M. THOMAS ANDERTON, aliás BARTON.  
PUBLISHED AFTER HIS DEATH, and Dedicated to the Lady Frances Hamilton, By her humble Chaplin E. G.  
An. 1672.   

TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS LADY THE LADY FRANCES HAMILTON.  
MADAM,  
England your native soil, once so much celebrated throughout all Christendom for an Istand of Saints and Angels, is now censured, even by its own Parliament, as a Nursery of Atheism and Heresy, and therefore that great Representative of the Nation is no less solicitous for a cure, than sensible of a disease so dangerous and destructive not only to the soul, but to the body politic of the Commonwealth. And yet either our misfortune or their mistake hath rendered all remedies hitherto ineffectual. This Treatise, MADAM, composed by Mr. Thomas Barton (whose Wit must be admired so long as there will be any in the world) was found with his Geometry in Holland (where he had designed to print both) and bestowed upon me by one that understood not the English language, nor the value of his Present. In my judgement 'tis one of the best Antidotes against the spiritual plagues werwith England is infected. I publish it under your Lad ps patronage (and beg pardon for doing so without your Knowledge) because you are not only a perfect Pattern of that ancient Faith and Virtue which it asserts, but a particular Instance, and a convincing Proof, that Heresy and Atheism have not so wholly changed the nature of old England, but that even now it produceth Angels.  
I Know, MADAM, these Truths will offend your modesty and Humility, your greatest care being to conceal your natural and supernatural Gifts, and to eclipse to the eyes of men your spiritual exercises and devotion, feigning to be as well pleased with the world, as the world is with you. But that which hath exalted you above the world, and (I hope) writ your name in the book of life, is your extraordinary Charity. You are not in the list of those who hope to be saved by charitable indiscretions; No, MADAM, Prudence directs your alms as well as your other actions: Humour hath no share in your distributions, Vanity no influence upon your liberality; partiality no suffrage in the choice of the poor you relieve. You stretch your piety to the support of merit (wheresoever it is) injured by Fortune; and to the defence of Virtue oppressed by persecution. And though you do it with so great caution as to disguise supernatural Charity with that noble air of generosity, so natural and peculiar to yourself; yet your devout design is discovered, and your reward before God, as well as the relieved persons obligation to you, infinitely multiplied. Pardon me, MADAM, if I trespass upon your Reseruedness, and choose rather to incur your Lad ps displeasure, than concur to prejudice Mankind, by depriving it of so great an encouragement to Virtue as the Knowledge of your perfections. I speak, MADAM, of those hidden in your soul, not of those which shine outwardly, and can not be concealed, as your matchless beauty, and charming graces. These, MADAM, are but fading and fallacious Ornaments that set out Mortality in a deluding dress, with gay and lively colours, which a little time will deface; the sad fate of the greatest beauties, as well as of the fairest flowers.  
I need not inculcat this Truth to your Ladp.tis so deeply printed in your soul, that others are odious to you, if they but touch upon any of those rare qualities wherewith Nature (by straining its power to the utmost) hath made you a Miracle of itself, and placed you in the world as a Model, not to be imitated, (much less paralleled) but to be admired, even by those most emulous and envious of your own sex which fancy themselves ought to be adored by ours. But that which most surpriseth the world is, that so envied a Miracle of Nature as your Ladp. could never yet be censured or observed of having any Kind of inclination to be admired or applauded. This is a Miracle of God's grace, and an effect of that natural modesty and eminent honour whereby you always have preserved your unspotted reputation in the two most dangerous Courts of Christendom; to both which you are in this particular the best example, as in all other things the greatest Ornament. This aversion to your own praises is the only reason why I dare not mention the great Antiquity and high Alliance of your illustrious Family, the most proper and usual Ingredient in all Dedicatories. I should venture though to say something of your acute Wit, profound judgement, agreeable humour, graceful utterance, becoming behaviour, and discreet conduct, but that these are abvious and observed by all the World, and particularly by the greatest Court and best judge thereof; which gives your Ladp this Character, That you are an exact English Beauty, naturaly adorned with all the graces of France, and an abridgement of the purest perfections of both Nations. But because even this authentik and undeniable Testimony is not grateful to your Ladp. and that it is impossible to speak any truth of you without commending and offending you, I am forced to cut off a long Panegyrik of your deserved praises, and conclude with this one (which I hope will not be offensive) that you are the only person who thinks you are unworthy of that little I have said here, or that can command me to say no more but that I am with all reality and respect,  
MADAM, Your Lad ps most obedient and most humble servant. E. G.   

THE PREFACE.  
WIth no less humility than charity I will propose my thoughts concerning the Atheism and Heresy of our Country, hoping that if my sense differs from that of others, I shall not be blamed for offering and submitting my opinion to better judgements. I shall endeavour to ground mine upon Scripture and reason. Scripture compares Heresy to that crafty serpent, which deceived our Mother Eve with the curiosity of Knowing the cause and reasons of God's revelations; persuading her that human understandings ought not be satisfied with any thing less than clear evidence, as if it were beneath men to submit to authority. When our curiosity and pride prevails with us to contemn the testimony and tradition of the Church, and to prefer our private opinions before the public doctrine and practise thereof, and that we are obstinate in that way, we become heretics, and in progress of time Atheists: So filth and corruption becomes first a creeping serpent, and afterwards a flying Dragon. For, as this Vermin is engendered by the heat of the sun in marish grounds, and dirty sinks, so Heresy and Atheism have their first being from the influence, which heat of passion, height of pride, and sensual pleasures have upon vicious souls. These wallowing in the mire of sin, and sucking up its venom, beget the private spirit, which is a serpent that with hissing whispers infects the brain by ask why God gave men their senses, if it was not to be directed wholly by them in judging even of mysteries of Faith. And though God tells us that the evidence of sense is fallacious, when it agrees not with his word, as it proved when Eve tasted the forbidden fruit, yet Heretics despising that truth, and imitating her example, prefer the serpent or the private spirits suggestions, and their own appetit before God's revelation; and interpret the Scriptures after a new manner, contrary to the testimony, tradition, and practise of the Church, in favour of liberty and sensuality.  
Heresy having thus slighted Ecclesiastical authority, and the supernatural signs or Miracles of the Roman Catholic Church, as fables or frauds of interested persons; and finding no signs or seals of a Deity in any other Congregation, it gins to doubt of God's providence; and after many wind and turn from one Sect to an other, devoring most gross absurdities, even against the Divinity of Christ, and immortality of the Soul, it grows at length to be a Dragon, which armed with scales of obstinate incredulity, and winged with unbridled liberty and pride, flies at the Deity itself, like that seven headed Beast of the Revelations. So that Atheism is nothing but overgrown Heresy, as the Dragon is an overgrown serpent. Both agree in making sensuality the soul of man, and the rule of Faith. The heretic, by submitting his Faith and Soul to evidence of sense against God's warning and word; the Atheist by maintaining men have no Faith or soul but sense. This last error seems to some the more judicious, it being most evidently certain, that if there be a spiritual Soul, it must be superior and aught to command sense, curbing its inclinations as foolish, and correcting its evidence as fallacious.  
Against this vermin and venom of Atheism and Heresy I have prepared the Antidote I here present you with; its chief ingredients are strength of reason, and supernaturality of Miracles; it is as natural for reason to submit to Miracles, as it is for sense to submit to reason. For, what greater violence can be offered to Reason, than to rebel, or resist against authority, signed by God's hand and seal, Miracles? Or to deny a Deity and spirits, because they come not under the Kenning of our senses? Is it not against the first principles of reason and morality, to judge otherwise of things and persons, than they seem to be, when neither the word of God, nor any thing else appears to the contrary? Though we do not see spirits, or the Deity, yet we see effects above the sphere and power of bodies, and Nature, which can not be attributed to any other causes but Spirits, and a Deity. So that we must grant the existence of these, or maintain an impossibility, which is, that there can be an effect without a cause. What effect this Antidote will work upon the minds of the Readers, God only Knows. I have endeavoured to express my thoughts in the clearest terms I could, and in ordinary English the highest mysteries of Christianity. Others may excel in the quaintness of expression; I desire no such commendation; neither is that manner of writing so proper in matters of Faith, which limits our words as well as our opinions. And though the latitude were greater, I should choose those expressions which are best understood, my design being to inform all sorts of people. Yet I would have our wits Know (and I hope they will find it so by experience) that Atheism and Heresy, how new and subtle so ever, may be solidly confuted in ordinary and old English.   

A SOVEREIGN REMEDY against Heresy, and Atheism, Fitted for the wit and want of the British Nations.  

CHAP. I. OF THE EXISTENCE, UNITY, and Trinity of God.  
Q. Is there any such thing as God? I knowthere is such a notion, and that men fancy (when they speak of God) an unlimited being, including in itself infinite excellencies, and all perfections. My question is, whether this Deity of all and infinite perfections be only a mere notion, or a real object?  
A. it is a real object.  
Q. How prove you that: for, we have notions not only of things that do not exist, as Utopia, but of things that can not possibly exist, as Chimaeras, Centaurs, etc. How therefore will you make it appear that the notion of an infinitely perfect Deity is not the bare notion of an impossibility?  
A. Many proofs there are of God's real existence, but (in my opinion) the clearest of all must be grounded upon the experience every man hath of his own nothing. For, the only thing we know clearly even of ourselves is, that we do exist and are ourselves, and yet that there was a time we did not exist, nor were ourselves, or (which is the same) that we were nothing.  
From hence necessarily follow these conclusions. 1. that we can not have our being or existence from ourselves; because that which at any time hath been nothing, or did not exist, can no more give a being or existence to itself, than nothing can produce something. 2. that there must of necessity be something which did always exist, otherwise nothing did produce all things. 3. that the something which did always exist, must include all and infinite perfections; because having its being or perfection only from itself, as none could give it a being but itself, so none but itself could set a limit to its being or perfections; and that thing must have been naturally avers to itself, and by consequence, not itself, which would wave, hinder, or envy its own happiness, or its having all perfections.  
4. As it is impossible that a thing which hath its being from itself, should want, or wave any perfection, so is it impossible there should be two or more distinct things infinitely perfect. Because that which is the source of its own being, must necessarily include in itself all being, or all perfections; seeing there can be no cause or reason why it should have one perfection, and not all, unless you will fancy that a thing before it exists, or is any thing, can limit itself, or (out of a pik to itself) would pick and choose out of infinite perfections only such as Atheists attribute to that which they call Nature. If therefore all perfections must be included in that one thing which hath its own being from itself, no other thing of infinite perfections can be as much as fancied to be distinct from it. Therefore it must be the same: and consequently there can be but one thing, or one God, including in itself, or identifying with itself, all perfections. So that you see how little wit Atheists do show, in denying a Deity of infinite perfections; because they must either grant it, or confess that we men (or any thing else) when we did not exist, and were nothing, did or could produce ourselves. Or that this world, with all its imperfections, is God; or that, the world before its existence, when it was nothing was also something; and so against the first and clearest notions and principles of mankind, it must be said, that nothing hath not only proportion with something, but also that nothing and something have the same properties, and work the same effects, and by consequence that there is no difference or distance between such contradictions, as nothing and something, being and not being, existent and not existent.  
Q. I see that the existence and unity of God is much more clear than Atheists pretend; but me thinks the same argument whereby you prove God's unity, concludes the impossibility of the Trinity: for if there can not be two or more things infinitely perfect, it must be granted that either the Father, son, and holy Ghost, are not things, or beings distinct one from the other; or if they be, that they are not infinitely perfect.  
A. To this question, or objection there are two answers. The first and best is, that God were not infinitely perfect, if such imperfect creatures as we know ourselves to be, could comprehend his excellencies and mysteries. And though as rational creatures, we ought (even in what we believe) be directed by reason, yet that reason which is our guide, can lead us no further in many things than to persuade us submit to credible authority, which is the testimony of a Church or Congregation authentikly authorised by God to bear witness that he revealed such and such mysteries. Though the truth of these mysteries be not intelligible or visible to our human, understandings, it were want of understanding to doubt of them, or to deny them: because there is not any one truth more clear to us, nor more obvious (by undeniable experiments) to all mankind than this, that there are many truths whereof our human understandings can give no reason. Now if this be so in human and ordinary things, why should we presume or pretend that the mystery of the Trinity is not true, because we forsooth, can not comprehend its truth?  
The second answer is this, the Father, the son, and holy Ghost, have but one being, or nature, common to all three, and therefore they are equally powerful, equally wise, equally good, and eternal, and by consequence but one God. But because this divine nature, or essence hath three different manners of being, and that every one of these three manners is identified with, and inseparable from the Deity, though distinct one from the other, there must be three distinct persons; the first is called the Father, the second is called the son, the third is called the holy Ghost. This may be explained by two similitudes. 1. is that of a body, which hath three dimensions, longitude, latitude and profundity, distinct one from the other, but not from the body. 2. is that ordinary example of our soul, which is but one being, though it hath three different manners of being: the first manner is to know, the second is to wish, or will, the third is to remember. Though these three manners or modes of being, are very different in themselves, yet they are not things distinct from the soul. Q. But how can this be applied to the Trinity?  
A. Thus. It must be granted that in the Deity we may consider (and truly 'tis so) the Divine nature, first, as having from itself alone all knowledge, and all perfections. 2. this same Deity may be considered as knowing or reflecting upon its own knowledge, and perfections. 3. it may be considered, as infinitely loving itself and its infinite perfections. The Deity therefore or the Divine nature as it is the fountain of infinite fecundity, and the original principle, or giver, is called the Father. The same Deity as it is considered not the fountain, but as if it were the river that flows from that fountain, or the channel that receives its own knowledge and perfections, is called the son; The same Deity as it is infinitely beloved by the Father and the son, is called the holy Ghost; which holy Ghost proceedeth as well from the son as from the Father, because each of those two persons equally love one an other, and the Deity: whence it followeth, that the Greeks' error of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father alone, and not from the son, is not only blasphemy, but nonsense; because it is impossible that such a Father should not love such a son, and that such a son should not love his Father, they both having the same nature, and the same perfections. This is sufficient of so sublime a mystery, the truth whereof though it can not be clearly comprehended by so imperfect creatures as we are, yet our human reason may with some probability and proportion show that the unity of the Divine nature doth no more exclude the Trinity of persons, than the unity of a body doth exclude its three dimensions, or the unity of the soul it's three faculties.   

CHAP. II. OF THE IMMORTALITY of the soul.  
Q. Is the immortality of the soul an article of Christian Religion?  
A. Yes, because in the Creed we believe the life everlasting.  
Q. May this article be proved by natural reason?  
A. yes, if you will admit there is any such thing as reason in man. For, reason is that faculty whereby a man finds himself naturaly directed and inclined to raise his thoughts above and beyond the reach of his senses; and to correct and contradict his own sensations, when he discovers that they are as false and fallacious as daily experience doth manifest in familiar examples v. g. of oars that seem to bend or break in the water; of sophisticated wine that seems to be natural; of false colours; of mad dreams, and imaginations that in our sleep or in a melancholy humour seem to be rational discourses and real objects; and other innumerable mistakes, which are rectified either by reflections of our own, or by the rules of perspective philosophy, and other sciences, invented by men to discern the difference that is between the true existence, and the false appearance of things.  
Q. How do you infer that the soul is immortal, because reason (which is the soul, or a faculty thereof) doth direct and incline men to correct the fallacy of their sensations, and to raise their thoughts above, and carry them beyond the reach of our senses?  
A. Sensation being a cooperation, or a joint operation of the body and soul, through the organization or ministry of our senses, if the soul (or its faculty of reason) doth correct and contradict some of these sensations, and finds them to be false or fallacious, it is manifest that the soul may and sometimes doth, operat not only independently of the body, but contrary to those appearances which seemed to be real, whilst we were in it, and were directed by them, or believed our senses; and by consequence the soul is immortal, because the immortality of the soul is nothing else but its independency of the body in acting and existing: and if it acts against our sensations when it is in the body, questionless it may act without them, or independently of the help of the body; and if it can act independently of the help of the body, it may exist also without help of the same; and so the soul is proved to be immortal, or not to die with the body, by its acting in the body, contrary to the dictamen, or appearance of our senses.  
Q. Methinks this argument only proves that the soul may act (and by consequence exist) independently of the body for some rhyme, but proveth not that it may exist for ever independently of the body; and the immortality of the soul is not every existen ●ce, but an everlasting existence independent of the body.  
A. True it is that the immortality of the soul is an everlasting existence without necessity of the body's help or support; and as true it is, that reason, as soon as the soul knows itself, doth direct it to desire and endeavour its own happiness, which ●nuolues not only a perpetuity of existence, but an everlasting felicity in the same existence. That reasons clearest act (after the soul knows its own existence) is, to direct and inspire into the soul a desire and endeavours of its own happiness, is manifest not only by that regret and remorse of conscience which men feel when they deviat from the direction or dictamen of reason, but also by the love which men bear to themselves; which love being confessed to be most evidently rational, can not but be directed by the clearest principle of reason. Wherefore this desire of the souls happiness being directed by the clearest principle of reason, can not be pretended to be a dream, or delusion, unless you will maintain that the clearest reason is the greatest folly, and by consequence destroy the fundamental ground of all human discourse and rational endeavours; If therefore the souls desire of everlasting happiness be grounded upon so clear a principle of reason, this (if it be not folly) must have a real object whereunto we are directed, and wherewith we may be satisfied, without any possibility of mistake; and if so, 'tis as demonstrable that the soul is immortal, as it is that the most rational desires and endeavours, are not manifest follies; and that the fundamental and experimental principles of reason can not be false, or fallacious.  
But if any one will be so mad as to grant that the first and fundamental principles of human reason are false and fallacious; besides that herein he reflects upon God's wisdom, goodness, and government, wherewith such a supposition is not compatible, he must grant that there are some other contrary fundamental principles true, in opposition whereunto ours are false and fallacious. Let him therefore produce them, and maintain that it is reasonable in lieu of honouring our parents, to hate them, in lieu of desiring our happiness, to wish our misery, etc. and if he can not produce any others besides these, he can not think it reasonnable we should credit these, or fear ourselves can be misled so long as we stick close to our own principles of reason, and follow that light which shines, and every man sees in certain actions necessarily and naturally assented unto, and therefore common to all mankind.   

CHAP. III. OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD, and the sacrifice due to him.  
Q.  you have proved that there is a God, and that the soul is immortal, I would willingly know how God ought to be worshipped.  
A. God being the Author of all good, 

Mr Beacoz a learned Protestant, in his Tratise entitled the reli●ues of Rome, edit 1560. f. 344 saith, the Mass was begotten, conceived, and born anon after the Apostles time, if all be true that Historiographers write.  
Sebastianus Francus an other learned Protestant in his Epistle for abrogating all ●he Canon la, saith, immediately after the Apostles all things were turned upside down, etc. The Lord's supper was transformed into a sacrifice.  
Mr Ascham in his Apology for the Lords supper, p. 31. doth acknowledge that no beginning of this change can be chewed.  
The ancient rathers call the Mass, the visible sacrifice, the true sacrifice, the daily sacrifice, the sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech, the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, the sacrifice of the Altar, the sacrifice of the Church, and the sacrifice of the new Testament.  
See St Ignatius the Apostles Scholar in his Epistle to the Church of Smirna. St Irenaeus. l. 4. c. 32. of whom the Centurists say that he speaks very in comodiously when he says that Christ tanght a new oblation, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, doth offer to God in all the world. See Cent. c. 4. col. 63. and Cent. 2. cap. 10. col. 167. they affirm St Ignatius his words to be dangerous, and quasi errorum semina. See also Terrul ad scapul. cap. 2. Origen. in number. hom 23. St Cyprian lib. 2. & 3. vers. fin. St Ambrlib. 5. Ep. 33. Missam facere coepit, etc. St Leo Ep. 81. ad Dioscor. St August. term 91. de Temp. & lib. 9 Confess. cap. 12. & in Enchird. cap. 110. etc. Says that the Sacrifice of our price was offered for his mother Monica, being dead; and that it is not to be doubted but that the souls of the dead are relieved when for them is offered the sacrifice of our Mediator, etc.   the only beginning and cause of our existence, the end and hopes of our happiness, it is fit we exhibit unto him the greatest honour we can, not only every one in particular, by an inward submission of our souls acknowledging his infinite excellencies, and our own nothing, and imperfections; but also by an outward offering or oblation of some visible thing that ought to be consumed, or changed; thereby to own Gods infinite power and Dominion over his creatures, and consecrated to his Divine majesty by a solemn ceremony, and public Minister. This way of worship is called a Sacrifice, and the public Minister who offers it, is called a Priest. It hath been practised since the beginning of the world, as appeareth in the sacrifices of Abel, No, Melchisedech, Abraham, Isaac, jacob, job. and others in the law of nature, and in the written law of Moses, great part thereof is nothing but rules and ceremonies concerning the manner of sacrificing, and the habit and method which the Priest ought to observe in performing that public ministry.  
Q. What is the sacrifice of the Christians, or of the law of grace?  
A. It is the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, offered for the living and for the dead, under the species or appearance of bread and wine; and is commonly called the Mass.  
Q. Is not the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, as it was offered upon the Cross, the proper sacrifice of Christians, or of the Catholic Church?  
A. It is the most excellent sacrifice that ever was offered; nay all other sacrifices in the law of nature, of Moses, and of grace, did and do derive their virtue and efficaciousness from the sacrifice of the Cross; but because Christ, as offered upon the Cross, is a general fountain of graces, and pardons, and the foundation of the sacrifices of the old (as well as of the new) Testament, whereof they all were but types, or figures, therefore that Divine and bloody sacrifice of the Cross can not be so peculiarly attributed to the law of grace, as to be called the proper sacrifice of the Christian and Catholic Church.  
Q. Is not the sacrifice of the Cross, and the sacrifice of the Mass, the same sacrifice?  
A. They differ not in the substance, because the same Christ is offered in both, and Christ himself is the chief Priest in Both. But they differ in the manner, for in the sacrifice of the Mass Christ is offered under the species or appearance of bread and wine, and in the Cross he was offered in his own shape.  
Q. If the substance of the sacrifice be the same, what need is there of that of the Mass? is it not sufficient that Christ offered himself upon the Cross once for all?  
A. It is a general rule grounded upon reason, and the concurrence or custom of all Nations which ever professed any Religion, that every particular Religion must have its sacrifice peculiar to itself; because Religion being Divine worship, and sacrifice being an action professing the Divinity of that which is worshipped, it inuolues a contradiction to say Religion, and no sacrifice, or to say, that a religion can continue, and the sacrifice thereof not continue. Seeing therefore the Christian and Catholic Religion doth continue, and that the bloody sacrifice of the Cross, or Christ's passion, doth not continue, the sacrifice of the Cross can not be the proper and peculiar sacrifice of the Christian Religion, and Catholic Church.  
Q. It is not sufficient that the effects of the sacrifice of the Cross continue in the Church though Christ suffered but once; for the cause may be said to continue in its effects?  
A. It can not be properly said that the cause continues in its effects. Otherwise it might be properly said, that the Priesthood and sacrifice of No after the deluge (chap. 8. Gen) doth yet continue, because the effect thereof (viz. the assurance of not suffering an other deluge) doth and will continue until the end of the world.  
Q. If all the sins of the world be pardoned (or at least be sufficiently satisfied for) by the sacrifice of the Cross, what use is there for the sacrifice of the Mass? or how can it be a propitiatory sacrifice, in virtue whereof sins are pardoned and satisfied for?  
A. It is not against the sufficiency or infinitness of the sacrifice of the Cross, that sins be forguien, and satisfied for by the sacrifice of the Mass; not only because the same Christ is offered in both sacrifices, but because the sacrifice of the Mass is a commemoration of that of the Cross, and doth apply the sufficiency of the same to the pardon of particular sins, that were not committed before Christ's passion, as we say of Baptism and other Sacraments. And if the sacrifices of the old testament were propitiatory, in virtue of Christ's passion, before he came to the world, there can be no ground to deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is a Propitiatory sacrifice, in virtue of the same passion after that he suffered.   

CHAP. IU. OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, and of Divine faith.  
Q. Though I know that they who worship God as he commands, are his Church, yet there being so many Congregations of Christians pretending themselves alone to be those worshippers, and the true Church, or at least a part thereof, I would willingly know whether there be any certain and clear signs whereby the true Church and its members may be discerned from all false and heretical Congregations? and what signs these are? I am satisfied that any two or more Congregations dissenting in any doctrine, can not constitute that Catholic Church, out of which there is no salvation; because such Congregations can not have either unity, or verity in that doctrine wherein they disagree; and by consequence, seeing God (who is truth itself and infinitely avers from falsood) can not more countenance, or confirm with supernatural signs the least, than the greatest falsood, that Church or Churches which propose contradictory Tenets (whether fundamental or not fundamental) can no more be the Catholic or part thereof, than God can forfeit his veracity, or incline and oblige men to believe contradictory points, whereof one must needs be false.  
A. That there are certain and clear signs whereby the true Catholic Church of God may be discerned from all false and heretical Congregations, is as evident as God's veracity, and his inclination to truth; or as it is, that God did not institute a Church wherein there could be no peace, concord, or order; but all must have been disorder, confusion and dissension; For, if the testimony of every of those Congregations were as credible (by supernatural signs of their being the true Church) as they are confident in their pretensions of being so, the most learned and prudent men might live and die safely in the state of perplexity; and all the world (at best) must have been seekers, or sceptics; and there being no reason (in such a case) to believe, why rather one sect than an other should be the true Church. Therefore God being the Author of truth, peace, order, and unity, his Church can not be a Congregation of dissenting, or perplexed people, changing from one faith to an other, for want o● discernible and supernatural signs, which none but the true Church ought to have, to the end all men may find it out, and thereby be directed to embrace the true Divine worship and doctrine.  
These signs must be supernatural; that is, signs, above the sphere and power of natural causes; at least they must seem so, not only to the vulgar people, but to the wisest men and greatest Doctors, after a diligent scrutiny, and mature consideration of all causes, and circumstances: because they must be such as produce in us an evident obligation of believing that God alone is the Author of the Doctrine proposed as Divine, and that he hath authorised that Church to propose the same. The signs must not only be observable, but obvious to every vulgar comprehension, and perceptible even by our senses. The reason is, because many, of the mysteries which are to be believed with Divine faith, exceed human capacity, and therefore as well the learned as the ignorant are to be instructed therein by the Church, and must take its testimony for a sufficient proof of their obligation to believe (without doubting) that God revealed those things which it proposeth in his name, and they can not comprehend; though they be credibly revealed. Now to believe that things so difficult as many mysteries which the Church proposeth, are true, and revealed by God; and that any man or Congregation of men is authorised by his Divine authority to propose and press such things upon our understandings, this belief I say, can not be a prudent or pious act, without seeing seeiming supernatural signs, so obvious to all kind of people, that they may (if reflected upon) exclude all prudent doubts of our being mistaken, because they must dispose us to fix our thoughts so firmly upon God's goodness and veracity, that we assent with greater assurance to what the Church says, and its signs show, than if we had seen it; not because the Church says it, or because the signs confirm its testimony, but because we rationaly judge it impossible, that God would permit such an appearance and testimony to be falsely fathered upon himself, or permit us to be deceived by signs so likely to be supernatural.  
Q. How can a certainty only moral of God being the Author of the commission and doctrine of the Church, be a solid and sufficient ground for acts of Christian faith, whereby we believe without the least doubt, and by consequence with more than moral certainty or assurance, that God is Author of the commission and doctrine of the Church? How can any prudent act of our understanding assent to more than it doth see? or assent with greater assurance, than there is appearance of the truth? An intellectual act or assent being an intellectual sight of the truth of the object. To say therefore that by acts of faith we assent to more than we see, or with greater assurance than there is appearance of the truth, is as much as to say, that by acts of faith we see more than we see; and believe more firmly than we can?  
A. The answer of this objection is, that assent being no more than an interior yielding a thing to be (as dissent is an interior denying it to be) the assent of the mind is not always an intellectual sight of the truth of its object. It is not always the same thing in the soul to say a thing is so, and to see it is so. For, if these two were the same, the soul could never assent or rely upon authority, nor be mistaken in any assent, because it is never mistaken in its sight of the truth. Besides, this opinion that confounds the assent of faith with the sight of the truth (whether it be in proper causes, or by its connexion with the evidence of God's revelation) takes away the obscurity, liberty and merit of Christian faith; because à clear sight of the truth (by whatsoever means it comes) is not compatible with those attributes. St Paul tells us that faith is an argument of things not appearing; and surely if they do not appear by faith, they are not seen by an act of faith. More. A great proportion of the supernaturality of faith and of its merit consists in over coming the difficulty we find not only in examining the motives, and in adhering with the will, but in assenting with the understanding to the truth, and to the existence of its revelation; as, to that of the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. But if our assent of faith were an intellectual sight of the truth, or of the existence of Divine revelation of those mysteries, such an assent could not involve, nor we find therein, any intellectual difficulty: for, what intellectual difficulty can there be in saying inwardly, it is so, if we see it is so. There is rather a necessity (in such a case) of saying, it is so. Faith is so far from being an intellectual sight of the verities believed or assented unto, that the less clearly you see the truth, or the revelation credited (so it be prudently credible) the greater your faith is. Therefore Christ reproached St Thomas for not believing the Resurrection until he had seen with his eyes Christ resuscitated. 
●oan. 20.  And told him, they were happy that believed, and did not see what they believed. Now the reason why faith and sight or knowledge are so opposite, is; because the nature and notion of faith is, to supply (and by consequence it doth suppose) the want of sight or knowledge. Hence it is that many say faith and knowledge are no more consistent one with the other, than the want and not want of the same thing. And indeed this notion of faith is well grounded; because experience doth convince, and all confess, our human nature to be so imperfect, that it stands in need of Christian faith to supply the want of knowledge touching Divine mysteries. And even in worldly affairs we must in most rely (for want of clearer knowledge) upon the authority and testimony of lawful witnesses, and take their word for legal evidence; which, as it is a sufficient proof of what they testify, so is it a demonstration of the imperfection of our understandings; and that most of our human assents and judicial sentences are not intellectual sights of the truth itself, but humble submissions to the authority and knowledge of others which we believe, though for aught we evidently know, we may be misinformed by their mistake or malice. But the supernatural signs of the Catholic Church do shine so clearly upon the same, that not any who reflects upon them, and relies upon God's veracity, can prudently entertain the least fear or doubt of being mistaken in its authority, or misled by its doctrine, notwithstanding that we do not clearly see the Divine trust of the Church, or the infallible truth of its Tenets.  
But though the assent of Christian faith be not an intellectual sight of the truth revealed, or of the Divine revelation, it doth suppose (at least in our Predecessors) sensations, or an intellectual sight of some seemingly supernatural signs, which being credibly reported to us by Tradition, are sufficient to gain so much credit and authority for the Church wherein they appeared, as that whoever doth not believe its testimony, and assenteth or yields not to its doctrine as Divine, is justly condemned by Christ himself in his last words to the Apostles; 
Marc. 16. v. 16.  and therefore tells them that his Church shall have visible and supernatural signs, whereby it may be easily discerned from all heretical Assemblies, some whereof he specified, as power to cast out Devils, to cure diseases, to speak unknowen languages, to rid people of serpents; These, besides others related in Scripture, as the Conversion of Nations to Christianity, the continual succession and sanctity of Doctrine and Doctors, the spirit of profecy, and many such miraculous marks, joined with profound humility, and eminent virtues, are so far above all heathens and heretics pretended morality and sanctity, that when their saints are compared with canonised Catholics, they appear to be but hypocritical sycophants, puffed up with that secret pride, so proper to all sectaries, preferring their own private interpretation of scripture before the public sense, and practise of a visible and miraculous Church.  
We conclude therefore that an assent of Christian faith is not an intellectual sight of the truth revealed, nor of the revelation; and yet the faithful do assent to both with no less assurance than if it had been a clear sight of both; because every assent of Christian faith is grounded upon and directed by this truth, God's goodness and veracity will never countenance falsood with miracles, nor permit errors in a Church, whose authority and testimony is confirmed with such marks of his Divine ministry and favour, as the Congregation of the Roman catholics is. This shall be in the ensuing section more particularly proved.  

SECT. VNICA. OF THE RESOLUTION, AND RULE of Catholic faith, and whether this, or Heresy, be consistent with a clear evidence of God's revelation.  
Q. Notwithstanding you have told me that the assent of faith is rather a submission or yielding of our understanding to the Divine authority, than a sight or evidence of the same authority or revelation, yet other Roman Catholik Authors hold the contrary, because they say that the tradition or testimony of the Church is the rule or motive of Catholic Faith. Now this tradition affirming that the faithful delivered to one an other from age to age, from year to year, the same doctrine in every particular, which the Roman catholics now hold, and that they delivered that doctrine not as the doctrine or opinions of men, but as the word and revelation of God, it is as impossible we should not see this doctrine to have been revealed by God, as it is, that a tradition so universal, wherein every man was so particularly concerned, and which hath been conveyed by such evident sensations, (as that of hearing, preaching, seeing, practising, and professing our faith by the most significant words and actions) can be fallacious, or false, or that such multitudes could forget, or would alter the doctrine of this year, which they had received as Divine the year before.  
A. I know that the Author of sure footing hath writ with great zeal some Treatises upon this subject, and hath so confounded those who assert only a moral certainty in Faith, that they can not vindicat themselves from the Atheism whereunto their principles and bare probability of Christianity leads, and wherewith the aforesaid Author doth unanswerably charge them. But because he took or revived this way, thinking that by no other the certainty of Christian faith can be made out, nor the Socinians argument (against the possibility of assenting by an act of faith with more assurance than appearance of the truth) answered; and that I believe both these difficulties may, and aught to be solued otherwise, I make use of other principles for the resolution and rule of faith.  
Q. What is the resolution of faith?  
A. It is an orderly retrogradation from the assent or act of faith to its first motive, or to that which moved, or made us assent.  
Q. What is the Rule of faith?  
A. It is that which directs us to that motive, and to assent or believe as Christians.  
Q. Is not the rule and the motive of faith, the same thing?  
A. Many confound the one with the other. But they are diferent things; The motive of faith is God's veracity. The rule of faith is the Testimony or Tradition of the Church. Faith doth not fallow the nature of its rule; if it did, we could not call it a Divine virtue, because the testimony or Tradition of the Church (which is its rule) is human. It's called Divine faith, because it is specified by, and relies wholly upon God's veracity, and therefore is a Divine virtue.  
Q. Ought not the rule of faith be an infallible direction to the motive of faith? Ought it not also be of such a nature as to manifest clearly its own infallibility to every one that will examine the nature of Tradition, which is the rule of faith?  
A. It ought to be an infallible direction in itself (otherwise it might lead us out of the way) but that infallibility ought not be more manifest to us than the infallibility of faith itself. The reason is, because a Rule, as such, is but a direction; and one may be infallibly directed though himself doth not Know it; as a seaman who obeys the Pilot commanding him to steer his ship by such and such land marks. It is no necessary part or property of a Rule, to evidence it's own infallibility, unless the thing whereunto we are directed be self evident and visible, as we see in the rules and instruments of Mecanik arts. But if the truth of that object or act whereunto a Rule directs us, be of its own nature obscure, and not obvious to our senses, but rather above the reach and sight of our understanding, than the truth or infallibility of the Rule ought not to appear clearly to us; for, if it did, the Rule having a necessary connexion (a part rei) with the act or object whereunto it directs, it would clearly discover to us the truth of that object or act, which is supposed to be obscure. This is explained by examples. A man that is purblind, or travels by night, may be safely and infallibly directed or led between precipices, or through an uncouth and unknown path, though he doth not see his own safety, nor the skill of his Guide, or the certainty of his way. 'tis sufficient for his satisfaction, and encouragement to bear patiently the incommodiousness of his journey, that being credibly informed he believes his Guide is skilful and honest. 'tis so in our journey to Heaven. We do believe that the rule of our faith (which is Catholic Tradition) is infallible (by virtue of God's particular assistance and protection) though we do not clearly see or know it is so. We believe also that every assent of Christian Faith is infallibly true though we can no more see its infallibility than we can the truth of its object, v. g. of the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, Transubstantiation, etc. So that there ought not be greater or clearer evidence required for the infallibility of the rule of faith, than for the infallibility of the truth of faith; this being the end, and the other but subseruient to it. Tradition therefore (even as it is sealed with all the signs of the Church) doth not make clearly evident to us that God revealed any article of faith, or any point of Christianity, nay not that fundamental one of Christ's Divinity; for, though Catholic Tradition and the signs and miracles of the Church may make it clearly evident to us that Christ revealed our faith and doctrine, yet they do not make it clearly evident to us that Christ was God, or that God revealed Christianity: witness all the heresies of witty and learned men in all ages against Christ's Divinity; and every one Knows that against clear evidence their can be no heresy.  
Q. The Church being our Guide of faith, if some Doctors thereof do not see clearly the way, how can we be led to heaven? How can they induce heretics to follow them, or assure them that the saying of our saviour will not be verified in us, si caecus caecum ducat, or that our Doctors are not like the Scribes and pharisees, caeci estis & deuces coecorum?  
A. The greatest blindness in faith is to pretend a clear sight of its rules infallibility. The Catholic Church ( to St Paul and the Scriptures) is a Congregation of men who do not see what they believe, and are led and directed by the holy Ghost in matters of doctrine. This Church is every particular man's immediate Guide, because we follow it, and hold fast to its testimony and tradition; but this Church also hath a Guide (the holy Spirit) which leads it (as Christ says) into all truth by continually directing it, and assisting in its definitions and decrees. When the four first general Counsels defined the Divinity of Christ and of the holy Ghost, they did not clearly see nor demonstrat against heretics the truth of that doctrine, or that God revealed it. For if they had, the heretics could not have continued heretics in their judgements. It's therefore fufficient that in the Catholic Church there be Doctors and arguments to demonstrat that all Dissenters or heretics (by not submitting to its doctrine and authority) go against reason, and the obligation all men have to embrace that religion, which is most likely to be Divine, in regard of greater appearance therein of supernatural signs (which Christ said his Church should have) than in any other. To ground therefore the certainty of Christian Faith, or of its rule, upon any evidence which faith itself declares to be fallacious and fallible (as it doth declare the evidence of our senses and sensations is in the article of Transubstantiation) is to destroy Christianity; and therefore Tradition as receiving its certainty from our sensations, can not be a sufficient ground for the certainty of Christian faith.  
Q. I pray resolve your Catholic faith unto its motive.  
A. That is done by answering questions, Thus. Why do you believe the mystery of the Trinity, or Transubstantiation? Because God, who can not deceive nor be deceived, revealed it. How do you know God revealed it? If you speak of clear knowledge, I do not know that God revealed it. But if you will speak properly as a Christian, or as a man that understands what we mean by Faith, you must not ask how I know, but how, or why do I believe that God revealed it? Then I will answer, that the testimony or tradition of the Church, confirmed with seemingly supernatural signs, testifying that God revealed those mysteries, makes it evidently credible he did reveal them. But because I know my understanding is so imperfect, that I can not pretend to infallibility, and my senses are so fallacious, that by our sensations we are often mistaken, and that faith itself tells us so (in the article of Transubstantiation) I cant no assent to this article, or to the mystery of the Trinity, or to any other (pretended to be evidently revealed by virtue of self evident Tradition and infallible sensations) with that certainty which Christianity requires, until I reflect and rely altogether upon God's veracity, and apply it to the aforesaid testimony and Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church; which declares that itself is authorised by God (and shows for that authority seemingly supernatural signs) to propose as revealed by him those mysteries and all the other particulars of our Faith.  
When I compare and apply the Divine veracity to this testimony of the Church authorised by those signs, I assent to all she proposeth as revealed by God, by this act. Notwithstanding I do not see any clear evidence or infallible connexion between the testimony or signs of the Church, and Gods revealing its doctrine, yet because God's veracity and his aversion from falsood is infinite, I do believe as certainly as I do that God is infinitely inclined to truth, that he never did nor never will permit the least falsood to be so authenticaly proposed as his revelation, or word, as I see every point of the Roman Catholic doctrine is proposed by the tradition and signs of that Church. This general assent is applied to every particular article. Here you see that the motive of our Chatholik Faith is not the Tradition or testimony of the Church, but only God's veracity. You see also that the tradition of the Church is the rule of our Faith, because it helps and directs us to reflect and rely more upon the motive, which is God's veracity, than upon Tradition itself. Lastly you see there is no impossibility in assenting (by an act of faith) with more assurance than there is appearance or evidence of the truth assented unto; because the assurance is not taken from, nor grounded upon the appearance, but upon God's veracity and his infinite inclination to truth. Hence followeth. 1. That whosoever denies any one article of Faith, (whether fundamental, or not fundamental) believeth none at all with Divine or Christian Faith; because he slights the motive thereof (which is God's infinite inclination to truth, and aversion from falsood) to that degree, as to be persuaded the Divinity can permit falsood to be so credibly fathered upon itself, as the Roman Catholic Church doth its doctrine, with so seeming supernatural signs, and so constant a Tradition. The motive of Faith being thus once slighted, none that so slights it, can believe any thing for its sake, or upon its score. 2. It followeth, That the Tradition and Miracles of the Catholic Church do not make it clearly evident to us that God revealed any one article of Christian Faith, nay not that fundamental one of the Divinity of Christ. For, though Tradition makes it clearly evident to us there was such a man as Christ, and such prodigies as his Miracles, and that himself said he was God, yet that Tradition and those prodigies do not make it clearly evident to us, (as it did not to the jews) that Christ was realy God. For, if this had been clearly evidenced to them or us, neither jews nor Socinians or any other ancient heretics, could have been obstinate or heretics in their judgements against Christ's Divinity.  
Q. If I do not see an infallible connexion between the assent or rule of Faith and God's revelation, I must needs see there is no infallible connexion, and may say, the assent of Faith may be false, seeing Tradition, which is the rule of that assent, is fallible. On the other side I must say't he assent of Faith can not be false. So that if Tradition be not so self evident as from it to conclude clearly the impossibility of Faith's falsood, it must be granted that I see Faith is, and is not, infallible: and that Tradition is, and is not, an infallible Rule.  
A. Though I do not see any infallible connexion between God's revelation and the Tradition of the Church, or any other rule directing to believe what he realy revealed, or (which is the same) between the assent of Faith, and the rule of Faith; yet it doth not follow that I must see, or say there is no necessary connexion between them. For at the same time I do not see that necessary connexion, or infallibility, I do believe there is that connexion, though I see it not: nay 'tis therefore I can believe it because I do not see it: Faith requiring that what is believed, be not seen. It would indeed be a contradiction to say, I see and do not see the infallibility of Tradition, or of Faith; but 'tis not any to say, I do not see, and do believe that infallibility. It may be as well said a man who is blind, and infallibly or securely led by a knowing Guide through a dangerous way, doth see his ruin or danger, because he doth not see his own safety, or the infallibility of his Guide, though he believes himself secure from all danger.  
Q. Is it not clearly evident that God can not permit falfood to be so authenticaly proposed in his name, as the Roman Catholic Church doth her doctrine, by so continued a tradition, and so surprising signs, as her miracles, sanctity, conversion of Nations, etc.  
A. Though I am of opinion God can not permit such an appearance of Divine truth to be a mistake, yet our understandings being so imperfect, it would be presumption in us to define, or pretend to demonstrat what God can do, or not do. We only know he can not sin. But we do ●ot know scientificaly whether he may not 〈◊〉 to punish the sins of some) permit the Church to err, and the world to be deluded by their clearest and most frequent ●ensations, whereupon (as our Adversary sayeth) the certainty of Catholic Tradition is grounded. And though both Scripture and Tradition say, the Church shall never fail or err, yet we do not pretend to clear evidence that either Scripture or Tradition is God's word.  

SUBSECT. HOW A MAN MAY ASSENT in matters of Faith, with more assurance than there is appearance of the truth.  
Q. If it be not clearly evident to us by the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, nor by God's veracity, that he revealed its doctrine, how can we assent or believe with infallible certainty or assurance, that God revealed it? Is it in our power, or even in God's power, to make us affirm inwardly and certainly any thing, we not knowing whether it be so, or no? How therefore can we affirm inwardly and certainly the truth of the Trinity, or that God revealed it, if we know it not clearly either by God's veracity, or by the tradition of the Church?  
A. Assents grounded upon authority differ in this from assents grounded upon clear knowledge, that the certainty of these are derived from, and measured by the clear sight and evidence we have of their truth, or of the objects being as they are affirmed to be. But the certainty of assents grounded upon authority, is not derived from, or measured by any clear evidence or sight of their truth, but by the persuasion we have of the persons we believe his knowledge and inclination to truth. Now all men who admit of a God, being most certainly persuaded that he is infinitely inclined to truth, they may, and aught, to assent with the greatest assurance and certainty imaginable, that God did realy reveal all that which the Church proposeth as Divine doctrine; for, though we do not see this truth in the mystery or matter delivered by Catholic tradition, nor in that evidence which our sensations give to tradition itself; yet by reflecting upon God's infinite aversion from falsood, and upon our own persuasion of his infinite veracity, and seeing so great an appearance of his being deeply engaged and concerned for the truth of a Church's testimony that looks so like his own, affirming the doctrine to be Divine, we are bound in conscience to believe without the least doubt, or at least we are bound to endeavour to believe without doubt (which must be a rational endeavour seeing our obligation of endeavouring is so evident to us) that God is the Author of the Roman Catholic doctrine, and hath revealed it; for, if he had not, he would never permit the same to be so plausibly and probably proposed as Divine by Miracles and other signs of the Church, that prudent and learned men must sin in being obstinate against its doctrine and testimony. And this is that we mean when we say that we apply the Divine veracity to every particular point of faith; not by seeing the revelation itself in the tradition or testimony of the Church (for then we could not deny its doctrine was revealed, nor be heretics) but by having so much veneration for God's veracity, that whensoever it seems to be so publicly engaged, and prudently believed as we see it is in the Roman Catholic Church, God speaks, or revealeth, what it proposeth as his word.  
Q. Methinks the veneration we have for God and his veracity, ought rather oblige us not to assent to any doctrine as spoken or revealed by him, unless it be clearly evident to us, that he spoke or revealed it; for, if we do otherwise, we expose his holy name to contempt, and ourselves to damnation: by venturing to father what we fancy upon God, when perhaps he never said or revealed what we imagined.  
A. It's a prerogative due to sovereignty (and a fortiori to the Deity) to speak and command by Ministers and inferior officers, which bear the badges of the royal authority. And it is not only a disrespect, but obstinacy and rebellion, not to obey laws and commands so authenticaly proposed. So likewise it must be not only a sin of disrespect and contempt, but of heretical obstinacy, not to believe that God speaks or commands by the Roman Catholic Church; when its testimony and tradition of having Gods trust and authority to declare that he speaks or reveals its doctrine, is authenticaly proposed by signs so supernatural in appearance that no human authority is so authentik, and no other Church can or dares pretend to the like. The more sovereign is any superiority and veracity, the greater obligation there is in subjects not to exact for their obedience thereunto, or belief thereof, clearer evidence of its commanding, than is usual and sufficient in human affairs when Princes proclaim or command. And the more infallible the veracity of him is who claims the authority (if this be authenticaly proposed) the greater is the obligation of assenting inwardly thereunto, without clearer evidence that it proceeds from the infallible Author of the same, than such a moral certainty as the signs of the Church create: this being the clearest that is consistent with the nature, liberty, obscurity and obsequiousness of Christian Faith.  
Q. Ought there not to be in the true Church an evident and conclusive argument against heretics and Pagans, to let them see their obstinacy, by showing clearly to them that God revealed what they deny to be true, or to be matter of Faith?  
A. If men were to be saved by Demon. strations or clear knowledges, deduced one from the other, what you say, were fit and necessary. But God having decreed to save men by Faith, rather than by science, by a meritorious and free, rather than a necessary or demonstrative assent of himself being the Author and Revealer of the Christian doctrine, it is so far from being fit the Doctors of his Church should convict Pagans or heretics by clearly evidencing to them God revealed the saving truths, that it is not possible. For, though some Divines have said, Faith is consistent with clear evidence of God having revealed the truth of its object, because forsooth, though the believer doth see the truth (and by consequence can not doubt of it, or be an heretic) yet he doth not see it in its proper causes, but only in God's revelation; notwithstanding I say this unwary opinion of some schoolmen, themselves can not well reconcile with it the merit, obscurity, liberty, and obsequiousness of Christian Faith, nor show how 'tis possible for any learned Catholic or other man to be an heretic in his judgement, because the malice of Heresy (this being an error in the understanding, as well as obstinacy in the will) consists in doubting or denying inwardly that God did reveal such an article of Faith; but if every learned Catholic doth see (by virtue of tradition) that he did realy reveal it, he can not see nor say the contrary in his mind, and by consequence can not be an heretic. And yet it's granted on all sides that any learned man without forgetting any part of his learning or knowledge may be an heretic.  
Besides, the assent and certainty of Christian Faith doth not enter further upon its object than to say it exists, or that the act of Faith is true, it medles not with why it exists, or with any of its proper or particular causes, that is, with any reasons why the object exists, or why the act of Faith is true; it is grounded only upon God's revelation, and this says no more than it is so, all other reasons and causes are impertinent, as to the nature and use of Faith; Faith being an imperfect knowledge and a total relying upon the Divine authority, and not upon the knowledge of proper or any other causes. Now, it is impossible that the obscurity and nature of Faith can be more (or so much) destroyed by subsequent evidence, impertinent to its end and nature, than by an evidence that immediately and directly opposeth and is inconsistent with its motive, its merit, and nature. If the act of Faith be not consistent with the clear sight or evidence of its truth in the proper and particular causes, notwithstanding those causes are not its motive, nor considered or touched by the act, or assent of Faith; how can its merit, obscurity, or nature consist and continue with a clear sight of its truth, or of its motive, or (which is the same) with evidence of the Divine revelation? This sight or evidence being as destructive of the obscurity and difficulty we meet with in assenting to the mysteries and of the trust we repose in God by believing (which is no less essential to Faith than its truth) as it is directly oppofit to the state of obscurity wherein we must be, if we trust his word delivered to us by the Church, as also to the darkness and desguise he must speak to us in, if he will have us trust him and merit by Faith, or indeed believe him at all; for, men do not believe when they assent to a truth they see or can not deny. And it is impossible for them to see that God (who is truth itself) speaks or revealeth any mystery, without seeing also 'tis truth he speaks or reveals. Our adversaries seem to make the Montebanks saying, seeing is believing, the rule of Divine Faith.  
Q. Why should not the merit of Faith be consistent with the clear evidence of the truth thereof in its proper causes; or with clear evidence of Gods revealing the mystery believed? Is it not sufficient for a meritorious assent that the Will applied the understanding to clear the difficulties which might retard or suspend the act of Faith before its actual assent? Must this assent also meet with obscurity, and overcome a difficulty in saying (and not seeing) that God revealed what it assents unto, after all our former pains taken in finding out the rule of Faith, and examining the nature of Catholic Tradition?  
A. The chief merit of Christian Faith consists in overcoming the difficulty we find in assenting to more than we see, or with more assurance than we see there is evidence of truth. If we did see, or certainly know that God revealed what we assent unto by the act of Faith, we could not have that difficulty in assenting to the mysteries thereof which we find by experience: for, what difficulty can there be in saying inwardly, God revealed the Trinity, or the Trinity is true, if we see that God revealed that mystery, and (by an immediate consequence) that it is true? Therefore the proper and immediate merit of an act of Faith (as such) doth consist in overcoming the difficulty of actualy assenting that God revealed the mystery or matter we believe he did reveal, though we see not his revelation, nor any necessary connexion between it and the doctrine, tradition, or testimony of the Church. As for those other difficulties antecedent to this (and to the act of Faith) which we overcome, and are rather dispositions to make ourselves fit to believe (by removing the obstacles of education and custom, or by examining the nature of Tradition, and the motives of credibility) than immediate acts of Faith; the merit that results from overcoming those difficulties, is not the proper and immediate merit of Faith itself, because it is antecedent to it, for after all our aforesaid inquiry and examination of the rule and motives of Faith, we find still a great difficulty in assenting actualy or believing, that God revealed what Tradition affirms he did; this, our own experience doth demonstrat, and it may be proved by divers places of holy Scripture, as that of Luc. 19 when one having been credibly informed (and perhaps seen) how Christ wrought many miracles, he desired Christ to dispossess his son of a dumb Devil: Christ told him if he could believe, he would deliver his son from that spirit. Without doubt the Father found great difficulty in the very act of Faith whereby he believed Christ's power; for though he said, I do believe, yet he cried out, adding, Lord help my incredulity. And yet this man was very well disposed, and informed of Christ's power and miracles before he brought his son to him, otherwise he would not have taken so much pains to follow him, and present his son before him.  
And indeed incredulity (as obstinacy also) doth suppose as much information and evidence of the motives of credibility, and of the rule of Faith, or Tradition, as is requisite for the actual assent of Faith; otherwise none could be called incredulous or obstinate for not believing. The faithful therefore merit and overcome a great difficulty by the very act of Faith, after that all other difficulties precedent to it, are cleared or overcome. And in overcoming this last great difficulty consists chief the supernaturality which is most peculiar to the act of Faith. Heretics therefore may be convicted of obstinacy and heresy, though they do not clearly see, nor we evidently conclude (by tradition, or any thing else) that God revealed what they deny or doubt of, and the Church proposeth as revealed by him: For, heresy doth not consist in an impossibility, but it would be one if it were requisite that learned heretics be obstinate against a clear and conclusive evidence of God having revealed what they deny or doubt of. How can any passion or pride blind a learned heretic (if it deprives him not wholly of his wits, and then he can not sin, or be an heretic) so far, as to make him deny or doubt of what he sees evidently concluded God said, or revealed? That were to deny God is God, or the existence of a Deity. A learned heretic therefore can not be better or more clearly convicted of heretical obstinacy, than by our evidently concluding against him, that he is obliged in conscience (to avoid the threatened danger of damnation if he doth not believe the Church, whose testimony is confirmed with Miracles) to assent to that doctrine as Divine, which is delivered by Catholic Tradition and confirmed by the motives of credibility, though it be not clearly evident that its doctrine is Divine, or its tradition infallible. More of this hereafter. Now I will prove the evident obligation all men (who are informed of our Faith) have to believe the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as Divine, as also how they are obliged in conscience to inform themselves thereof.     

CHAP. V HOW THE MIRACLES OF THE Roman Church evidently convict all its Adversaries of damnable obstinacy; and how a credible report of them obligeth all men to inform themselves of those miracles, and doctrine confirmed by them; and that of all Christian Congregations the Roman Catholik alone is the true Catholic Church.  
Q. Supposing the Catholic Church can not be composed of all or any two Congregations dissenting in the least point of doctrine, as hath been proved in the precedent Chapter, I desire to know which of them all is that one true Catholic Church we ought to believe, according to that article of the Apostles Creed I believe in the holy Catholic Church, and out of which there is no salvation?  
A. You know the true Catholic Church is only that Congregation of Christians which hath the signs Christ said (Marc. 16.) should follow the true believers: and that those signs are, the casting out of Devils (not by conjuring, but) in the name of Christ; the gift of tongues, the conversion of Nations to Christianity, the curing of diseases, raising of the dead, and other supernatural marks of God's trust and truth committed only to the ministry of that Church, and by which marks i● must be discerned from all false Congregations, pretending to be either the whole, or a part of the Catholic Church.  
Q. Out of your discourse I gather that all the marks of the true Catholic Church are reduced to miracles; because supernatural sanctity, the conversion of Nations to Christianity, the gift of profecy, etc. are as great miracles, as the casting out of Devils, curing diseases, raising the dead, and the gift of tongues. But it is a common saying among Protestants, that miracles are ceased in the Church; and some Catholics grant they are so few, and wrought in those remote regions of japan and China, that you can hardly meet with one who did ever see a miracle. How therefore can miracles be the marks whereby every man may be directed to know the true Catholic Church, if few or none see them?  
A. I grant that all the marks of the Catholic Church must be miraculous; otherwise they were not fit motives for prudent men to submit their judgements to the testimony or ministry of that Church, as to the Church of God. But miracles are not ceased, nor confined to those remote regions of japan and China: There is not a Catholic Nation in the world which doth not show some things at least so like supernatural miracles, that as wise and wary men as any in Christendom, believe them to be so. And such Protestants as pretend they are not, can not with any probability show that the matter of fact is false, or that the manner of working them is fraudulent or natural; seeing therefore Christ himself assures us that supernatural miracles shall follow the true believers, and that until the end of the world there will be true believers, and by consequence a Catholic Church, we are bound in conscience to believe, that only is the true Church, wherein we see (or at least hear credibly reported) there are true miracles, or things so like true miracles, that as wise and as wary men as any in the world (after a severe scrutiny, and serious study) mistake them for true miracles, notwithstanding they know that upon their not being mistaken in so important a matter doth depend their everlasting happiness, or misery. 
Dr Downham in hi● Treatise of Antichrist l. 1. c. 9 pag. 111. saith, neither Turks, nor jews, nor any other Churches of Christians, but only the Pope and Church of Rome do vaunt of miracles.   
Q. Is there but one Congregation of Christians that pretends to such miracles?  
A. No.  
Q. Which is that?  
A. The Roman Catholic.  
Q. If all other Christian Congregations be against the Roman Catholik, and that in every Christian Congregation there be as wise and wary men, and as willing to be saved, as any Roman catholics; why should any man be bound in conscience to believe the Roman Catholik miracles are true, when as great, or a greater number of wise and learned men do maintain they are not true miracles?  
A. When learned parties agree in the fact of an accident so extraordinary, that no natural cause thereof (after diligent scarch) can be known, but seems to be above the power of all natural causes and human industry, doubtless the party which believes the fact to be supernatural, or a miracle, deserves to be credited before all which contradict the same, and can give no good reason for their contradiction. 1. Because in some Christian Congregation or other there must be true miracles, otherwise Christ's words, Marc. 16. can not be verified. And seeing no other Christian Congregation but the Roman Catholik pretends (at least upon so public and probable grounds) to have true miracles, the Roman Catholik is to be credited in this point before all others. 2. It is not consistent with Gods infinite veracity to permit so public and probable an appearance of true miracles for confirming falsood, as the appearance of miracles in the Roman Catholic Church is. For that, veracity is an inclination to truth, and an aversion from falsood; and by consequence, the Divine veracity (being infinite) inuolues an infinite aversion from falsood. But an infinite aversion from falsood is not consistent with God's permission of so probable and plausible an appearance of true miracles to confirm any false doctrine, as we see in the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore if the miracles of the Roman Catholic Church be not true, God's infinite veracity (as also his goodness and providence) may be questioned.  
This may be explained to the vulgar sort by a similitude. Suppose there were in some shire or town of England or Scotland a company of men acting in the King's name, as his privy or great Council, with all the forms and formalities thereof, as a Lord Chancellor, or Commissioner, Treasurer, Secretaries, members of Parliament, Clerks, etc. and that a considerable part of the Nation obeyed their orders and commands, as men authorised by the King, who is not ignorant of these public proceed, and by consequence can not be rationaly thought averse, but rather seem to approve of them, especially if he be able (without danger of disturbance) to hinder and humble this pretended Council, by declaring them to be but a counterfeit Assembly of Cheats and Rebels, and by punishing them accordingly. A King I say that might hinder such a counterfeit Parliament or Council from abusing himself and his subjects by so seeming a legal authority, and yet would not, can not be thought to have any truth, goodness, or justice; because by his connivance at those impostures, which he might have discovered without trouble or inconueniencies, he doth countenance, and confirm that Council as commissioned by himself. This may be easily and aptly applied to the Roman Catholic Church, which is invested with so many miraculous marks of God's authority, and therefore doth act by a warrant so seemingly Divine, that God's bare permission of such a cheat as Protestants suppose the Roman Catholic Church to be, would conclude his want of providence, goodness, and veracity, and by consequence there can be no excuse or rational hopes of salvation for Protestants, or any others that will not submit their judgement to a Church and doctrine so publicly commissioned and confirmed by God's great seal, Miracles; as yet shall more particularly appear in the ensuing sections.  

SECT. I. WHETHER THE CREDIBLE and constant report there is of true miracles wrought in the Roman Catholic Church, be a sufficient evidence to convict of damnable obstinacy and heresy such as stight them or will not hear of them.  
Q. Is it then upon this ground of not believing the Roman Catholik miracles, which are recounted by the ancient Fathers or others, Roman catholics say, that we Protestants are obstinate heretics, and that such of us as die not members of your Church, are damned? Is not this a foolish and uncharitable opinion?  
A. One of the grounds of that censure is the Definition of Heresy, which is, an error in the understanding, and obstinacy in the will against any truth or authority that is sufficiently proposed as Divine. Now the great appearance and moral evidence there is of the Roman Catholic Church (together with its tradition) doth sufficiently propose or declare its doctrine and authority to be Divine. For, though it be not demonstratively evident that the Roman Catholik miracles are true miracles, nor that its tradition and testimony is infallible, yet it is moraly evident (and by consequence sufficiently evident) that its doctrine is Divine, and that God is Author of the same, it being confirmed by such Miracles, and that by them he doth authorize that Church, as Princes do their officers by letters patents under their great seal; Miracles being the great seal wherewith God's Ministry and doctrine is made authentik.  
Q. What is moral evidence of a miracle!  
A. Moral evidence of a miracle is, so credible and so constant a report thereof, that to deny or doubt of the fact reported, argues imprudence in the dissenter, and renders his caution of not believing, both rash and ridiculous; because it destroys (at least) all historical and human Faith.  
Q. May not a man believe History, and rely upon human authority, though he believes not the stories of the most authentik Roman Catholik miracles?  
A. No, if he discourseth consequently, and according to the rules of reason, whereof one principal is, that the same cause produceth the same effects; and the same authority the same assent or belief. If therefore the same ancient Fathers or Authors upon whose testimony or tradition you rely for believing a miracle of Christian religion in genral, or of the Trinity or Incarnation in particular, recount the like miracles of Transubstantiation, prayer to Saints, or Purgatory, you are rash and irrational in contemning that same authority, which you credited in as difficult a subject, and as much above your comprehension: for, you ought to believe both the miracles and mysteries, or neither.  
Q. Is moral evidence of true miracles sufficient to convict of damnable obstinacy and heresy all such as slight that evidence, and will not examine the grounds and effects thereof?  
A. Yes The reason is; 1. because they are a sufficient evidence that the doctrine confirmed by them is Divine. 2. because Christ's miracles were only moraly (not demonstratively) evident as miracles; for, if they had been demonstratively evident as such, none of the jews could deny them to be Divine, or could think they were wrought by the power of Beelzebub. And though it was but moraly evident that Christ's miracles were true miracles, yet that moral evidence was sufficient to convict the incredulous jews of damnable obstinacy and heresy.  
Q. I desire to Know what it is you call damnable obstinacy?  
A. Damnable obstinacy is a settled resolution of remaining in your own opinion of religion, or a neglect of enquiring into the grounds of any other, notwithstanding the prudent doubts you have, or would have had (if you had not been careless) of being saved in the way wherein you have been educated, or made choice of.  
Q. I do agree with you that if one doubts of the truth of his own religion, he will be damned unless he inquires into it, or some other, until he doth what he can to be satisfied; but I can not be persuaded that a man is bound to doubt of that religion wherein he hath been bred, because he hears of miracles wrought in an other, unless his own be so absurd, or inconsequent, that he must doubt of its truth whether he will or no.  
A. There are two sorts of doubts. 1. is a doubt which occurrs to ourselves by our own observation. 2. is a doubt not started by ourselves, but by some other more learned in matters of religion, and as much to be credited, and as little to be suspected of having any design (but our salvation) in our change of opinion, as he whom we most confide in. Doubts of our own observation are very ordinary, being grounded upon the most obvious occurrences, as a public change of Religion, either upon the score of conscience, or interest: this last is as suspicious (even to the dullest comprehensions) as the other is edifying. Not only the change into a thriving religion, but constancy in a persecuted one, doth make great impression upon all sorts of people, as also relations of miracles credibly reported. These impressions, and the inspirations which follow them, raise doubts; and these) if not endeavoured to be cleared) are a sufficient cause of damnation.  
The doubts which are raised in ourselves by the example, or the discourse of others, who have no design upon us but the salvation of our souls, are also damnable to us, if we neglect the clearing of them by all the ways that a business of so great importance doth require. And the more diligent we must be in the search, by how much more the persons interested in maintaining our persuasion (I mean such as live by the ministry thereof) deter us from so rational a scrutiny; which they would never dissuade us from, if they did not fear a discovery of their own wickedness, and of their causes weakness.  
Q. I pray sir, apply this discourse to the Protestants, and Roman catholics of England.  
A. I beg your pardon sir, I am loath to offend the Parliament. But I will apply it to the Arians and Roman catholics of Spain. The Heir of that crown, Prince Hermenegild, having been bred an Arian, doubted of the truth of that pretended reformation; this doubt was ocasioned by the discourse he had with St Leander Archbishop of Sevil. At length he was convinced of the falsood of that Arian heresy, and reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church. The King his Father would needs have him receive the Arian communion, which the Prince refusing to do, the wicked Father (for fear of his people) sacrified the Heir apparent of the crown to their fury, and caused him to be murdered. This change to, and constancy in the Roman Catholic Religion (together with a report of some miracles) wrought so much upon all the people of Spain, that a little after, they all turned catholics; and a law was made, that none but Catholics should have employment in that Kingdom. Hence you may infer what strong influence the example of a religious and resolute Prince hath even upon the most vulgar judgements, and how damnable it is in all people, not to examine the motives of so edifying a conversion as that whereby one hazards and waves the greatest temporal interest; and how certain it is that God will punish as well in this world as in the next, all such as resist or neglect the impressions and inspirations which men feel in themselves to follow a religion so generously professed, and preferred before all the greatness and glory of an Imperial Croun.  
Q. If Princely suffering upon the score of conscience be so great a miracle, why shall not the Lady jane Gray's suffering (and Queen Elizabeth's also) for the Protestant religion, be miracles; and confirm that profession as the true Catholic? Add to these the patience and constancy of those glorious Protestant Martyrs recounted by john Fox in his Acts and Monuments.   

SECT. II. OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN Catholik constancy, and heretical obstinacy: and wherein doth each consist.  
A Your objection is material, and I shall endeavour to answer it as clearly and in as few words as I can: but depending of a proper notion of heresy, it inuolues some difficulty. Experience and history hath proved (almost in every age) that some heretics suffer with as great resolution all Kind of torments (and death itself) for their false religion, as catholics do for the true one. And yet we all agree in terming the heretics resolution, obstinacy, and the Catholics constancy. The reason is, because the heretic suffers for adhering to a particular opinion, and to his own private judgement; The Catholic for conforming himself to the belief of the universal Church, and for submitting his judgement to the same. Therefore St Paul says that an heretic is condemned by his own proper judgement; 
2. Petr. 1. 2. No profecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation.  and St Peter tells us that the true interpretation of Scripture is not that of a private man, but of the Church. And the very word Heresy, signifies a particular choice, or a wilful division and declining from the first doctrine.  
This supposed, there can be no difficulty in declaring why an heretic may without any miracle suffer with great resolution the greatest torments for maintaining his heresy; Because men are naturaly inclined to follow their own opinions, and to maintain their own choice, and therefore we see what endeavours are used in vain, to persuade an humorsom and wilful man or woman, to recall any foolish Act they did of their own heads; and how hard it is to convince them that it was ill done. Now, every heretic makes his religion his own act, not by an humble submission of his judgement to the Church (as catholics do) but by a proud preference of his own understanding before that of all others. This needs no other proof than that pity which every pitiful Protestant (even the women) hath of the most learned Roman catholics ignorance and Idolatry. In this pride and preference of their proper judgement, and in the wilfulness of continuing in their own choice, doth consist the obstinacy of heretics; as the constancy of catholics takes its denomination from that religious perseverance which is grounded upon so rational a resolution as it is to submit and stick to the doctrine of a Church signalised with so many supernatural and visible marks of being trusted by God, to teach and preach the true Catholic Faith, as hath been demonstrated in the 5. Chap.  
Q. I grant that the difference between Catholic constancy and heretical obstinacy is, that this is a more wilful than rational adherency to a man's proper opinion, or to a private interpretation, of Scripture against the testimony and tradition of the Church; and Catholic constancy is a religious perseverance in a resolution of submitting our judgements to the same Church: but how will you make it appear that our Protestant interpretation of Scripture is a private one or that we are guilty of pride, seeing we follow the interpretation of the Church of England, and submit our judgements thereunto?  
A. I will make that heretical obstinacy appear in those very Protestant Saints and Martyrs which john Fox doth celebrat for their constancy. And to begin (as you do) with the most innocent of them all, the Lady jane Grey, she did wilfully choose, and prefer before the Catholic, a new religion, or an interpretation of Scripture that was not as old as herself, though she was very young. It had been hatched by Cranmer, and confirmed by the Parliament of Ed. 6. but some five years before she suffered: and was then Known and declared by an other Parliament (1. Mar.) to be heresy, and contrary to the public sense and continual tradition of the Catholic Church, and therefore was called by the Protestants themselves a Reformation of the old doctrine. So that though the Church and Parliament of England in the reign of K. Ed. 6. called it à Common prayer, or a public worship, yet was it declared by the Parliament of Q. Marry a bundle of Cranmers' errers, and private opinions, which himself and some few others invented, or borrowed from Luther and Caluin, and other Innovators, who had resolved to make themselves popular and powerful by setting up their own private interpretations of Scripture, and opinions for points of Religion. So that though all England, or a greater part of the world than England is, should embrace that Reformation, and submit their judgements to that Church, their protestant Tenets are still private opinions, and the submission of their judgements to the same doth still involve that pride and preference of their own choice of a novelty, or new interpretation of Scripture before the ancient doetrin and against the public testimony of all precedent English Parliaments, as also against the tradition of the Catholic Church. As for Queen Elizabeth, she accommodated her religion to the times, until she got the crown; and then she made use of the new Faith to serve her turn, and secure her interest. Indeed john Fox his Martyrs were great but foolish sufferers; their ignorance was proportioned to their obstinacy; they cast themselves into the fire without Knowing wherefore. And yet john Fox says those Tinkers, Tanners, and silly women confuted the Bishops that endeavoured to save their lives, which themselves had forfeited  to the ancient laws of the land. And though they died not Martyrs, yet they died like Englishmen, that is, with as little concern and as great courage, as if their cause had been better. But this is no miracle in England, though the foolish partiality of john Fox his pen doth endeavour to make his Protestant Readers mistake those proud mad fellows for pious Martyrs.  
Q. Though I do approve of your difference between heretical obstinacy, and Catholic constancy, yet I must still condemn your application thereof to protestancy and popery, for an other reason; which is, that Protestancy is so far from inuoluing pride, that the Church of England doth not as much as pretend to be infallible in its doctrine; neither doth it exact from its children a submission of their judgements to itself, but only to Scripture. And I hope there is as much humility (I am sure there is more safety) in submitting our judgements to Gods written word, as to the tradition of the Roma Catholik Church.  
A. As I commend the Church of England's modesty and ingenuity in acknowledging its fallibility, and in dispensing with the submission of your judgements to the same (no fallible Church can exact or expect a submission of judgement in any points of doctrine) so must I continue in my opinion of the pride and obstinacy of protestancy. 1. Because you will not believe any thing inculcated to you by God, unless it be delivered to you in writing, as if the Divine majesty had not as much right to command by orders intimated to us by word of mouth, as by his writing. All the true believers of the world until Moses his law, were governed by the testimony and tradition of the Church, without any writing or Scriptures: neither is any thing written in the old or new Testament whereupon Protestant's may with any colour of probability ground their pretended privilege of not believing any thing but Scripture; and this doth in many places tell them, they are as much obliged to believe Tradition, or Gods unwritten word, as the written. Now, why Englishmen, and some Northern people alone, should refuse to obey the Catholic Church, unless it shows for every particular God's order in writing, is not intelligible, themselves and all other Nations owning the contrary to be prudently practised in all human governments? This must be pride and obstinacy.  
2. The pride and obstinacy of this their pretended privilege (which is the life and foundation of all Protestant Reformations) is further discovered by the practice of aprinciple wherein all Protestants agree: which is, that not one of them thinks he is bound in conscience to submit his judgement to any of their own or any other Congregations sense of Scripture in controverted texts, if that sense agreeth not with his own private interpretation; If that of his Church agree not with his own sense, he may stick to his own, and reject the other. And this is the reason why Protestants are divided into so many sects. How this principle and practice may be excused from heretical pride and obstinacy, I know not: For, they stand at a defiance with all Churches, and will as little submit their judgements to their own, as to that of Rome. Every Protestant is by the fundamental Tenet of the Reformation his own Master, and a supreme judge of Gods written law. Doth not this demonstrat how those Reformations are founded upon pride and obstinacy? Can there be greater, than that simple men and silly women should presume to be Masters and judges of those Divine and incomprehensible mysteries? That they should prefer their private judgements before that of their own Church, and of ours, unto which the greatest Doctors in all ages have submitted? What a proud, foolish, insolent, and obstinate people would the English conclude any other to be, whereof not one would acquiesce in the judgement or sentence of the Courts of judicature, but every one assume to himself the power of deciding his own law suits, and of appealing from the Chancery, or even from the Parliament, to his own private opinion and judgement? Let every Protestant know this is his own case in matters of religion. He appeals in what concerns Faith and the sense of Scripture, from his own Church and the Catholic, and general Counsels, to his own proper judgement. Doth he think that Christ would institute so absurd a spiritual government? Can any man of sense imagine it agrees with Scripture? To what purpose then should the Scriptures and St Paul bid us be of one belief, peaceable, and humble? Is any of these virtues, or that of Catholic Faith, consistent with such pride, obstinacy, and dissensions, as this principle must inspire, and we see in all the reformed Churches, and in that of our own Country? You see therefore that your reformed Churches and interpretations of Scripture have so little in them of the unity, obsequiousness, and humility of Christian Faith so much recommended to us by St Paul, that they seem to the most learned Roman Catholics not only to savour of heresy, but to be the very source of heretical pride, and damnable obstinacy, so far are they from having the least smack of the foundation or fruit of Christianity.   

SECT. III. SOME INFERENCES FIT TO BE considered by all Protestants, and whether any may be saved if they die in that persuasion.  
IF Protestancy doth involve that pride and obstinacy which I have endeavoured to prove, and deduce from its principles, without doubt he who dies a Protestant, is damned. But Because some are called Protestants, and yet know not what protestancy is, I will deliver my opinion how far their ignorance may excuse them from being damned by their profession.  
1. No Protestant Bishop or Minister can be saved, if they repent not their having been of that religion. The reason is; though many of them were more ignorant than they are, yet that ignorance can not excuse them, because their calling doth oblige them to be at least so learned in History (if not in Divinity) as to know the novelty of their own reformed Tenets, and the manners and motives of the Authors of their Reformations. These having been so contrary to Christianity and morality, the Preachers and Promoters deserve nothing so well as damnation, either for damning others, or for not knowing they will be damned themselves.  
2. No man or woman that hath read, or heard the contents of Doctor Heylins' History of the Church of England, or of any such Protestant Author, relating the change of Religion, and the causes of that change in our Country, can be saved, if they continue and die Protestants. For, the cheat of that change is so visible, the motives so wicked, and the practices of the Authors and Actors so abominable, that there is not the least room left for a tolerable excuse, or conscientious mistake. The spiritual supremacy of a layman doth not only involve a contradiction, but the occasion of King Henry 8. assuming it, was so scandalous, and the way of exercising it so ridiculous, that every one was as much offended at his presumption in making himself Christ's Vicar in spiritualibus, as they were at his profaneness in making Cromuel of Putney his own Vicar general over the Clergy. And all this confusion was raised, because the Pope would not comply with his lust in divorcing him from his lawful wife, and marrying him to An Bullen. There was not a man in England then, who did not see and say from whence the King's spiritual supremacy (the foundation and distinction of prelatik Protestancy) had its rise, and their saying is to this day continued, and grown a rude Proverb.  
As for the change of the Mass into the Common prayer, it seemed even to all the poor Country folks so absurd, that they took up arms against it in K. Ed. 6. reign: and both it and the whole protestant Reformation was condemned as heresy by Act of Parliament, 1. Mar. And though the same Reformation was again restored by an other Act of Q. Eliz. some five years after, yet every one Knew that the very same persons who voted for restoring it were they who had condemned it, and now went against their conscience for Q. Elizabeth's sake, who not only promised rewards, but gave hopes (as Doctor Heylin Confesseth) of marrying herself to divers persons (even of the lower House) who were instrumental in getting Votes, and securing her interest by reviving and settling that Religion which themselves had cried down as heresy in Q. Mary's days. What ploughman or Ditcher in any part of England hath not wit and learning enough to confute and contemn such a change, and such a reformation? There needs no Logik or Divinity. A bare Knowledge of the fact is sufficient to discover the fraud. Few in England are so ignorant as not to Know that Henry 8. turned away Q. Katherine for his love to An Bullen, and that Q. Elizabeth brought in the new Religion to strengthen her weak title to the crown against the Known right of the Stevards.  
3. Though it were granted that the Knowledge of this change of Religion doth not quite convince the most illiterate and dull people of its falsood, yet it can not be denied but that it must of necessity raise prudent doubts against its being Divinely inspired; and that whosoever is careless in clearing those doubts, doth sin mortaly, and will be damned, if he dies in that sin. For, a prudent doubt is as if it were the twilight of reason, discovering some absurdity in that which formerly we unwarily believed, not reflecting upon the same until some new chance, or circumstance made it appear more clearly unto us. When this new chance or circumstance doth make an impression upon our mind and conscience, we are bound to inquire after the cause and cure of that impression and remorse; if not, the sore will turn into a canker, which can not be otherwise prevented than by a conscientious curiosity, according to every one's capacity. The illiterate person is not bound to learn to read, or to study Philosophy, but he is bound to repair to his honest neighbours, to inquire and hear what the Papists can say for their Religion, as well as the Protestants. And if he doth this without prejudice, and with a good intention, he will clear his doubt and conscience.  
Q. I am confident there are many poor Country fellows in England who never heard of King Henry 8. amours with An Bullen, nor of his assuming the spiritual supremacy, nor of Q. Elizabeth's reviving protestancy to salve her own illegitimacy, or to secure her interest against the Queen of Scots right. How then can these men doubt or discourse of what they never heard? must they also be damned?  
A. There is not one in England who hath not heard of Persecution and Proclamations against Papists, and that these men suffer for their conscience, and the old Religion. This can not but excite a curiosity to Know what men these are, and why they should be so foolish, as to suffer for so ridiculous a Religion, and so strange a Beast as the Parson describeth both the Pope and Popery to be, when he forgets his sermon, or hath a mind to divert his Audience, or incense them against catholics. By these and other such ways the most dull men come to hear, and may be informed, of the Roman Catholik Religions antiquity, as of the novelty of the Protestant, and how this came to be introduced; this once Known, all the industry and artifices of the Protestant party will never be able to prevent, or root out of men's minds those rational doubts which are grounded upon the light of common sense, when it discovers (as it must in this case) the least deformity or dissonancy against reason in any object whatsoever. For, what can be more dissonant to the very first principles of reason, than to prefer a private new and interested sense of Scripture before that old one which the Church stuck to as authentik for so many ages? The English Bible or Translation, before that which all Christendom hath been said by above 1200. years? An Act of Parliament of Queen Elizabeth and the Abettors of her interest, before all other Acts of English Parliaments, and all general Counsels? The authority of such debauched Friars and Priests as Luther, Caluin, and the first Protestant Reformers, before that of all the holy Doctors and the whole body of the Roman visible Church since the Apostles? In a word, new fancies called a Reformation, before that old Christianity wherein our Ancestors, as also our Kings, lived and died so happily? and wherein (as the learned Protestants themselves confess) they were saved; whereas we all deny that they can be saved by Protestancy.  
Q. I see you are of opinion that no Protestant at all can be saved. What? Can none of them have invincible ignorance? Is there so clear and obvious an evidence of the Roman Catholik being the true Church, that none can pretend nor plead ignorance of that truth?  
A. That out of the true Church there is no salvation, is a maxim of Faith wherein the holy Fathers agree. That the same Church is so visible and preferable before all others, that even the most stupid may as easily see it, as a City upon a mountain, and therefore are commanded to repair to it, is manifest in Scripture. That the Roman Catholik hath those clear marks of God's favour, which persuade the most scrupulous it is the true Church of God, hath been in the 4. Chapter demonstrated by us, and appeareth by those supernatural signs of miracles, sanctity, conversion of Nations to Christianity, etc. which shine in it, and have set it out so gloriously in all ages and places of the world since the preaching of the Apostles. That in England there is any corner or person wherein common sense can be so buried, or curiosity so dead, as to be ignorant of these things, and others delivered by tradition from age to age, and year to year, is not credible. But in case there be any Protestant so near a beast as not to reflect upon any thing he sees or heareth of his own or of our Religion; his Baptism will save him, if he did not lose, by a mortal sin the grace which he received in and by that Sacrament. And this is all the comfort I can give my Protestant friends, whose salvation I more hearty wish, than those do, who delude them with larger opinions.  
Q. This is but very cold comfort. Will not God grant to some poor ignorant Protestant an act of contrition, at least in the last hour?  
A. I think not. But if he doth to any, it is to some of those stupid Creatures I last spoke of. As for others, who have wit and ways to consider and reflect upon those doubts which occur to themselves, or are raised in them by the discourse of others, their obstinacy or affected ignorance in not listening, or enquiring into a matter so important, and so easily resolved, makes them incapable of so great a favour as an act of contrition. And as for those earnest or bigot Protestants, they are in greatest danger of any, and furthest from contrition; because having a clearer Knowledge of their own religion, and spending much time in the meditation thereof, they must needs have great doubts, if they do not stifle them in their first birth, by diverting their thoughts to more pleasing objects, and by avoiding all occasions of discoursing of protestancy, as commonly they do, especially when they perceive there is any likelihood of laying open the weakness of its principles, and the wickedness of the first Reformers. Besides, an act of contrition inuolues Faith, hope, and charity, and these Protestants not having Faith, but rather an aversion against hearing of it, are not in a disposition fit for contrition, which is the greatest grace God doth to his most eminent servants, and the Saints of his own Church.  
Q. Methinks this is very hard. I can not as yet comprehend why a devout Protestant may not be capable of an act of contrition. Is protestancy so abominable in the sight of God, that he will not turn his merciful eye towards Protestants? Is it worse than other great sins which God doth pardon? Is it heresy? And if it be, may not an heretic have an act of contrition? Is the malice of heresy so great as to exclude God's mercy?  
A. Without doubt Heresy is the greatest of sins, and yet excludes not God's mercy; but an Heretics conversion precedes contrition, this not being compatible with heresy. I will briefly tell you wherein consists the malice of heresy, and leave yourself to judge whether protestancy be Heresy. The malice of Heresy consists in the contempt of God's veracity. And God's veracity consists in an infinite inclination to truth. An infinite inclination to truth is not consistent with a permission of falsood credibly fathered and fastened upon him that permits it, if he can easily hinder the same. Now, the malice of heresy consists in having so mean an opinion of God's veracity, or of his inclination to truth, that he would permit a Church so credibly pretending to be his own, as the Roman Catholik doth (by its miracles, its sanctity its conversion of Nations to Christianity, and other supernatural marks) to impose upon the world (in his name) for so many ages, false doctrine for true; whereas it was in his power every moment of all that time to discover and declare the cheat, and disown the doctrine. And yet he did not either. That our miracles father our doctrine upon God, is easily proved; for, though the first Protestant Reformers and their successors cry out against some of our miracles as false, yet they are forced to confess some of them are true; and we join with them in censuring false miracles as such, and punish them who feign them as Malefactors. Against our conversion of Nations to Christianity (a confessed mark of the true Church) they have nothing to say; and as little against the succession and sanctity of our Doctrine and Doctors. Notwithstanding this credible (and indeed convincing) appearance of our miracles, and of the Roman Catholic Church being the true one, commissioned by God to instruct his people, yet the Protestants will not believe it, nor submit their judgements to so authentik an authority, nor hearken to the Divine voice manifesting itself by the clearest signs and evidence that is consistent with the freedom, merit, and obscurity of Christian Faith. Whether this obstinacy be not heresy, let the Protestants themselves judge; and examine whether to slight the testimony and signs of such a Church, be not a contempt of God's veracity, as supposing he can permit falsood to be so plausibly fathered upon him as we see the Roman Catholic doctrine hath been for so many ages, and throughout all parts of the world.    

CHAP. VII. OF THE MINISTRY OF THE Church, and of the nullity of that of England.  
AS it is necessary that God's Church should have visible signs whereby it may be discerned from all heretical Congregations, so it is acknowledged that in the same there is a Ministry caracterised with such public ceremonies and authentik testimonies, that there can be no danger of counterfeiting a mission or vocation so sacred. In the Christian Church the Ministers are called Bishops and Priests. Both are consecrated by a real imposition of Episcopal hands, and other ceremonies which have been practised in the Church ever since the Apostles, from whom by a continual succession the Episcopal character must descend, and be proved; otherwise no credit is to be given to any persons claiming to be Bishops of whose ordination Priesthood dependeth.  
It was the misfortune of the Protestant Reformations, that the Authors thereof were not Bishops, and, by consequence, could not transmit either that character, or that of Priesthood to their successors, as they did their doctrine. This defect they endeavoured to supply by persuading such as believed them, that no indelible character or visible ceremony of imposition of Episcopal hands, was necessary for a Minister of the Gospel. And even the Church of England was necessitaded to approve of this desperate doctrine (in the 25. of its 39 articles of Religion) because it was then well Known, the Consecrators of her first Bishops were no real Bishops, though they were called so for reason of state. One is, that the constitution of English Parliaments requiring Bishops as one of the three estates of the Kingdom, and their votes being a considerable addition to the sovereigns' authority, of which alone their nomination dependeth, Q. Elizabeth in this particular of Episcopacy went against the principles of other Reformations, and would needs Keep up the name of Bishops in her Church. But it happened very cross to her design, that none of the Catholic Bishops of England (no others were then there living) would lay hands upon, or consecrate any of those new ones which she named to that dignity. 
See the commission and dispensation in Doctor Bramhall the Protestant Bishop of Derry, his vindication of the Episcopacy of England. See the statut. 8. Eliz. 1.  Therefore she was forced to issue forth a second commission for that purpose and therein to dispense (by virtue of her supreme spiritual jurisdiction) with the very state and condition of the Consecrators. And this power and practise having been publicly excepted against (by Catholic Authors in print) as null, and ridiculous, it was confirmed and declared by Act of Parliament (8. Eliz. 1.) that whatsoever had been done until then in making of Bishops, Archbishops, etc. by the Queen's commission under the great seal of England, should stand as valid, whether the Consecrators were Bishops or no Bishops; any person or persons whatsoever, having been declared capable of giving that character to any other, provided they were authorised thereunto by her Majesty's commission under the great seal.  
This occasioned great disputes between Doctor Haiding and Doctor jewel, one of the first Protestant Bishops. Doctor Haiding in his printed books desired Mr jewel to name the Bishop that consecrated him, Parker, and the rest of Queen Elizabeth's first Bishops; and was content to submit to jewel, and own the validity of his and the other protestant Bishop's consecration, if he would name Parker's Consecrator. A man would think this was no such intricat matter, nor strong argument, if ever Parker had been consecrated by a Bishop. And yet jewel having been thus provoked by his insulting Adversary, could never name Parker's Consecrator, of whose consecration depended that of the rest; nor produce Registers of that consecration, when Harding called for them, though some 50. years after, appeared in print a very formal Register of Parker's consecration, copied forsooth out of Records Kept in Lavender at Lambeth. The unseasonable appearance of this new found Register occasioned much laughter, and new disputes which have continued until these times. And indeed it can not well enter into any considering men's heads, that Parker, jewel, and the first protestant Bishops (who were called by catholics no Bishops in print, for want of a right Consecrater, and challenged to name the Bishops that consecrated them or Parker, their adversaries setting their stress upon that only argument) would not take the pains to see and search their Registers of Lambeth for a Bishop's name that imported them so much to name, if any such Bishop had ever been, or any such Records had been then extant. Besides, sure their memories were not so short, as not to remember without the help of Registers and Records the name of a man that their Successors pretended (fifty years after the time of answering was past) had made Parker a Bishop but five years before they were asked the question, with so much ceremony and solemnity. For, Hardings book and jewels answer were printed an. 1565. or thereabouts.  
An other thing made the prelatik Clergies character absolutely null. And that was the Form which they used in the consecration of their Bishops and Priests. This Form was judged essentialy defective, because not one word thereof did express or mention the character pretended to be given thereby. And though the Church of England for near one hundred years had defended and practised this Form, yet at length they were forced to submit to their Adversary's exceptions and reasons against it, and to change and correct the Form, as we directed in the books we writ against the same. Upon the King's restauration they printed their Ritual and therein you may see the words Bishop and Priest added unto the Form of their consecrations, which (or their equivalent) are absolutely necessary; and yet nothing like them was in the old Forms, and former editions. This humility of theirs is to be commended, though it be to no purpose, seeing the change made not them who went before it, Bishops; and though their late reformed Form be valid, yet when pronounced by men that are not Bishops, it works no effect, nor gives any character either of Priesthood or Episcopacy to themselves or their Successors. And none of the Protestant Clergy hath been consecrated by a true Bishop since the change of their old Form.  
Let the Protestant Laity now reflect upon the character and conscience of their Clergy, as being men who take upon themselves the administration of Sacraments, absolution from sins, spiritual jurisdiction, and all functions belonging to true Bishops and Priests; though themselves can not but know there is no probable ground to believe they are such. I say nothing of the revenues they are possessed of upon the account of being Churchmen; but I can not be so uncharitable as not to advertise my Countrymen of the danger they are in, and of the damnation which will follow, if by timely repentance and a generous resolution they do not withdraw themselves from the direction of such Teachers, and from the Ministry of such a Clergy. What can they answer to the, objection we borrow from the statut 8. Eliz. Can they imagine that the Queen would dispense with the state and condition of the Consecraters, if they had had the Episcopal character? What need was there of a dispensation with their state and condition, if they were real Bishops? Why should the Parliament confirm this dispensation, and enact by law, that whatsoever was done by this commission of the Queens, should be valid, whether the Consecraters were Bishops or not; the words are, by any person, or persons whatsoever. All that my Countrymen can say, is, that they have an Act of Parliament for the character of their Clergy, and for the salvation of their souls. What that will avail them in the other world, I wish they did consider. Surely they can not but know that such Acts, will be no excuse before that dreadful judge, who takes no other evidence but that of our own conscience. This only we must consult in matters of Eternity, and not think that a Clergy or Religion established by a temporal law, is lawful, though it should be called legal by an Act of Parliament.  
Q. Sir, I have seen the Registers of Lambeth you would have me suspect as forged. I assure you I see no sign of forgery in them. And as for Bishop Iuels not answering Doctor Harding demand, concerning the first Protestant Bishops (and particularly Parkers) Consecrator, perhaps he thought it an idle question, and underualued so weak an objection.  
A. Forged Registers are often the most formal, all counterfeit ware standing in need of being set forth with great artifice. We have seen Registers and Records of public Courts of judicature so artificialy changed and corrupted, that nothing but their not being produced many years before, when they were called for, could conclude the forgery. Doctor Harding called for the Registers of the first protestant Bishop's Consecration, as well as for the Consecraters name: Neither did B. jewel contemn this demand, as you imagine. He went as far in the answer as he durst. He answered, 1. that the first protestant Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, were consecrated in due form by Archbishop Parker their Metropolitan: But being again pressed by Harding to name Parker's Consecrator, he put off that impertinent question (whereof the whole controversy and the credit of the Church of England depended) by a wild digression and long discourse of the ancient Bishops being consecrated without aquainting the Pope. But sure Mr jewel might acquaint Doctor Harding with the name of him who consecrated Parker, as well as he named Parker for Consecrator of the other Bishops; and certainly would, if Parker himself had been realy consecrated by a Bishop. If you do not believe my relation, read Doctor Harging books against jewel, and Iuels own Apology for the Church of England, where they treat of this particular.  
Q. Gentlemen, I would to God you did agree among yourselves, and not break the Laities heads with your disputes. You have put so many doubts into mine, that I can hardly believe any thing. On both sides you seem to be honest and learned men; therefore I think my best way is, to continue in the Church of England, and trust in God, that I shall not be damned for not being of that of Rome, until I be better satisfied that the points wherein it differs from ours are necessary for salvation. And this requiring longer time, (the particulars being so many) than I am like to live, 'tis not credible God would oblige me, or any other illiterate person, to spend our days rather in controversies than in prayer and good works; and in the end be as little satisfied with ourselves as our and your Clergy are with one an other. Yourselves grant that implicit Faith is sufficient for such ignorant people as I am, that Faith, I am sure I have; for I do believe all that God revealed, though I do not know what it is he revealed, or whether he hath appointed the Church of Rome, rather than that of England, to instruct the world, and inform us of his revelations. And truly I believe a man may be saved without troubling himself to know which of them it is that God hath appointed for our instruction, provided we be ready to be members thereof when that shall be made clear to us by better arguments than I am able to inquire after.  
A. This is so dangerous doctrine, that I judge it worth my pains to show yet further the obligation the most illiterate men have to search after the true Church, and how easily they may find it out by visible signs; and how you may without any help, but that of common sense, be satisfied of the truth of every particular point of doctrine wherein Roman catholics differ from Protestants: And all this in the space of less than two hours' time.  
Q. Nay Sir, if you perform your undertaking, I deserve to be damned for all Eeternity, if I will nor hear you for so short a time as two hours. I pray Sir proceed.   

CHAP. VIII. HOW EVERY ILLITERATE PERSON may easily and in the space of two hours, find out the true Church, and the truth of every point of doctrine controverted between Catholics and Protestants.  
When the people of Israel were most divided in matters of Religion, 
3. Reg. 8.  the Prophet Elias made a motion to them of clearing the truth by that famous dogmatical Miracle of burning an Ox upon the Altar without kindling the fire under it. This clear and compendious way was hugely approved of by the multitude, as suiting best with their capacities, for, they needed not learning to dispute, their eyes were sufficient judges, and they had so much common sense as to know, that God would not permit a falsood to be confirmed by a miracle in so public a trial, wherein his Veracity was so particularly concerned. The Prophets therefore of Baal durst not refuse so fair an offer as Elias made in their presence, and I hope the Protestant Clergy will be ashamed to refuse mine. Let us not delude the people with school subtleties, or obscure texts of scripture. If the Church of England or Scotland or any other reform one be the true Church, and its doctrine the true doctrine, let that be tried by miracles. I shall try ours of Rome by that test. I challenge then all the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and all others of the Reformation, or all the Protestants of the world, to work, or mention any one miracle ever yet wrought by any Protestant to confirm any one point of doctrine wherein they differ from the Roman Catholik. Gentlemen, summon your Sinods, search into all histories, profane, and sacred, set your heads together, and produce at least some probable testimony of as much as one miracle to grace your Reformations. And if you can not find undoubted miracles, at least show some thing that looks like a miracle; some thing that may be mistaken for one, whereof the falsood or fraud hath not been as yet discoured: such as you say many of ours are. Perhaps you will pretend that your Protestants are not so easily fooled with false miracles, as our Roman catholics. But this must be a gift and privilege of your private spirit; for, the Spaniards, Italians, and French, are not by nature so dull as our Northern Protestants, and are as loath to be cheated out of their moneys by Masses, Miracles, Pilgrimages, and other pretexts of devotion, as you are. And yet they believe such Miracles, as have been motives for the Popes, or people, to Canonize our Saints, and those also whereby Heathens and heretics have been converted to our Religion.  
Q. I doubt not Sir, but that the Catholics are as unlikely and loath to be imposed upon, as Protestants; therefore I would fain hear some of those undeniable miracles you pretend to have in your Church, and for confirmation of the doctrine wherein you differ from us. But I pray let them be Miracles like those of Christ, for I will not believe any others. I give you this caution for fear you should trouble me with Mother julianas' fits, and one Finaghtyes triks, wherewith he deluded the common people here in England and Ireland, where that man's Miracles (as I hear) are mightily cried up.  
A. Sir, you have reason to expect I should relate unto you Miracles like those of Christ, seeing himself hath said (john. 14.22.) 
Luther to 7. l. de Iudaeis. etc. fol. 210. A Deo didicimus, & accepimꝰ, aeternum verbum & veritatem Dei hactenus mille quingentio annis miraculis & signis confessam & confirmatam.  he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he shall do, and greater. Which words not only Luther the first Protestant Reformer, but your English Bibles (edit. 1576.) in the marginal notes, refer to the whole body of the Church, in whom this virtue doth shine for ever. Though I must confess, both Luther, and our English Protestant writers contradict themselves again in this particular (as all men must who maintain errors) and say, when we press them to relate some of their Miracles, that Miracles are now superfluous, and therefore none wrought in the Church. But I shall deal so impartialy with Protestants in this matter, that I will not mention any miracle for confirmation of the Roman Catholic Church and doctrine, which the best Protestant writers themselves do not confess to be miracles, though others of them attribute the working thereof to the power of Beelzebub (as the obstinate jews did of Christ's) and that, for no other reason but because the miracles were wrought by Papists, and to confirm Popery.  
As for Finaghtyes miracles, I made it my business to inquire after them, and him also; and do find, that so soon as he began to work his miracles, the Popish Archbishop of Tuam in Ireland (who was his Ordinary) questioned him for that presumption, and finding him both ignorant and obstinate, he forbidden him the further tempting of God, and scandalising the Church by his foolish attempts. But the man's zeal or vanity prevailing more upon his Spirit, than his Superiors commands, he continued his ridiculous course, and thereupon was commanded out of the Archbishop's Province. After that vigilant Prelates death, Finaghty lurking for some time in other places, came into England, and from thence returned to Dublin, where he played the fool with breathing, and beating the Devil in good earnest; one Stanton (an other mad Priest of his Country) printed many of his rash attempts for great miracles. Finaghty, after that his manner of exorcisms had bin examined, and found to be different from those of the Church, and his dispossessing of Devils to be without any visible mark or sign of the Devil's possession, or at least departure, was silenced by the Clergy of Dublin, and commanded out of that Province. From thence he went to his own (Conaght) and falling again to his old miracles, he was by the Popish Bishop of Elfin deprived of his general Vicarship, and that extraordinary respect forgot which the simplicity of the people had offered to his supposed sanctity; by whom now he is much slighted. My charity inclineth me to believe, that his greatest fault was folly, and that he was more cheated by the Devil, than so simple a man could design to cheat others. I have been more diffuse upon this subject than you may think it deserves, because the world may be satisfied None suspects the truth of miracles, nor corrects the foolish Pretenders of working them more, than we Roman catholics; it being one of the greatest cares of our Bishops and Pastors, to prevent such impostures, and to punish the Impostors, And this hath been the continual practice of our Church, ever since the beginning of Christianity.  
Q. You have given me great satisfaction by your relation and opinion of Finaghty, and his miracles. If they had not been so soon, and sesonably condemned by his own party, I should suspect that all your other miracles reported in Legends and Saints lives, were of the same nature. But now I see that miracles which were never contradicted or suspected by yourselves are credible. I pray therefore relate those, which you say are confessed or allowed of by the learned Protestants, and yet confirm your doctrine in opposition to theirs.  

SECT. I. THE CONVERSION OF THE Heathen Kings and Nations from Paganism to Christianity, and Popery, is an evident miracle and mark of the truth of the Roman Catholic Church and doctrine, in opposition to that of all Protestant Reformations.  
It's continuance even from the Apostles to this present demonstrated, as also the impossibility of its pretended insensible change.  
THe greatest of all miracles (it being the end for which they have been wrought, and the Christian Church instituted) is the conversion of the Heathen Kings and Nations to Christianity. If therefore it be proved, that all the Heathen Kings and Nations which have been converted from Paganism to Christianity, were converted to no other but to that Christianity which Protestants call Popery, and that the said conversions were performed by known Papists, and confessed miracles, our Adversaries must acknowledge that the Roman Catholik Church, (and it alone) is the true Church of God; otherwise it will follow, that Christ instituted his Church to no purpose; and that his design and desire of the conversion of Nations, and saving their souls, came to nothing. Nay it will follow, that Christ is not the Messiah, to whose doctrine and Church (as the Scriptures and Prophets foretell) all Nations shall flow, and their King's Minister, the multitude of the seas shall be converted, the Isles shall wait for, and the Heathens be its inheritance, and the end of the earth its possession. All this the Protestants themselves confess to be prophesied of the true Christian Church, as you may see in their marginal notes upon the English Bible edit. 1576. in Esay 60. vers. ult. And in Daniel 2. vers. 45. This argument made so great impression upon many of the most learned Protestant writers, (who had resolved not to be Papists) that some of them turned jews, others Atheists, others Turks; as Bernardin Ochin, Sebastian Castalio, David George, Adam Neuserus, Allemanus, and others.  
Q. Sir though I doubt not of your sincere dealing, yet I must not take upon your single credit, that learned Protestants could turn Turks and jews, upon the score you mention.  
A. Sir I hope you will believe themselves. Read Bernardin Ochins Preface to his Dialogues, wherein you will find these words, when I did consider how Christ by his power, wisdom, and goodness had founded and established his Church, etc. and again discerned how the same was utterly overthrown, I could not but wonder, and being desirous to know the cause, I found there had been Popes. From this conceit of the Pope's prevailing against Christ's Church, he concluded there had been no such thing as Christ's Divinity, and proceeded to teach Circumcision, and Polygamy; and at length came to be an impure Apostata, as the famous Beza doth term him in his Treatise de Poligam. pag. 4. Impurus ille Apostata Bernardinus Ochinus. Read likewise Sebastian Castalios ' own words in his Preface of the great Latin Bible dedicated to King Eduard 6. which are, The more I do peruse the Scriptures, the less do I find the same (he means the profecies of the conversion of Kings and Nations) performed, howsoever you understand the same profecies. David George (say the Protestant Divines of Basil in their History of him edit. 1568.) discoursed thus, If the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been true and perfect, the Church which they planted, etc. should have continued, etc. But now it is manifest that Antichrist hath subverted the doctrine of the Apostles, and the Church by them begun, as is evident in the Papacy: therefore the doctrine of the Apostles was false, and imperfect And so this protestant Apostle of Basil, by reflecting upon the fundamental principle of the Reformation (which is a supposition that the true Church and doctrine had been invisible or destroyed for many ages by Popery) became a blasphemous Apostate, affirming that our Saviour was a seducer. In like manner Adam Neuserus, the chief Pastor of Heidelberg, turned Turk and was circumcised at Constantinople. See Osiander in his Epitome. Centur. 16. pag. 818. The like fate had Alemannus, Beza his bosom friend, as Conradus Schlusserburg says in Theol. Caluin. fol. 9 and Beza confesseth ep. 65. pag. 108. Alemannum affirmant ad judaismum defecisse. And all their conversions to so damned sects, were grounded upon their not finding any pagan Kings or Nations to have been ever converted to protestancy, but all ways to popery.  
Q. I must confess Sir, that if all the Heathen Kings and Nations have been converted to that Christianity which we call popery, and this was performed by Papists (which could not be done without miracles) and not pagan Kings and Nations have been ever converted to Protestancy, nor by Protestants, ye have much more to say for yourselves than ever I heard before, and we much less. But I doubt you will hardly prove that until the end of the first 600. years, there were any Kings or Nations converted to Popery; though afterwards I must own, that profession was spread over the world, and reigned until our Protestant Reformation began in the year 1517. And to avoid prolixity, I desire you to rosolue me this one question, whether Constantin the great the first Christian Emperor was a Papist? We believe that he, and the Church of his time, was Protestant, because the purest Christianity, (Protestancy) was then in vogue; though afterwards it degenerated insensibly into Popery.  
A. 

Euseb. de Vita Constantini l. 3. c. 47. & lib. 4. cap. 38. S. Hieron. contra Vigilant. ant med. Costantinus Imperator sanctas reliquias Andreae, Lucae, & Timothei transtulit Constantinopolim, apud quas Daemones rugiunt. And ibid. Si reliquius Sanctorum transfer, & in aureos loculos re condere non licet, sacrilegus fuit cum Constantino Arcadius, omnes Episcopi non solum sacrilegi, sed & fatui iudicandi, qui rem vilissiman & cineres dissolut●s ●n serice, vase aureo portaverunt, etc.  
S. August. tom. 39 d● Sanctis, saith, Crucis caracter● Basilicae dedicantur, altaria consecrantur.  
S. Greg. apud Bedam hist. lib. 1. c. 30.  
Euseb. de vitâ Constantini. l 3. c. 2. atque interdum vultum salutari illa passionis signavit nota.  
Zozomen. hist. l. 1. c. 8. Sanctae Crucis plurimum tribuit honoris.  
Prudentius in Apotheosi, vexillumque Crucis summus Dominator adorat.  
S. Chrysostom. in ep. 2. Cor. hom. 26. versus fin. Name & ipse qui purpuram indutus est, accedit illa amplexus sepulchra, & fastu deposito, sta● Sanctis supplicaturus, ut pro se ad Dominum intercedant.  
See the same also in S. Chrysost ad pop. hom. 60. versus finem.   That Constantin the great was a Papist, and the Religion then in vogue (and the only then called Catholik) was Popery, is evident by Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History written a little after Constantins' death, as also, by what the Centurists of Magdeburg and all other learned Protestants confess. For, it is evident by their writings, that Constantin erected Temples in memory of Martyrs, and the Apostles; provided his Sepulchre there, to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the prayers there offered: He translated to Constantinople the relics of St Andrew, Luke, and Timothy, at which the Devil did roar, which particular circumstance St Hierom presseth against Vigilantius, whom he concludeth an heretic, for being against the praying to Saints, and worshipping their relics. St Augustin and St Gregory (two other Doctors of the Church) defend the practice of consecrating Churches (when Constantin built them) with the sign of the Cross, and sprinkling of holy water, which I believe the protestant Clergy of Dublin were ignorant of, when (as I have been credibly informed) they framed (very lately) a new form of their own heads, to consecrat Mr Lingars oval Temple, with such hatred to the Cross, that they would not make use of the sign thereof in the Consecration, nor bless themselves in the beginning, or throughout the whole work, nor place any Cross in the top of the Church, for fear of profaning it, or troubling the Spirit of that peaceble Minister, not long before departed: Nay Crosses were pulled down in that Diocese, and Catholics punished for opposing them who committed such sacrileges.  
Without doubt Constantin the great was one of the most rank Papists, and though he was the man who pulled down Idols, and established Christianity in the world with its splendour, and public exercise, yet I fear our Zealous Dublinian Clergy will protest against his Religion as superstitious, and censure him guilty of Idolatry, when they hear how often he blest himself, making the sign of the Cross in his forehead, nay (which is worse) not only adorning, but adoring (with an inferior religious worship) the Cross; and (which is worst of all) praying to St Peter and Paul that they would be Intercessors for him to God. At least the Church of England will not challenge him, as a member of theirs, he being so averse to the spiritual supremacy, and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of temporal sovereigns, that he would not sit down at the Council of Nice, until the Bishops had thereto given their assent, nor would he take upon him to judge of Ecclesiastical causes, saying, God hath ordained you Bishops, and hath given you power to judge of yourselves, by means whereof we yield ourselves to your judgement. So Crispinus in his book of the estate of the Church pag. 99 and Zozomen hist. l. c. 10. post med. sets down these popish words of Constantin. Mihi vero non est fas, cum homo sim, ciusmodi causarum cognitionem arrogare, etc. He is therefore cursed by the Protestant writers, as bearing the mark of the beast, in acknowledging the Pope's supremacy, and for subduing all Christian Churches to his jurisdiction; so Frigivillaeus in his palma Christiana dedicated to Q. Elizabeth pag. 35. saying, that Constantin, preferred the Bishops of Rome, and Constantinople before others, yet attributed the Primacy before all to the Roman. And pag. 34. saith, that Constantin gave the power of the beast to Pope julius, which julius presently exercised; for Constantin also carried the mark of the Dragon in his arms, etc. And Mr Napper in his Treatise upon th' Revelations dedicated to King james, saith, After the year of God 300. the Emperor Constantin subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Silvester; from which time till these our days the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward and visible Church.  
Q. Pardon Sir, that I interrupt you from proceeding further in the Proof of Constantins' being a Papist. I am fully convinced he was of your Popish Religion, and seeing Mr Napper says to King james, that Popery possessed and governed the visible Church ever since that time, I would willingly know whether it was so before Constantins' time, or whether that Emperor bestowed this supremacy upon the Pope, and pulled down Protestancy to set up Popery?  
A. To satisfy your curiosity I will remit you to your own Protestant writers, the Centurists and others. I will only tell you that one of the most learnest protestant writers called Philip Nicolai, took great pains in this matter, in his work de regno Christi, undertaking to discover the first beginning and increase of the papal dignity, or supremacy, and concludeth at last with these words pag. 221. Primatus affectatio, communis fuit infirmitas Apostolorum, ac etiam primorum Vrbis Romae Episcoporum. The affectation of the Primacy was an infirmity common to the Apostles, as also to the first Bishops of Rome. Mr Midleton likewise in his Papistomastix, pag. 193. saith, that perusing Counsels, Fathers, and stories from the Apostles forword, we find the print of the Pope's feet. We may therefore follow securely steps so ancient and so authentik. If Popery were not the right way to heaven, certainly the ancient Counsels would have condemned it, the Fathers would have declined it, and the Histories would have recounted how it entered into the Church, and supplanted the former Religion that Christ and the Apostles had preached. And yet not a word of this change, or corruption in Counsels, Fathers, or any History. This is the greatest of Miracles, that the doctrine and public profession of Popery, being in itself so contrary to Protestancy (which is supposed by its Professors to have been the pure and primitive Christianity) should steal so early, and so insensibly into the Church, notwithstanding the vigilancy of those primitive Pastors, and the great concern of every faithful, to observe and oppose the least novelty whatsoever in matters of doctrine; any change or corruption thereof inuoluing a damnable heresy.  
Q. Though the conversion of all heathen Kings and Nations were as you say to Popery, and performed by Papists; and that it is not credible God would permit so general a perversion, whereby the end of instituting his Church would be frustrated, yet I would willingly know whether you can produce any Miracles against our Protestant doctrine whereby we differ from the Papists.  
A. 
See D● Humphrey in jesuitismi p. 2● rat. 5. p. 5. & 627. Bishop Bale in Act. Rom. Pont. pag. 44.45. & 46. Osiand. in Epit. Cent. 6. p. 289. & 288. And the Magdeb. Centur. 6. cap. 20.  All the Miracles that moved the Pagans to be Papists, were wrought against Protestancy. I will instance it in the conversion of our Saxon Ancestors, who were Pagans, and made Papists by the preaching and Miracles of St Austin the Monk, Apostle of England. The Protestant writers confess he converted the Saxons to the Chaos of Popish Ceremonies, and superstition, and specify worship of Images, praying to Saints, Purgatory, Mass, Transubstantiatiation, holy water, etc. And yet themselves confess with St Bede, that his doctrine and that of the ancient Britan's of that time, 
Bp. jewel in his pageant of Popes. Bp. Goduin in his Catalogue of Bishops p. 1. Fox in his Acts and Monum. printed 1576. pag. 463.  difered only in a ceremony of Baptism, and in the day of celebrating Easter, St Austin confirming his own practice therein, by a confessed Miracle of restoring sight to a blind man. Now it being evident by our English Chronicles, and the Protestant writers (whereof Mr john Fox, Bishop Goduin, and Bishop jewel are to be particularly noted, as being most eminent) that the ancient Britan's after receiving the Catholic Faith in the Apostles time, held the same until Augustine's coming, and never forsook it for any manner of false preaching of other, nor for torments, etc. It must be concluded that the ancient Britan's were first converted to Popery, and so continued until Augustine's time, and that his and their doctrine was the same in all particulars contrary to Protestancy, and confirmed by Miracles. But because you seem to desire a dogmatical Miracle, that is, one wrought in confirmation of Popery; not only as it is Christianity in general, but at it is Christianity in particular, and opposite to Protestancy, I will endeu or to satisfy your curiosity, hoping thereby to settle your conscience.    

CHAP. IX. St. BERNARD'S undeniable Miracles wrought by God to confound Protestants, and confirm the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Prayer for the dead, Prayer to Saints, their worship, and that of Images, Chrism, the Pope's supremacy, etc.  
SAint Bernard's learning, sanctity, and Miracles are so generaly confessed by all Protestant writers that Doctor Stillingfleet in his late Comedy of the Idolatry and Fanaticism of the Church of Rome, durst not bring him upon the stage. Whitaker de Ecclesiâ, pag. 369. saith of him, I do realy believe Bernard was a true Saint. Osiander cent. 12. saith, Saint Bernard Abot of Clareval was a very pious man, etc. Gomarus in speculo Ecclesiae, pag. 23. saith, one pious man your Church had in many years. Bernard your Saint. And Pasquil's return into England pag. 8. & 13. saith, he was a good Father and one of the lamps of God's Church. He was so famous for his learning, humility, devotion, and Miracles, that after his refusal of all Ecclesiastical dignities, he governed not only the Church, but the temporal Princes were said by him, and submitted to his judgement. King Henry 2. of England forsook a Schismatical Pope (which he had supported against the King of France) by saint Bernard's persuasion. The King of France gave over troubling the Bishops for his sake. William the Duke of Aquitain was converted from a devouring wolf to a meek Lamb by his words. All the world looked upon saint Bernard as the Apostle of that age, wherein divers heresies were broached by the Waldenses, 
S. Bern. Ep. 241. ad Tolos saith, we thank God for that our coming to you was not in uain, our stay indeed was short with you, but not nnfruitfull; the truth being by us made manifest (non solum in Sermone sed etiam in vi tute) not only by preaching, but also by power of working Miracles the Wolves are deprended.  Apostolici, Henricians, and others. These two last Sects had infected a great part of France, especially about Tolouse; their chief errors were against Transubstantiation, Prayers to Saints, and the same which Protestants hold in our days, and we have mentioned in the title of this Chapter. The Pope sent a Legate, and St Bernard, to confute them. In this Mission, amongst innumerable others, he wrought the ensuing Miracle, not only written by his Disciple Godifridus, who was an eye witness there of, but recorded in the other Histories of that time, and insinuated by St Bernard himself in his 241. Epistle to the people of Tolouse, to the end they might be constant in the manifest doctrine which he had preached against the Henricians, whom Protestants challenge as members and Martyrs of the Protestant Church, as every one may see in their Catalogue of the witnesses of truth, printed 1597. and in M. Symondes' upon the Revelations, pag. 142. and 143. The Miracle is recounted by Godefridus invitâ Bern. l. 3. c. 5. and by others of the same time, as followeth.  
There is a place in the Country of Tolosa, called Sarlatum, where after the Sermon was done, they offered to he servant of God (as every where the use was) many loaves to bless, wihich he, lifting up his hand, and making the sign of the Cross, in God's name blessing, said thus. In this you shall Know that these things are true which we, and that those other are false which the heretics labour to persuade you; that whosoever they be (of your diseased persons) that taste the loaves: they shall be healed, to the end you may Know us to be the true Minister of God. The Bishop of Chartres (a great friend to the Saint) thinking this proposition too general, told the people, they were to understand, it conditionaly, so they did eate of the loaves with Faith. Saint Bernard suddenly replied, My Lord, I do not mean so, my meaning and saying is, that all sick folks who will eat of those loaves, shall recover their health, to the end it may be Known we are Gods true Ministers. And acordingly it fell out, not one diseased person, that did eat of the bread, missed of being eured; and the Miracle being thus diuulged, by its effects, so huge a multitude of people came to thank and admire the Saint; that he declined the common roads, and went by by ways to Tolouse; where at the instance of the Catholics, and to further confute the aforesaid hetesies against Transubstantiation, Mass, Purgatory, prayer to Saints, worship of Images, etc. he with giving his benediction to a paralitik priest that lay a dying in the College of St Saturnin, restored him to so perfect health, that the Priest (who also was called Bernard) suddenly risen out of his bed where he had been immoveable a long time, followed the Saint, and begged of him to be admitted into the number of his Monks; which was granted, and afterwards lived amongst them very religiously, and was at length Abot of Valdeau. With these Miracles the heretics were confounded, and so many converted, that their seducer Henricus hid himself, and finding no refuge among those who formerly had followed him, he was taken prisoner, and presented in chains before the Bishop.  
Q. If God wrought such Miracles as these for the conversion of the Henricians and other heretics (as you call them) of that age, why may not we Protestants expect that he will do the same for our conversion, if we be in errors. I am sure we desire to save our Souls: And certainly God is as willing to save us as any others. I wish we could see such Miracles wrought by any Bernard, or other Saint. We should soon be Papists.  
A. One of the reasons why God doth not work now such Miracles for the conversion of Protestants, is, because he hath wrought them for the Henricians: For, the same errors against Transubstantiation, Mass, Prayer to Saints, Worship of Images, etc. being common to both sects, the same Miracles confute both equally, and may now convince Protestants, as well as they did anciently the Henricians, of heretical and damnable obstinacy. And therefore it's not likely Protestants would become Papists, though they had seen an other St Bernard work the same Miracles to confirm the Roman Catholik Faith against Protestancy; that in effect having been done against it in the case of the Henricians. I am the more apt to believe the sight of such Prodigies would not convert you, because your Protestant Authors grant the matter of fact of St Bernard's Miracles against the Henricias doctrine, and of S. Dominik against the Albigenses Tenets (wherein these also agreed with Protestants) and only answer that they were Antichristian Miracles, wrought by the Devil's power to confirm the Idolatry of the Mass, and Images, etc. or at least they were feigned by idle Monks. Take it in their own words. 
See the Centurists, and Osiander in Epitome. cent. 9.10.11. pag. 213.  The Miracles which superstitious Monks relate, are either feigned by themselves, or wrought by Satan's enchantments, and therefore aught to be enlisted amongst Antichrists Miracles because they were wrought to confirm manifest Idolatry, and to establish the wicked worship of Images, veneration of Relics, Invocation of Saints, sacrifice of Mass, etc. True it is that Osiander speaking of Saint Bernard's Miracles, Cent. 12. pag. 310. saith, Not that I think St Bernard was a Magician, but that I think it probable Satan wrought the Miracles, whereby the Saint himself and others were deceived. And this is the common answer all Protestants give to our Miracles, when they can not deny the fact, nor discover any fraud. And certaintly they would give now the same answer to the most evident and undeniable Miracles, if any were wrought before their eyes.  
Q. Am I who can not read, or understand Latin and other languages, wherein all this you say and quote, is written, bound to believe the matter of fact, and conform thereunto my Faith? What if a Protestant Minister or Bishop tells me all you say are lies? Whom must I believe? Or am I obliged under pain of damnation to suspect his sincerity and doctrine, if he will not encounter you, or any other who offers to make good what you say, by showing the passages in the books themselves? I confess I think I am. However I pray tell me what I ought to do in such a case.  
A. You see how in less than two hours' time you may know by your Bishops or Ministers carriage and courage in examining any plain book that relates Miracles and matter of fact, whether the Protestant Religion be true or false. If he will resolve to confer, or rather to construe the words of the book, you will easily judge of the truth by their sense: to which you must keep him (and the Catholic also) without any other digressions, or discourses: all your business must be, to know whether the Miracle or matter of fact be so in the book as I told you; and that, you may know from any honest man who can read and understand it, as well (perhaps better) than from your Protestant Minister or Bishop.  
As for the answers which the most learned Protestants give to the argument of our miracles, they are so weak, that none but wicked and obstinate persons can be satisfied there with. Their first answer is, that our miracles have been feigned by idle Monks. This is so damned an answer that they dare not stick to it, because it is not possible that such public transactions as St Bernard's, or St Dominiks preaching, and Miracles against the Henricians and Albigenses, could be imposed upon the world, there being as many Observers as there were persons either curious, or concerned in two so contrary parties. Why did not some one of the Henricians, or Albigenses publish and declare the imposture, when their Religion was so discredited thereby? Why should Pope Alexander 3. venture to be laughed at, and deposed from the Apostolic see for canonising St Bernard, 12. years after his death, if his Miracles were not so authentik, that they could not be contradicted? What design could the world and that age have in conspiring to impose such Miracles upon their friends and posterity, and in damning themselves thereby, for St Bernard's sake? The same argument may be applied to St Dominik, St Francis, St Vincent Ferrer, St Francis Xavier, or to any other of our Roman Church, whose miracles have been wrought in public assemblies, and not contradicted as false or fraudulent by any of those ages that were witnesses to them, or wherein they were first spoke of. And this is of such force, that our Protestant. Adversary's grant it to be true, and therefore recur to the Devil's power for their answer, and the confutation of our Miracles, as the obstinate jews did against them of Christ.   

WHETHER TRADITION, TOGETHER with the Miracles of Christ and of the Church do demonstrat or undeniably conclude that God revealed the articles of Christian Faith; Or whether they only demonstrat, or clearly prove, that we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe that God revealed them? And whether it be clearly evident, or more than moraly evident, that they are true supernatural Miracles?  
Q. I do think the Parallel between Christ's Miracles and those of the Roman Catholic Church, or between the obstinate jews and the Protestants, doth not hold. Christ's Miracles were so evidently supernatural or Divine, that if the obstinate jews would consider the visible circumstances thereof, they could not deny them to be true and Divine Miracles. But the Miracles of the Roman Catholic Church (I speak of the most authentik) are no such; for, we Protestants examine and consider all the circumstances of them, and yet we can, and do deny them to be true Divine Miracles.  
A. The parallel doth hold, and you will think so if you reflect upon it. 1. It is a mistake to believe that Christ's Miracles were so clearly supernatural and Divine as to force an assent or acknowledgement of their being so, from the jews and Gentiles that saw them (and therefore could not but admire them, and consider their surprising circumstances.) For, if the Miracles had appeared to them supernatural and undeniably true, no assent of their Faith could be a free act; and that wherewith St Peter owned Christ's Divinity, 
Math. 16.  and for which he deserved to be made the Rock or foundation of the Church, would not have been so particularly applauded, and rewarded by Christ himself; the other Apostles having seen and considered as much as he the Miracles of Christ which moved St Peter to that Confession of Faith, and yet no assent of Christ's Divinity flowed necessarily from that their sight and consideration; neither was it forced from Saint Peter; but was a free act and assent of his (after seeing all the Miracles and considering their circumstances) to say, Thou art Christ, Son of the living God. The obstinate jews therefore did consider all circumstances of Christ's person and Miracles as much as those who believed them to be Divine, nay more, because the Scribes, Pharisees, and the Doctors of the law searched and pried more narrowly into his actions, and were better able to judge of their being natural or supernatural, than most of those, who believed his Miracles were Divine, and himself the Messiah. And this appeareth in many passages, as in that of the blind man, whom they cast out of the Synagogue; for they understood the Miracle better than himself, and were sufficiently convinced of the cure, and matter of fact. It was not therefore want of consideration of the circumstances of Christ's person and Miracles that made the learned Iewes obstinate, but their abundance of pride, which made them averse from submitting their judgements to Christ's doctrine, notwithstanding they had moral evidence of the Divinity of his person and of the supernaturality of his Miracles.  
Q. I can not comprehend how Christ's Miracles or any others, can oblige men to believe his doctrine, or convince them of obstinacy and heresy, for not believing it and his Divinity, unless it be first made clearly and undeniably evident to them, that the Miracles are true and supernatural. As for your Moral evidence of their being true Miracles, it is not strong enough to build thereupon so absolute an assurance as is requisite in our acts or assents of Christian Faith, which excludes all doubts, and even all moral possibility of falsood.  
A. I often told you that the certainty and assurance of Christian Faith is not grounded upon the evidence of Christ's Miracles (or any others of his Church) being true Miracles; or of its Tradition being infallible; but upon God's Veracity, which is so infinitely avers from all Kind of falsood, that he will no more permit any to be so probably and plausibly fathered upon him as the Roman doctrine is, than positively promote it. Now, Christ's Divinity and the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church being confirmed by such prodigies and signs as have a moral evidence of being supernatural and true Miracles, this makes it moraly evident to all men, that none but God is Author of that doctrine and of the prodigies which confirm it. This moral evidence of God being the Author, is not indeed (as you say) strong enough to bear and ground upon itself the assurance of an assent or act of Christian Faith; but it is a prudent and sufficient inducement to believe most certaintly, and without any Kind of doubt, that God would not permit so great an appearance of his authority as the miracles of Christ and of the Roman Church manifestly show to all the world, to be a cheat, or any thing less than his own great Seal; wherefore at the sight thereof all men are bound under pain of damnation to believe God alone is the Author of Christ's and the Roman Churches Miracles and doctrine, just as subjects are bound under pain of death to obey the King and Magistrates Orders, when signed and sealed with the usual and authentik marks of their supreme authority. They are bound I say to obey, though they have only moral evidence that he is King, and that his Seal and Orders are true, and not counterfeit.  
Q. Methinks this argument may be retorted against yourself. For, if notwithstanding the moral evidence we have of such persons being our Parents, or lawful Kings; and of their seals and Orders not being counterfeit, we are bound only to honour, and obey them in our outward actions; but we are not bound to assent inwardly without any Kind of doubt, that such men are our Parents, or our legitimat Kings; or that their hands and seals are not counterfeit: If, I say, this moral evidence can not oblige us to such inward assurances and assents, how can the moral evidence of Christ's and the Roman Churches Miracles being true and supernatural Miracles, oblige us under pain of damnation to believe (without any Kind of doubt) Christ's Divinity, and the Roman Catholic doctrine? At least this much followeth from hence, that the moral evidence of the v Miracles and signs of the Church, can only exact from us an outward conformity to its decrees, not an inward assent to its doctrine.  
A. The extent of every authority ought to be measured by its appearance. If its appearance be only human or natural, it reacheth no further than to regular those outward moral actions which are necessary for the government and peace of the Commonwealth; it hath not any thing to do with directing the soul by inward acts and undoubted assents to its supernatural end. If the appearance of the authority be supernatural, and moraly evident to us, (by prodigies, profecies, or other visible signs) that it is so, than it claims a jurisdiction over the soul, and may exact from it such inward acts and assents as are proportionable to that supernatural end for which God hath instituted his Church, and adorned it with those Divine marks and miracles which Christ himself mentions, Marc. 16. and have been visible in the Roman Catholik ever since the Apostles. This undeniable Maxim being laid as a foundation, there can be no difficulty in seeing the disparity there is between the human authority of Commonwealths, and the spiritual and supernatural of the Church, by virtue of their different appearances; the miracles and signs of the Church making so supernatural a show as to declare God alone is the Author of its doctrine and authority, is extended to the soul, and to the inward acts and assents thereof, regulating them as it is fit for the salvation of mankind. No human or natural authority of Kings or temporal Princes can reach so far, because the appearance thereof is only natural.  
Q. Will not the appearance of Anti-christs' Miracles be supernatural? Did not those of the Magicians of Egypt look like supernatural, and indiscernible from those of Moses? How then can a supernatural appearance, or a moral evidence of prodigies being true Miracles, exact or pretend to any authority over our inward acts of the will and understanding? shall we submit our judgements to Anti-christs' doctrine, because his Miracles will seem to be supernatural. If not, why should we submit our judgements to the Roman Catholic Church, because it's most authentik Miracles seem to be supernatural?  
A. This argument only proves that true Miracles (even those of Christ) do not clearly evidence or conclude their own supernaturality, or their being true Miracles. It is so hard a matter to distinguish between true and false or Anti Christian Miracles, that our Saviour says, even the elect would be seduced by the last, if for their sake, and by God's particular providence those days would not be shortened; and therefore he warns his Disciples and all the faithful to beware of Anti-christs' Miracles, for ressembling so much his own; and gives certain signs whereby men may discover that he who works them, is Antichrist. Christ's Miracles therefore (as those also of the Church) being first, and as it were in possession of God's authority, by being his great seal, and confirming his doctrine, do by that precedency and Christ's prediction of counterfeit Miracles, manifest their supernaturality in a different manner from Antichrists and all other lying prodigies, which have been or will be wrought to confirm any doctrine contrary to that of the Catholic Church. Out of all which we conclude that even Christ's Miracles, and à fortiori those of the Church (if taken without his prediction and their own precedency) do not clearly evidence to us that they are true Miracles, and by consequence can not clearly evidence to us the Divinity of Christ, or that God revealed the articles of Christian Religion. And the same must be said of Catholic Tradition, even as it is confirmed by these Miracles of the Church. So that this Tradition is not the Motive, but the Rule of Faith, which directs us infallibly (though not clearly) to God's revelations; and therefore doth not demonstrat, or undeniably conclude that ever God revealed any one article of that Faith; though the same Tradition, as confirmed by the signs of the Church, doth demonstrat or at least undeniably prove, that we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe (and that most certainly) that God revealed every point which the Roman Catholic Church doth propose as an article of Faith. This much of Miracles in general. Now let us return to Saint Bernard's, and consider it in particular.  
St Bernard makes the same proposal to the Henricians and people about Tolouse, that Elias made to the jews, and Baalists. He appealed to God's omnipotency for the manifestation of the truth. And spoke with such confidence of success, as if the attempt of the miracle had not only been consulted with God, but had been commanded by him. Consider now, I pray, whether it be credible to any person that hath common sense, or whether it be consistent with Gods infinite veracity and goodness, that upon so public a trial of both, and whereof depended the damnation or salvation of so many Souls, God would play the Neuter, and permit the Devil abuse the sincerity and sanctity of Saint Bernard to seduce the poor simple people by working Miracles, which saint Bernard himself and the wisest of that age took to be Divine, and were in appearance as much above the power of nature, as those were which Christ wrought? If this be as inconsistent with common sense, as it is with Christianity, not one illiterate Protestant in the world who hath any sense, can be excused by invincible ignorance from damnation, no learned Protestant from heresy. For, heresy is obstinacy against doctrine sufficiently proposed as Divine. And if Transubstantiation, the Mass, Intercession of Saints, worship of Images, Purgatory, etc. be not sufficiently proposed as Divine doctrine by the testimony of the Church, and these Miracles of St Bernard, and other Roman Catholik Saints; and in a coniuncture that the same doctrine was as much questioned by the Henricians, 

Aug. l. 22. de Civit. Dei c. 8. ad sanctum Martyrem orare perrexerunt, etc.  
He that believeth in me, the works, that I do, he shall do, and greater. joan. 14.  
Nazian. in Epitaph. Gorgoniae. Orat. II. saith,  
Prostrating herself before the Altar, and calling upon him who was honoured and worshipped thereupon, O admirable thing! she presently felt herself delivered from her sibness, and so she returned eased both in body and mind etc.   as now it is by Protestants, never any doctrine hath been yet sufficiently proposed as Divine; nay not the doctrine of Elias, nor of Christ himself; because neither hath been confirmed by greater Miracles than ours. I need not repeat others more ancient, as that (which St Austin says he was witness of) when Palladia recovered her sight by praying to St Steven; or that which St Gregory Nazianzen recounts of his sister Gorgonia recovering suddenly her health, by adoring the blessed Sacrament upon the Altar; or that of the Image of Christ erected by the woman he cured of her flux, whereof see Eusebius hist. lib. 7. c. 14. or that of the Crucifix in Berito, alleged in 2. council. Nissen. act. 4. or that recounted by Optatus, l, 1. contra Donatistas', to confirm the reserving and taking the Communion in one Kind; as also the holy oil, or Chrism; or that of the person raised from death to receive the extreme Unction, mentioned by Saint Bernard in vit. Malach. Or that of Confession related by Saint Bede hist. l. 5. cap. 14. These and innumerable others, are superfluous, seeing those of St Bernard are sufficient to convince that no Protestant, who hath so much sense as to believe God's goodness and veracity, can be saved, if he denies any one particular of the Roman Catholic doctrine, when he is credibly informed that this authority is confirmed by such Miracles as those of Saint Bernard, and other Saints of our Church, which are related in the public Acts and Process of their Canonization.   

AN HUMBLE ADDRESS To the Honourable House of Commons.  
MAy it please you, Honourable Sirs, who are the Preservers of our liberties (except the chief, which is that of conscience) to take in good part, that the meanest of his Majesty's subjects humbly beg of you to consider, whether it be not a damnable sin, to persecute Souls for professing the Religion of your Christian Ancestors, confirmed by so many credible signs of God's approbation and protection, that the wisest and wariest men of the whole world (both in this and former ages) were convinced they were true Miracles; and yourselves have no reason to believe the contrary, but that prejudice whereunto the principles of your education from your infancy, and the interest of your Teachers led you, before you could discern the truth of their doctrine, or the intricacy of their design. Reflect I beseech you, upon the frailty of your Ministers, and the fallibility of your Church, and weigh with yourselves, whether it be not more credible that your English Congregation seasoned with two such Ingredients as frailty and fallibility, may be mistaken in mysteries of Faith, than that God would permit the whole Catholic world, and such men as Saint Bernard, and the other Roman Catholik Saints, to be deluded and seduced by the Devil's lying prodigies; and that, in a conjuncture when God's veracity and honour jay at the stake in a public trial of true and false doctrine. Would any of yourselves stand by in such an occasion as an idle spectator, or unconcerned person, and permit a Rogue or a Fool clad in your livery, produce counterfeit letters, and deliver seditious orders in your name? Would any of you suffer poor people who wish you well, to be destroyed by such wicked practices? Would you condescend so far with your greatest Enemy, as to wink at his malice, and at the unjust means he applied to ruin your well meaning Tenants; or friends? Certainly you would disclaim in the fourbery, and never wink at a fraud so prejudicial to the people, and as contrary to your noble inclinations, as to the principles of honour, and truth which you profess.  
Be pleased then to have as good an opinion of God's inclination to honour and truth, as of your own. Let not the first impressions upon your tender undiscerning years, grown at unawares into a settleness through education and custom blind your riper and more manly judgements to be persuaded, God can permit such Miracles as we have recounted, to be only mistakes of the Roman Church, and human or Diabolical artifices; or that he would suffer his greatest Enemy to seduce innocent Souls by cheats so like supernatural seals of the Divine doctrine and ministry, that such prudent, learned, and conscientious men as the Roman Catholic Church hath had in all ages, could (after a severe scrutiny) conclude to be the work of God's omnipotency, and above the power of all natural causes. This well considered, will, I hope, make you more Kind to your Roman Catholic Kindred and neighbours, and to the Religion of all your Ancestors before Queen Elizabeth's reign. But if you slight this humble advice, grounded upon so clear evidence, I fear that God, who is a jealous God, and no less concerned for his honour, and veracity, than infinite goodness, and an infinite aversion from falsood inclines him to be, will visit you in the fury of his justice, and deny to you in your greatest need, that mercy which ye deny to tender consciences; he will hear the loud cries of innocent blood which penetrate the Heavens, when they find no relief upon earth. God direct you in all your ways, and resolutions; and make us either thankful for your moderation, or strengthen us with constancy and patience against your persecution.   
FINIS.   

AN APPENDIX.  

HOW RATIONAL IT IS NOT to exact more than moral evidence in matters of Faith. The Author of Sure footings doctrine în that particular explaind by himself, and vindicated from the Censure of the deceased Author of Religion and Government.  
Q. No body questions but that God's revelation and authority if it appears sufficiently applied to the Church proposing and deciding matters of Faith, doth oblige all men (even the most scrupulous and subtle Doubters and Dissenters) to submit their judgements and inward assents thereunto. My doubt is, whether the Divine revelation and authority can be sufficiently applied to the Church unless we see that application proved by clear and conclusive evidence? As for your often repeated Parallel between God and Soveraings, there is a vast disparity between the Royal and Divine authority as to the sufficiency of their proposal. The Royal authority is sufficiently proposed, as such, by a moral evidence of its application to such as claim to be the King's Ministers and Messengers; because a King can not give to his subjects greater evidence then moral, that he trusts and employs such men with declaring his pleasure and commands. But God (without any inconueniency to himself) may give clear and conclusive evidence to every individual person that himself revealed the doctrine which the Church proposeth as Divine. And therefore it seems to be very agreeable to reason, that in the Church there be some Doctors who may demonstrat, or prove by conclusive evidence against the wittiest Doubters, that he hath done so de facto, by virtue of Tradition: seeing clear knowledge is not only the surest but the most connatural way for rational Creatures to arrive to the happy end we all aim at by our Faith and actions.  
A. If God can justly oblige the wittiest men of the world underpain of damnation, to content themselves with moral evidence (when they have no greater) of such and such men being their Princes and Parents, and (in consequence thereof) to submit unto them, and their Ministers or Messengers, their outward actions of greatest importance; sure he may justly oblige under pain of damnation the same men to content themselves with a moral evidence (if he be pleased to give no greater) for submitting their judgements (by a most certain belief) to his revelations and authority claimed by the Church, and showing for it marks so supernatural of the Divine trust and truth, that they can not be prudently questioned as counterfeit. For, as the imperfection of our human nature and Knowledge (as also the Prerogative of Sovereignty and superiority) makes it very reasonable, and natural enough to us, to be subject and directed in our outward actions by a sole moral evidence, when we have no greater; so the same imperfection (and Gods infinite Excellency) doth demonstrat that it is most reasonable, and natural to us, to be directed in our inward acts and assents by supernatural moral evidence, when God is pleased to give us no greater, seeing we have no right or reason to exact it in truths which are obscure to us, and the Knowledge of them is above our merit and capacity. Such are, not only the mysteries of our Faith, but the Divine revelation of them, or (which is the same) God's communication of his thoughts and Counsels to such slaves and pitiful Creatures as we are. Christ told the Apostles, (joan. 15.) he called them his friends, because he communicated to them all which he had heard from his Father. And every Catholic Knows that God's friendship or favour is a supernatural gift which human nature could not expect as due to it. We have no right or reason therefore to exact or expect that God would not have us believe whatsoever the Church proposeth with moral evidence as being revealed by him, unless we see the Divine revelation applied to that proposal by clear and conclusive evidence; Moral evidence is sufficient to damn us if we deny to proceed thereupon in order to a most certain (though not clear) assent of the truth of the mystery, 
(Marc. vlt.)  as well as of the existence of the revelation.  
As for what you say concerning the nature of Tradition, viz. that it may with conclusive evidence manifest and demonstrat (if the dispute be managed by a witty man) an infallible and clear connexion with the Divine revelation of the Roman Catholic Faith, because it leads us from age to age, and year to year up along to Christ, who is God, and preached our Faith, to this I answer two things. 1. That the Tradition of the Catholic Church (whether we speak of it as it is a Congregation of Knowing and honest men, before we believe or suppose it assisted by the holy Ghost, or whether we speak of it even after we suppose it to be so assisted) it can not demonstrat or prove by conclusive evidence that God revealed any one article of our Catholic Faith, though it may prove by conclusive evidence that Christ did; because that Tradition only proves that Christ said he was God, and that the Apostles believed so, but goes no further in proving Christ's Divinity than by testifying his Miracles, which do not demonstrat, or evidently conclude his Divinity, though they demonstrat our obligation of believing it. 2. I answer that though Tradition doth not demonstrat or evidently conclude Christ's Divinity, and by consequence can not demonstrat or clearly conclude that his revelation of our Faith was Divine, yet it is a conclusive argument ad hominem against Protestants and all who confess Christ's Divinity, that God revealed all the articles of the Roman Catholic Church, because they confess Christ is God. And in this sense the Author of the sure footing, of Faith vindicated, etc. argues unanswerably against his Adversaries for the conclusive evidence (by virtue of Tradition) of Gods revealing (supposing Christ to be God) every article of the Roman Catholik Faith. And therefore seeing he hath (as I am credibly informed) thus explaind himself, he deserves rather great commendation than that severe Censure which the Author of Religion and Government gives of his doctrine, thinking he agreed with Manicheans and Protestants in making clear evidence the motive and rule of Christian belief. For, the Author of sure footing utterly disavows and abhors as leading to Heresy and Atheism this Proposition (which some imagined he maintained, as following out of his Principles.) No Catholic, or at least not learned or witty person is bound to assent or believe with Christian Faith any article the Catholic Church proposeth as revealed by God, unless it be demonstrated, or concluded by clear and evident reason, that God revealed the same article.  
Q. Do not some Catholic Divines teach that clear Evidence of the Revelation is consistent with our Catholic Faith?  
A. No. Some of them teach the Angels before their fall, and Adam in the state of innocency had (and even the Devils now have) evidence that it was God who revealed to them the supernatural Mysteries they believed, and few extend this privilege to the Prophets and Apostles inspired immediately by God without outward preaching. 
See Fr. Dominic. Bannes' 2.2 q. ●. a. 1. Estius in 4. lib. Sentent. lib. 2. dist. 23. paragr. 6.  But not any one Divine I could see, or hear of, says that clear evidence of God revealing our Catholic Faith, (which according to Saint Paul. Rom. 10. comes by hearing (Fides ex auditu) and the preaching or testimony of the Church) is consistent with the same.   

OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN certainty sprung from the sight of Truth; and certainty grounded upon Trust. The later, excludes clear enidence of the truth; and is the certainty required in Christian Faith.  
Q. I find it very reasonable (if possible) all men should believe with the greatest assurance and certainty imaginable, that God revealed every article both great and small which the Church doth propose as revealed by him, though there were no clearer evidence than moral for such a revelation. But how is it possible that scrupulous and acute Wits, or Doubters, can assent to Gods revealing the articles of Christianity, or to any truth, with greater assurance than there is appearance and evidence of the same? Is not evidence and assurance (or certainty) the same thing in our intellectual assents? At least are they not so connected with one an other, that they can not be separated, or one be greater than the other?  
A. Any thing which is very reasonable, must be possible, because reason can not lead to, or approve of an impossibility. How possible and feasible it is to assent with infallible assurance and the greatest certainty (for so we must assent in matters of Faith) with only moral evidence, is clear in the scriptures especially john. 20. where Christ our Saviour reprehended St Thomas for not believing with the assurance and certainty of Divine Faith the mystery of the Resurrection, though he had but moral evidence for it (the testimony of the Apostles, not as yet confirmed in grace) Christ also (Marc. ult.) reproached with obstinacy and incredulity against Faith the Apostles themselves, for not being content with that sole moral evidence of the Resurrection which they had from the testimony of the three Maries, and the two Disciples of Emaus. And certainly Christ would not find fault with St Thomas or the Apostles, for not doing an impossibility. It's possible therefore to believe by an assent of Faith with more assurance and certainty then there is appearance of the truth, or evidence of the Revelation.  
I confess it is very difficult to show how this is done. But if we distinguish the assurance or certainty we have of truth by seeing the truth in itself, from the assurance or certainty we have thereof, by putting our trust in an other, or relying upon his knowledge and integrity, we shall find this point much more easy than hitherto hath appeared to most both Divines and Philosophers. The assurance and certainty of our intellectual assents which is produced by the sight either intellectual or sensual of the Truth itself, inuolues clear evidence thereof. But the assurance and certainty of the Truth, which is an effect of the Trust and esteem we have of an others Veracity, integrity, power and wisdom, is so far from including a clear sight or evidence of the truth, that it excludes it. For, Trust is no more consistent with our exacting the possession, sight, or clear evidence of that wherewith we trust an other, than it is with doubts, cautions, and suspicions of his integrity or power. Upon this notion and the true nature of Trust (excluding sight or clear evidence of the thing trusted) is grounded that saying. I'll trust such a man no further than I see him, that is, I will not trust him at all.  
This supposed, We may easily comprehend how its possible to believe, or to assent by an act of our Christian Faith with more assurance than appearance, or evidence either of the truth, or of the Divine Revelation. Because to believe, or to assent by an act of our Christian Faith, is to trust God for his revelation as well as for the truth revealed (for we believe God did reveal the mystery and so we must trust him for the revelation also.) But if we see the revelation evidently applied to the mystery revealed, we can not trust him for either, seeing the truth of the mystery is inseparable, and necessarily connected with God's revelation thereof: and we can not trust God for the truth of one of two things that we know are necessarily connected, unless we trust him for both. Therefore if the revelation be clearly evident to us by Tradition, we can not trust God for it, nor for the truth of the mystery we know is necessarily connected therewith.  
Hence doth follow, 1. that seeing we can not trust God for the truth of the mystery revealed, unless we trust him also for the revelation, we can not believe either, or any thing the Catholic Church proposeth as matter of Faith, if we exact for that belief conclusive and clear evidence that God revealed the same. It followeth. 2. That by exacting clear or conclusive evidence of the Revelation to believe the mystery or matter proposed by the Church, we do not only mistrust God's veracity and goodness, but prefer the word and veracity of every honest man before his as it is proposed to us by the Church. For, when we hear any honest man speak, though we do not see the truth of his words, nor any thing else necessarily connected with that truth, yet we believe him, and take his bare word for our assent and assurance of the truth. But we will not take God's word delivered to us by the Church, unless we see his revelation which is necessarily connected with the truth of the mystery proposed. And in this consists most of the obstinacy and malice of Heresy.  
It followeth 3. That the obstinacy of Heresy is not always grounded upon the passion or inclination of men to sensual pleasures and those nices which Christian Faith shocks, and condemns; but takes its rise also from the difficulty we find in assenting to any thing without evidence, or in trusting, even God, for the truth of things which seem to be unlikely. Christ's Resurrection was a thing much desired by Saint Thomas, and the Apostles, and by consequence they were willing enough to believe it: And yet because they thought it an unlikely matter, St Thomas would not believe the other Apostles, nor these the Disciples of Emaus and the three Maries, when they assured them Christ was resuscitated. And this is the reason why there have been so many speculative heresies, as that of the Arrians against Christ's consubstantiality; and that of the Greeks' against the procession of the holy Ghost, etc. True it is that the Lutheran and other modern Heresies have their principal source from sensual pleasures, and lendness of life; yet no liberty is more bewitching than that of opining, even in speculation: and therefore the Church hath been troubled with confuting many speculative heresies in former ages.  
I conclude this Appendix with this advertisement, that many mistakes among Controversors are occasioned by their not being well grounded in School Divinity, especially in that part of it which treats of the Nature of Faith and Heresy. Some confound the Motives of Faith with the Motives of Credibility, as they do the evidence of these with that of the Divine Revelation, and the evidence of this with that of our obligation to believe it: and fancy that the Authors who pretend to demonstrat Christianity, or the truth of the Roman Catholic Religion, intent to demonstrat God revealed those mysteries and doctrine; whereas they go no further than to endeavour to demonstrat the reasonableness and obligation of believing the same, by the evidence of the Motives of credibility.  
Some of late (as Fisher, Rushworth, and others in England) have attempted to demonstrat or clearly conclude the evidence of the Divine revelation by the certainty of the human Tradition of the Church, and thereupon ground the certainty of Divine Faith. As their zeal is to be commended, so they are to be advertised, that the certainty of Faith must be supernatural, and by consequence must have a higher and more infallible Motive than the evidence of human Tradition grounded upon that of our senses; as all Divines confess and even these modern Authors seem to grant. I hear a bold Spaniard went further, and pretends that Christian Faith is science, because the revelation is evidently concluded from the Motives of credibility, Miracles, etc. and because St Paul says, Scio cui credidi, & certus sum. This is but a Spanish conceit. Perhaps Saint Paul in his rapt to the third Heaven might have evidence of the Divine Revelation. But we hear of no others that went so far to find out that knowledge. I see there are Escobars and Diana's in speculative Theology, as well as in Moral; and I think speculative errors are more dangerous than large cases of conscience; because these carry a certain horror and discredit a long with them; but erroneous speculations, if new, seem to vulgar comprehensions (especially of the weaker sex) to savour of wit; and many would fain seem witty upon any score, even in matters of Faith, wherein the greatest wits must submit to authority, and be commanded by the will (piously affected, and supernaturaly assisted) to believe more than we see, or comprehend.  
Yet the Spaniard is consequent enough in his error, by saying Faith is science. For, if it be evident that whatsoever God revealed is true; and it be evident that God revealed the Trinity, or Transubstantiation, it must needs be evident (and by consequence Science) that these mysteries are true; and therefore no man who penetrats these terms can deny their Truth. For my part, I wish this opinion were true; it would be a great ease to all Catholics who find much difficulty in believing the articles of Faith. So that the Authors and Abettors of Traditionary evidence have this advantage of their Adversaries, that we desire they may have the better of us in this Dispute; and if they have not, it must be want of Reason on their side, not any prejudice or obstinacy on ours. But we have this advantage of them, that we may with more ease convince heretics (even the wittiest) of heresy and obstinacy than they can: because its easier to demonstrat or evidently conclude that a man is bound to bilieve God revealed a mystery of Faith, than it is to demonstrat or evidently conclude he did actualy reveal it (as it is easier to prove you are bound to believe this man is your Father, than that realy he is so.) And if we conclude evidently the first we convince the wittiest Dissenters or Disputers in the world, of heresy and obstinacy, if they do not submit their judgements and belief to that of the Church.