SECT. I. Answer to what is Objected against the R. Catholicks Speculative Divinity.

I Find our School Divinity is tax'd by our Adver­sary of a double Sacriledge, which is, that it both hinders Devotion and enervats Faith. But this is a false surmise, for how can it be pos­sible that She, which alone among all our Sciences makes it Her task to propose to us, explain, and confirm the Object of Faith and Devotion. I mean first God, and his Divine Attributs, and next how we should Honour Him, and behave our selves with his Majesty in our Worship to him; should not promote but hinder Faith and Devotion? Is it credible, say I, that this Science with all the en­deavour and afforded Light should not help, but rather remove us from our end? If some short­fighted People think She moves more doubts, then [Page 3]She satisfies with Her Solutions; The fault is in their weak sight, or tainted understanding, not in Divinity. As when in some, the Ill affected Pallate loaths Meats, which otherwaies are most whole­some.

Many things, altho' most certain to R. Catho­licks, are discussed in this Science and brought by Reason to a rigid Tryal, by which means doubts, which do, or may arise to the Enemies of our Faith, find a clear Solution. Thus Reason then over­ [...]ome by the very Arms of Reason does not only captivate Her self to obey Faith, but moreover freely yields and joynes with Her against the Ene­mies of our Religion.

So against the Iews we demand if it was possi­ble that God should become Man: Against those who deny the veracity of Scripture, if God can lie. Against those who hold the Decree of Reprobati­on in God afore any foreseen Demerit either of Adam or his Posterity,

This Question is moved, whether a Soul allto­gether Innocent may be by an infinite Goodness designed to the Eternal Pains of Hell? Against Athiests this Querie is made whether or no, by the light of Nature one may demonstrate the exi­stence of a God? Thus different Questions are made concerning the possibility of different things. Be cause the Enemies of our Faith, as they easily pass from the denyal of the possible to the denyal of the actual existance of a thing, so from the conviction of a possibility they are more easily drawn to a­vow the actual existence of a reveal'd Object. Nei­ther is this the work, as our Adversary deems, of idle Men, unless he thinks them to do nothing, who make it all their Labour to bring forth in Men a noble Sentiment of God, and free them from all scruple in their way of serving him.

SECT. II. Answer to what is Objected a­gainst R. Catholick's Practical or Moral Divinity.

OUr Adversary condemns our Moral as too large, and giving too much way to the Corruption of Nature. So heretofore the Pharisees condemned the Moral of CHRIST, because he, who came to Save what had perished, conversed with Sinners, and Cured them on the Sabbath. If among us arise some Children of Ini­quity who with the subtilness of their wit endea­vour to elude, and betray the simplicity of the Law, they, as unfaithful Stewards, are removed from the care of Souls, and their dogmes branded with shame, a sign to the Faithful, that their wild Opinions are to be avoided as poysonous Herbs to the Sheep of CHRIST. Thus you see their ex­travagancy in their Sentiments brings no blot on the Moral of the R. Catholick Religion.

Another aspersion he endeavours to fix upon our Moral, by a way of speaking, he saies, he heard among Catholicks, viz. That Men of wit do not Sin. Their Reason is, saies he, that every Sin, for example, Adultery may be considered as a na­tural Act, and as an Act unjust: If you consent to it as a natural Act, you incur no Sin, if as to an Act unjust, you Sin.

To this I Answer. First, There is no Man so dull in Spirit or obdur'd in Conscience, who does [Page 5]not see he incur's the Guilt of Adultery, when he consents to do the natural Act with knowledge of Injustice, viz. in that circumstance of another Man's Wife, inseparably adhearing to it.

For otherwaies, not only every Adultery would not be a Sin, but 'twould be also impossible to commit a Sin in Adultery. Which I show thus: I cannot in that imaginary Opinion commit a Sin in Adultery, unless I will the Act of Adultery as un­just, but this I cannot do, because to will the unjust as unjust, resting there, is to will malum qua malum, or evil as it is evil, which is not the ob­ject of Prosecution, or of the will seeking, but only of flight or of the will abhorring and avoid­ing. Now if these familiars of our opponent avow it impossible to commit a Sin in Adultery, one may think 'twere more likely to meet with them in Bedlame then in an University.

In fine, I press him further, and ask, if, what he utters in general, was not apply'd by the speaker to the matter of Usery in particular, if so, I avow that the Ignorant sometimes may Sin in that mat­ter, where the knowing Man would not Sin. As when the Ignorant really suffering damage by the lending of his Money intends, and takes Sinfully something more then what he lent, purely for the use of it, as Userers are wont to do. Which, if he had been a knowing Man, he might have Lawfully taken for his suffering damage in the lending of his Money, or some other Lawful title unknown to the Ignorant, but known to him.

Nay, That I may Charitably suspend the Cen­suring of our Adversary as the Relater of an Un­truth, I give yet this sense to his saying, witty Men Sin not. That is to say, when Actions indifferent as to their Object, have the same Phisical Effect, [Page 6]whither I do them with a Good or Ill Intention, for Example, a Cup of Wine equally strengthens my Body, whither I drink it meerly out of sen­suality, which is a Sin, or because it pleases God I refresh my Body with it to be more able to serve him, which is a vertuous Action, the truly witty Man, who is ordinarily mov'd by Eternal Reasons. chuses to please God by the latter intention and ab­hors to Sin by the formet.

SECT. I. Protestants cannot be sav'd, even in the Opinion of our Adversary, be­cause they don't fulfill what is requir'd by him to Salvation.

OUr Adversary sayes that there are only two things necessary for Salvation, viz. To live a Life conform to the Law of God. And to Obey Humane Power deriv'd from Him: But these two things are fulfill'd by Protestants, then they may be Sav'd.

The first part he proves by the publick and pri­vate [Page 7]use they make of the Holy Scripture, alledg­ing they take from thence the subject of their mu­tual Discourses, Meditations and Instructions com­posing their whole Life to its Model.

I Answer by this their assiduous use of Holy Scripture, they with the light, they think they have from God above other Men, find it is impossible for any meer Man to keep God's Commandements, or to live a Life conform to the Divine Law; yet our Adversary gives us this for a mark that they are in a Saving Way, because they Actually live a Life conform to the Law of God. I need not tell you that these two propositions cannot stand together. If you deny the former, you discredit the SCOTS Catechism, and the torrent of Protestants: If you disallow the latter, our Adversary's Proof is lame of one Foot; let us now see if it can stand on the other. The great Reformer Calvin, not to speak of other Protestants, holds that the Laws of Men are nowise oblidging in Conscience. Nunc, saies he, L. 4. Instit. c. 10. n. 5. ad humanas leges re­deamus: Si in hunc finem latae sint ut Religionem nobis injiciant quasi per se necessaria sit earum ob­servatio, dicimus conscienciae imponi qued fas non erat, now (saies he) let us return to Humane Laws, if they be made on the account of binding us in Religion, we say 'tis a restraint lay'd upon our Conscience which was a thing Unlawful to do. Neque enim cum hominibus sed cum uno Deo negoti­um est Conscientiis nostris. For the business of our Conscience belongs to God alone and not to Men. How is then the observation of them, one of the two things necessary to Salvation? Which was the second part of his proof, that Pro­testants are in a saving Way. You see our Adver­sary is here quite of his Feet, the first of his proof [Page 8]failing by Protestant's Confession, and the other being of no force as a matter indifferent to Salvati­on. To rise up again, and get favour at least. If he can't credit, with those of his Faction to make us Odious, he saies that Protestants are not of that Opinion of some Catholicks, to wit, that the Pope has a Power to depose a King.

Answer. I avow some Protestants are not of their Sentiment the difference between them and those Catholicks is this, that the Catholick Au­thors say it but faintly, cum formidine de opposito with fear that the contrary Opinion be true. But Protestants who hold a deposing Power, hold it strongly, undoubtedly with a secure Judgment of the goodness of the Action, having confirmed it by publick Authority of Church and State, and a legal proceeding, as was seen in the Bloody deposing of CHARLES the first our Lawful Soveraign. I grant the Loyal party now has a Horrour of that deposing Power. But it must be confessed the Royal party it self had not that horrour when be­ing of the Church of England they deposed in like manner Queen MARY of Scotland Lawful Heir of that Kingdom.

Since then the Actions of both the Church of Eng­land and Kirk of Scotland, or, of both the Prelatick and Presbyterian party make our History blush at what they have done in this matter, should not either of them be asham'd to cast up so often to the R. Catholick Religion that some of Her Chil­dren have Written, not with assurance, but with a fear that the contrary Opinion was true, that there is a deposing Power in the Pope.

SECT. II. Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of CHRIST.

OUr Antagonist advances an other proof to show that a Protestant can be Sav'd, God, sayes He, illuminates all Men that come into this World, Iohn 1. v 8. then he adds, are not Protestants Men?

Answer. They are Men, and illuminated by God, but if they resist this Light which is given them, and equivalently tell God, as those wicked Men of whom Iob spoke, Iob. 21. v. 14. Scien­tiam viarum tuarum nolumus, We will not have the knowledge of thy Wayes. They will be found more remote from Heaven, then, if they had not receiv'd it.

He urges we R. Catholicks grant that Infidels who have never heard of CHRIST may be Sav'd and inconsequently deny that hope of happiness to Protestants.

Answer. There's no ill consequence here to deny a capacity of Salvation to him who puts a hinde­rance to it, and to grant it to him, who puts none. The Infidel who hath never heard of CHRIST, doing what lyes in him by living according to the Light of Nature, make's way to Grace. But the Protestant, who rejects Faith offered to him by God and his Church, willingly shuts up the avenue to a further Grace, and untill he remove this obstacle [Page 10]by an humble submission of his Judgment to Faith, he continues in an impossibility to please GOD.

O! but you are uncharitable, sayes He, to per­swade the simple People, that a Protestant can't be Sav'd.

I ask him, can a R. Catholick be Sav'd? If he saies, no, where is his Charity for us? If he affirms, we may, then they who according to Protestants are Idolaters may be Sav'd. If so, whom will you exclude from Heaven?

But to return to his Objection, since he denies Charity to us, and we only Faith to him, Charity being a greater Vertue then Faith according to St. Paul, is not he in this more Uncharitable to us, then we to him?

He goes on, do not Protestants believe all Fun­damentals contained in the three Creeds and Scrip­ture?

I Answer. First, since that there are Funda­mentals as condistinguished from Intigrals, or not Fundamentals, is a Fundamental point with him; I ask, in what CREED, or Book and Chap. of Scripture is this Fundamental contained? If he can't find this; then that hereafter he speaking with Catholicks may distinguish a Fundamental from an Integral, as he calls it. Let him take this notion of a Fundamental from us, to wit, that all things contained in Holy Scripture are Fundamentals in this sense, that we are bound to believe them un­der pain of Damnation, when they are sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church, as reveal'd by God in the Scripture.

For to disbelieve God revealing that Christ me [...]t a blind man on the way of Iericho destroyes as much his veracity, as to distrust him revealing that his Son became man. By this notion of Funda­mentals [Page 11]we perfectly distinguish the Faithful foul from a Infidel or Sectarian. And therefore it is not given without ground or reason.

Again when Christ commanded the Gospell to be preached to Men, did he command the things only which you call fundamentals, to be Preach'd, or the whole Gospel. if things only you call Fundamentals, why were the Apostles so exact to give us the whole Gospel, that it's thought Damnable not only to add, but to pair from it? If he commanded the whole Gospel to be Preached, and consequently to be believ'd, how can he be sav'd, who refuses to believe the least Integral of it when it's sufficiently proposd to him as re­uealed by God.

SECT. III. It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of belief.

NOw I come to his Achiles, this dreadful Argument to Romanists, this Argument in in his Judgment above the reach of all Ra­tional Solution. It runs thus.

Who Follows a probable Opinion neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently. But who bolds that Protestants may be sav'd, followes a probable O­pinion. Then he neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently.

The major, saies he, is Commonly admitted by Iesuits and others. And a probable Opinion is that which Learned, Prudent and Pious Men hold. [Page 12]But that a Protestant may be sav'd, is an Opin­ion that Learn'd, Prudent and Pious Men hold; then it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be sav'd.

Ans. I distinguish the major, in matter of Faith, on which absolutly depends Salvation, he does not Sin who follows a Probable Opinion; I deny; in other matters I grant. If we hold a Priest to Sin (and all Judicious Men think we ought to do so in our Principles) who makes use, in the Bap­tism of a dying Child, of that which is only prob­ably Water having at hand sure Water, Because he makes a mortal breach of Charity against his Neighbour exposing the Child's Salvation. Am not I damnably Injurious to my self to follow a prob­able Opinion in matter of Faith, without which I cannot be sav'd, when I have my choice of tak­ing a sure way? am not I bound to be as Chari­table to my self, in a matter of that consequence as to my Neighbour.

Again, can my understanding tell my Will that she may prudently command him to give a certain and infallible assent super omnia above all that may be said (such as the assent of Faith is) to an object, to command which, she is only mov'd by a probable motive? what it an Angel, come after this assent is made, from Heaven and tell me the thing I as­sented to, is false, as I fear'd, or might have reasonably fear'd 'twas, having only a probable motive to beleive the contrary. Might not he ac­cuse me not only of Imprudence but also of bold­ness to make my self believe that God said it, and so Father upon him, as other articles of my Faith, this which is found to be false, which I might have justly fear'd having only so slender a ground as a probable Opinion is, to believe it?

SECT. IV. The formal Protestant cannot be sav'd.

ALtho he thinks he has won the cause by his last Argument, yet he brings another to prove that a Protestant, nay a formal Protestant may be sav'd. And to prevent our an­swer, he sayes, that R. Catholicks, as he was taught distinguish the formal Protestant from the material, in this, that the material is in an invincible Igno­rance, the formal in a vincible Ignorance. But before he goes further, I must tell him that he is either short of Memory, or that he took ill up his Lesson of the formal Hereticks. For R. Catholick Divines, teach not that he is a formal Heretick, who lives in a vincible Ignorance, altho' grosly culpable, and affected too, if he be not pertina­cious, but he only is a formal Heretick who with obstinacy defends an Errour.

Hence St. Aug. Epist. 162. speaks thus. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, &c. parati corrigi cum invenerint veritatem, nequaquam sunt inter Hereticos reputandi, id est, Who defends their Opinion, tho false and perverse, but without any obstinacy ready to submit when the Truth shall be shown them, are not at all to be counted Hereticks.

So when our Adversary tells me that a formal Protestant, may have stronger Arguments ( viz. as they appear to him,) against Transubstantiation [Page 17]then for it, he is in an invincible Ignorance and so may be Sav'd. I infer from that antecedent, not, and so may be Sav'd. But, and so is only a ma­terial Protestant, according to the notion of a ma­terial Protestant given, and agreed upon by our Adversary, and so indeed the material Protestant may in this case be Sav'd, not the formal. But, then he will tell you there is no formal Protestant, for who knowing his Error defends it, is an Hy­pocrite, &c. not a True Protestant.

Answer. There are likely many such among those who pass in the esteem of their Brethren for true Protestants, Men, I say, carried away either by Passion or Interest to speak against their know­ledge. As among R. Catholicks there are but too many, who are led by Interest or Passion to do that which they know to be Damnable and against their Conscience.

And now not to speak of those who have been, and are known to be of this Category, I bring you a Reason for the proof of what I have said, which is this. It's certain all the Arguments, R. Catho­licks bring for the proof of their Religion, are not clearly and with full satisfaction solv'd by Protestants; or else why would so many of their Learn'd Men, as I could Name some, come to us for Truth's sake, not only without any Humane inticement, but on the contrary with great Worldly prejudice, and renouncing of natural satisfaction, which is not remark'd in our Learn'd People going to them, when their Lives, after they have left us, are con­sidered without passion.

Now if this be true that our Arguments are not fully solv'd by them, many of their Learn'd Men must see this, as I was told of a Minister in France, (when I was among the French) who, when his [Page 18]Wife startl'd by what he uttered in a Discourse, said to him after, if that be true, why do we live as we live? He answered Her, Que Diable veut tu que je fasse avec toy & mes Enfans, that is; What the Devil wilt thou have me do with Thee and my Children? To wit, if he Liv'd according to what he thought. Thus they seeing the R. Catho­lick Truth, and Teaching Protestancy are formal Protestants, who as long as they remain so, cannot be Sav'd.

Many of the material Protestants are, it may be, much held in their way by the Physical Arguments, they frame to themselves against Transubstantia­tion.

And this depends much of the notion of a Body which hath been given them in Philosophy.

For, if they have been taught, for example, that the nature of a Body consists in an actual extension of its parts, and that accidents are not distinct from the substances; it presently appears to them im­possible that the whole Body of CHRIST can be in every the least particle of the Host, and there under the sole Accidents of Bread.

But we Catholicks when we see such notions can­not stand with what the Holy Scripture saies, the Holy Fathers unanimously teach, and the whole Church hath believed from the Apostles time down to us; we condemn them, knowing that Reason must captivate it self to Obey Faith, not Faith sub­mit her self to Reason.

Don't think for what I have said that I acknow­ledge a material Protestant, who has no doubt in his Faith secure as to his Salvation, no; I do not indeed deny but that he may be Sav'd, but I do not absolutely say that he will be Sav'd, for he se­ing so great changes in the Protestant Religion since [Page 19]its rise, the R. Catholicks alone remaining alwayes the same, seeing Preachers who were thought Learn'd and Good-men, and who had stood stiff to the Covenant as conform to the Word of God, now solemnly renounce it, acknowledging they have got a new Light, he can't I say well, but doubt, whether he ought to follow them in this Light, or in the Light for which they said before as much, as for this.

And since they changed from the former, it may be hereafter they will change from this to a third, there being no more infallibility in this, then in the former. And if he doubt, he is bound to en­quire, and hearing, that the R. Catholick Church believes Her self to be infallible in what She de­livers of Faith.

Infallibility, if it were true, being (as confess'd by all) a certain means to settle Men in Conscience, and secure them from all doubts in matters of Re­ligion, he is bound to enquire, and try if Roma­nists have any solid ground to bring for this their Tenet, and if he find it good, in Charity to him­self he's bound to embrace it.

Next, tho' a material Protestant have no doubt, he is not in an equal condition in order to Salva­tion, because if he fall into grievous Sin, he has no other Remedy then an Act of Contrition, or of Sorrow for it, purely for the Love of God, he has offended, which is not so easily had. Where­as the Catholick has frequent Sacramental Confes­sion and by it pardon from God, which is clearly intimated to us, in Io. 20. chap. v. 23. The Sins which you remit are remitted to them. A Protestant may say I believe from that passage it not ill, but Lawful to Confess to a Minister of the Church, but not that we are bound.

But weigh then, say I, the following Words, Whose Sins you retain (or do not pardon) are re­tained, (are not pardon'd;) this can't be under­stood of Protestants Excommunication, for if you don't, or can't pardon, with what Authority do you, or can you retain? Both parts belonging to the Function of the same Ministers of God. Also the Excommunication is not a formal retaining of Sin, but a thing destinct, and a sign of your retaining it, posterior to the retaining of it. Moreover, how can the Priest know which Sin he may remit, and which he must retain, if you do not Confess them to him?

And St. Augustin in Confirmation of this Con­fession, sayes, in his 49. Hom. of the 50. Hom. Tom. 10. Do Penance as it is practised in the Church, and let no Man say (occulte ago, apud Deum ago) I do it secretly in the [...]ottom of my Heart. Ergo, saies he, Sine causa dictum est quaecunque Solveritis, &c. Matth. 16.19? Frus [...]ramus Evangelium, fru­stramus verba Christi, did Christ then say that in vain, sayes He, to the Ministers of the Church. Whose Sins ye remit are remitted to them? We fru­strate the Gospel, and make void the Words of Christ.

Besides (many as some Apostats,) come to have no doubt in the Protestant Religion, by a punish­ment from God. Eo quod charitatem veritatis non receperunt ut salvi fierent, ideò mittes i [...]lis Deus ope­rat onem Erroris, ut credant mendacio, saies St. Paul ad. Thess. 2. cap. 2. v. 10. Because they have not cherish'd o [...] embrac'd the Truth which God out of Love manifested to them, that by it they might be Sav'd, therefore [...]od will send. them the Operation of Error to believe [...]ing. He will send i. e. saies St. Augustin L. 2. de Civit. Dei cap. 19. Will permit [Page 21]the Devil to do those things, viz. to bring them to believe lying.

These People conscious to themselves of their te­pid or vicious Life, in the Religion they were in, ought not to ground themselves upon their want of doubt in the way they have taken, but to use much humble Prayer to God to enlighten them.

Here I add something our Adversary saies, to justifie himself, in a Letter to a Friend, Sure I am, saies He, that a knowing Man, as one may have Reason to think me to be in such matters, can never resist a known Truth. So if I be in an Error, 'tis not an Error of Will, but Iudgement, for which God damns no Man, provided this Error be invin­cible, as undoubtedly mine is, allowing what your prepossession inclines you to believe, that I am really mistaken: There being an invincible Error, but less reflected on, that comes from knowledge as well as an other more talked of in the Schools, that pro­ceeds from want of knowledge.

Answer. Did not Origen and Tertullian resist a known Truth? If not, why were they con­demned? If they did resist it, may not you also? Were they less knowing than you? Or less Vertu­ous in their Moral Life then you? One fault was found in them, to wit, that they would not sub­mit their Judgement to the Church. And this is found in you.

Tho' God damns no Man for an Error of Judge­ment. He may damm a Man for the Sin, to pu­nish which, he withdrew his Grace, and for want of which Grace, this Man sell into that Error of Judgement. So a drunken Man Dying, tho' he is not Damned for what proceeds from Drunkeness, for a Blasphemy uttered in that time, yet he may be damned for the Sin, which brought him to this distemper of his Reason.

Neither flatter your self with an invincible Error proceeding from knowledge, there is no such; an Error of Judgement is an Ignorance of Truth, and therefore that Error proceeds from Ignorance, and not from knowledge. A Fool upholding his Opi­nion against a number of Wise Men, thinks this his. Opinion proceeds from his knowledge, which o­thers have not, and that he speaks with a great deal of sense. In the mean while, the Wise Men present, pitty him, seeing all he sayes is but non­sense, and that all this Discourse, in which he runs out, proceeds from his Ignorance. So that what he esteems in himself to be Light, is truely Dark­ness.

SECT. I. Formal Protestants are Schis­maticks.

AFter our Adversary had endeavoured, tho', as I hope you have sufficiently seen, in vain to prove positively that Protestants may be sav'd in his second Sect. pag. 43. His aim, is here to prove the same negatively i.e. that [Page 23]in their Religion there is no hinderance of Salvation.

Two things only, as he Imagins; may hinder from Salvation, Schism and Heresie. But Pro­testants are free from both; then they have no hin­derance of Salvation, as he concluds. Schism, saies he, is a separation from the true Church, and the true Church is that of primative Christians. We, grant all this. But Protestants do not differ from the primative Christians, this we deny. And this which he should have chiefly proven, and one which lyes the whole force of debate between him and us, he passes over, and slips away, saying, it has been proven by others. This way of proving is indeed a new method, but not infallible. For, why shall I believe him that others have done that which he with all their Light given him and his own dar'd not undertake to do himself? Since he then could not prove that Protestants do not differ, from the primative Christians, I will not content my self to say that others have proven that they do differ, but I will prove it to him.

I suppose that Christians in the third age (I go no farther then the bounds he allows me) did not dif­fer from the second, nor the second from the first in their rule of Faith, and this supposed, I say.

Protestants now have not the same Rule of Faith which Christians had in the first three Ages, then they differ from them. The Rule of Faith among those pri­mative Christians was the Holy Scripture as interpret­ed by Christ, the Apostles, and their Successors, not the Scripture as interpreted by every private Mans best un­derstanding, which is the Rule now among Protestants refusing to submit to any Counsel, or Synods interpre­tation of a passage of Scripture, if their Judgment stand against it. The Disciples of Christ, englightn'd as they were, did not understand the Scriptures before [Page 24]Christ opened 'em to them, and St. Peter Vicar of Christ in that function explaining the Scripture to those of his time, told them, it did not belong to any private Man to Interpret it, 2 Petr. 1 v. 20 and Instanced that many had wrested or miss-Inter­preted St. Pauls Words to their own Destruction. 2 Petr. 3. v. 16. CHRIST said to Peter, feed my Sheep, not with Bread, but with Doctrine. As, I cannot Feed that Child, who willfully refuses to open his Mouth to receive the Food, I offer him, no more could Peter Feed those Christians with Doctrine, had they refused to open their Ears, and to bear it with submission.

Those Christians then wisely submited to Peter; and their followers to his Sucessors being of an equal power to Instruct them; for Christ promising to be with his Apostles to the end of the, World did not mean with their Persons only, who were not to exceed a hundred Years, but also with those of their Lawful Successors. And so the perpetual Cu­stome of the Church hath been to have recourse in Controversies of Religion to the Sea of Rome, it being necessary, as St. Ireneus said in the 2. Age for all Churches, to have their recourse to her.

Next to prove to me that the Protestants do not differ from the Primative Christians, you must not only say, but show me that your whole Church, not only some private men, takes the Scripture in the same sense, their whole Church or lead­ing Church took it in.

Show me some General Counsel of yours or a Body of Pastors, to which you all unanimously submit, and then I will understand what your Church holds, otherwayes not. And because you will not submit to any such Body, I can never un­derstand how you agree with the Christians of pri­mative times.

Neither send me to your professions of Faith, [...]o [...] first in these all Protestants do not agree. We agree, say you, in Fundamentals, I ask what are the Fundamentals in which you agree with all other Protestant Churches? Here you are at a stand. And I also; For if you don't assign me them, how shall I know that in them precisely you all agree. Beside most of the Articles of those Professions are meer Negatives of Catholick Articles, unknown, (as you say, not I,) to the primitive Christians; and I say, if they did not know those our Articles, neither had they a knowledge of the Negations of them, which is posterior to the knowledge of the things of which they are Negations. And so not knowing those your Articles they did not in them agree with you.

But Romanists, say you, cannot say that they agree with the Christians who liv'd in the first three Ages, because they have brought in many Novel­ties unheard of to them. As the Invocations of Saints, Adoration of the Holy Host, Veneration of Pictures, and the Popes power, in order to teach us what we ought to believe, for if you mean of the deposing power, you know, tho' some Ca­tholicks hold it, none is bound to believe it, since the Church hath not defin'd it.

Ans. You say we have brought in Novelties, but you don't prove it. But I say if those our Tenets you call novelties were not heard of in the first three ages, neither were the denyals of them, for the denyal is alwayes posterior to the knowledge of the thing deny'd; these then denyals brought i [...] by you, and believed by you with Divine Faith, are Novelties brought in by you, and consequent­ly by them, you differ from the primitive Chri­stians.

Do not you believe, for Example as an Article of Faith, that there is no Transubstantiation? If not, then we Catholicks who believe Transubstan­tiation, believe nothing contrary to Divine Faith. And so of all the rest. And by this means you will be found Guilty of Schism for leaving us.

You say its certain that standing to the Funda­mentals we are Guilty of a Superstruction. I ask once again what these Fundamentals of Christianity are? That every one may see clearly whither, or no, what I hold as a Tenet of Religion, is not found among them, but is a meer superstruction. Will you refuse to a considerable Person, who thinks certainly he has seen in the Law Book, a Law which justifies the Action for which he is con­demn'd to Die? Will you, I say, refuse him a publick sight of that Book, to justifie your Sentence against him, but, notwithstanding the murmur of the People upon your refusal of his demand suspect­ing him Innocent, savagely cast him? If not, do not condemn us, who hold for certainty Transub­stantiation to be so Fundamental, that no Christi­an of the first three Ages would have deny'd it.

SECT. II. Formal Protestants are Here­ticks.

I Advance to his assertion in which he affirms, that we cannot say without Ignorance, Calum­ny, and Injustice, that a Protestant is an He­retick. First, I agree with him that an Heretick is he who denyes ( viz. pertinaciously) an Article of Faith, or a revealed Verity.

Next, I ask him by what principle he proves, that a Protestant does not deny an Article of Faith or a reveal'd Truth? I suppose he will Answer, because a Protestant believes the CREED and the Holy Scripture.

I ask him further, if a Preacher now of their Congregation, should vent a Doctrine not Ortho­dox, and should pertinaciously maintain it against his Brethren as a Truth, according to his best Judg­ment, reveal'd in Scripture. By what principle will he convince him to be an Heretick? He'l tell you, he believes the three Creeds, and the whole Scripture, and therefore he believes this his [Page 30]dogme, because the thinks he finds it in Scrip­ture.

Is he an Heretick, because he will not submit his Judgement to his particular Brethren?

He is known to be as Learn'd as they, and of as good a Life as they. If you say this Man can't be proven to be an Heretick, that is against the Scripture, Tit. 3. v. 10. bidding us to shun an He­retick, and consequently he may be proven to be one. If you say he is an Heretick, because he will not submit his Judgement not only to particulars, but neither to the whole Congregation, or the Church, of which he was a Member, and there­fore is justly condemn'd by Her, according to Isai. 54. v. 17. Every Tongue that rises up against thee in Iudgment thou shall condemn, this is the Inheri­tance of the Lords Servants.

I conclude, without Ignorance, Calumny, or Injustice, that the Protestant Luther, the Protestant Calvin, &c. were Hereticks, because they would not submit their Judgment to the whole Church of which they were Members afore they were Excom­municated for their self Opinions.

Again, this proposition, a Protestant is not an Heretick either is an Act of Faith. or Science, or Opinion. If you say it is an Act of Faith [...] then, say I, 'tis false, to say that the Protestant Church is fallible: Because, if she befallible, she may de­ny a reveal'd Truth, (and who told you she does not) and so in sensu composito of Protestancy, i. e. at the same time, that she is Protestant she may become Heretick, or be both at once Protestant and Heretick.

If you say, she is Infallible, and cannot become Heretick, I ask, how came the Romau Church, which was once as true a Church as the Protestant [Page 31]Church is now, (since St. Paul saies Romans 1. v. 8. their Faith was anounc'd (or Preach'd) through the whole World,) to be fallible and He­retick?

If you say, this proposition, a Protestant is not an Heretick, is an Act of Science, then it must re­ly upon an evidence: No other but that of Scrip­ture, and so it returns to an Act of Faith.

If you say 'tis an Act of Opinion only (for one of these three either an Act of Faith, of Science, or Opinion it must be) then the contrary is also probable, then its probable that a Protestant is an Heretick, and consequently it may be said without Ignorance, Calumny, or Injustice, a Protestant is an Heretick, or denyes a reveal'd Truth.

SECT. I. St. Augustin 's saying of the mending of a former Council, by a poste­rior, fully answered.

OUr Adversary conscious to himself, that we put the Definitions of approv'd General Councils, in the number of reveal'd Truths, [Page 32]Grants indeed that Protestants deny General Coun­cils to be Infallible in their Decisions, but their In­fallibility, saies he, is no Article of Faith. Else Augustin was an Heretick, avouching de Bap lib. 2. contra Donatis c. 3. That General Councils ga­thered out of all the Christian World, are often corrected, the former by the latter; the correction of a Council undoubtedly supposes a precedent Er­ror, and a Council to be Errable, as every one understands, that knows any thing.

Answer. St. Augustin does not say often cor­rected, but mended, there is a great difference be­tween these two Words, the one supposes an Er­ror, the other only whatsomever defect it being deriv'd from menda, which as Scaliger in his notes upon varro remarks, comes from the Latin ad­verb minus, and properly signifies any defect what­somever. A Master Painter draws a Lady, his piece is prais'd as well done, having all its just pro­portions, and perfectly all her Features. Another Master draws her again with a little more Life, he is also said to have drawn her well, nay to have mended the other, So, well, suffers a Latitude without the Compass of Error. The first did well, but as we say in Latine minus Benè. Altho' two Scholers compose a Theam, both without Er­ror, yet one may have made minus Benè, then the other, i. e. with less Elegance.

If you ask me in what this amendment of a General Council was, or may be made. I Answer. if you will have this amendment to be the correction of an Error of a General approv'd Council, it is to be understood in some matters of Fact, or some precepts of maners which depending of the cir­cumstance of Time, Place and Persons, may have been right and good at one time and in con­venient [Page 33]at another, and therefore chang'd by rea­son of the change of circumstances.

And that this was the meaning of St. Aug [...] ­stin.

I prove by his following Words, pleanary Coun­tils may be amended, the former by the latter, when, saies he, by some experiment of things that is Open­ed which was shut up and that known which lay hid.

I ask can we know by any experiment of things how many persons are in the Divine Nature? How many in CHRIST, how many Sacraments? No; but the Truth of a Fact, which lay hid, with time may come to Light, and so alter the mind of the Judge.

You'l say the matter in Question here with St. Augustin and the Donatists was a matter of Faith. Ans. The matter which gave the occasion to Augustin, to speak of General Councils, I grant. the matter at which he hinted in these last Words, plenaria Saepe priora posterioribus emen­dari, I deny; and with ground: Because when he speaks of the Letters of Bishops and of Provin­cial or National Councils, he uses these Words, Licere reprehendi, Siquid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est, which import a capacity of down right Error as I said afore: And speaking of General Councils, he cautiously uses the Word Emendari, which imports only some defect whatsomever.

All this is strongly confirm'd by his saying in the same Chap: that St. Cyprian would certainly have corrected his Opinion, had the point in his time been defin'd by a General Council. And a­gain, by what he sayes, Lib. primo de Bap. con­tra donat. Tom. 7. that no doubt ought to be made of what is by full Decree established in a General [Page 34]Council, how can this be true, if in his Opinion a General Council may Err? I ask again had there been more then the first four General Councils, the fourth being that of Chalcedon, held under Leo the first, the year of our Lord four hundred and fifty, (which four General Councils St. Gregory respect­ed as the four Evangils) when St. Augustin said this, and yet he sayes Saepe Emendari, had he seen any mended in matter of Faith?

Lastly I give, to take from you all Scruple, that a General Council may be mended as to the want of a more clear Explication by a posterior, when experience shows us that some new arising Errors demand, a more ample Declaration of some point of Doctrine already defin'd. But that New Declaration gives you no more a new point of Doctrine, then I give you a new Rose when I blow out a bud which is in your hand; you have no more of a Rose than you had before, but only a fuller sight of it. No more have you of the truth in such an Explanation then you had before, but onely a clearer sight of it. In fine if a posterior Council might correct a former in matter of Faith, 'twould serve for nothing, for why am I more sure of this, than they of the former? This were only to breed confusion and foment division, while the adherents of one party clash with the other, since neither has Infallibility as you sup­pose.

SECT. II. 'Tis an Article of Faith, that Ge­neral approv'd Councils are Infallible.

AN Article of Faith saies our Adversary must either be clearly contained in Scripture, or defin'd by some General Council. But that the Decisions of General Conneils, are Infallible, is neither clearly contained in Scripture, nor defin'd by a General Council.

Therefore 'tis not an Act of Faith, sayes he, that the Decisions of General Councils are Infalli­ble. He demands in what Book, Chapter, and Verse of Scripture, or in what General Council this Article is contained?

Answer. First, either he Argues out of Protestant or Catholick Principles: If out of Protestant Prin­ciples, then he added ill the second part of his dis­junctive, since 'tis of no weight with them▪ If out of Catholick Principles, he oversaw himself in bringing the first part of his disjunctive, because, 'tis deny'd by Catholicks. For we deny that it is re­quir'd [Page 37]that an Act of Faith be clearly set down in Scripture, nay, that all our Articles be con­tain'd there, or in General Councils, either, since these two are not our adequat and total Rule of Faith, but are compleated in the being of our Rule by Apostolical Tradition, which enters in, and assures us with equal Authority. Wherefore I first deny the Major, which failing the whole Argument concludes nothing.

2. Giving, not granting the Major, I deny the Minor, and say, that Article of Faith is clearly con­tained in the same Scriptures, in which its clearly contained according to Protestants, that their Ge­neral Synods do not Err in the Decision of Con­troversies arising among them; for if, as they think, it is elearly proven by those passages, that their Sy­nods do not Err, because they are directed by the Holy Ghost, I say, its clearly proven by the same, that our General Councils cannot Err, because they are directed by the Holy Ghost, a possibiliiy of Erring being as repugnant to the Holy Ghost as an Actual Error.

And by this their acknowledging that their Gene­ral Synod may Err, tho it does not Err, they discard their Synod of Authority, and disown them­selves to be that Body of Pastors which CHRIST conserv's in his Church, that hearing them, we may not waver like Children, and be carried away with every Wind of Doctrine, Ephes. 4. v. 11. and 14. For if I believe the Body of my Teachers to be fal­lible, I fear and waver in my believe of what they have said and taught me. For possibili posito in actu nullum sequitur impossibile. There's no im­possibility or absurdity if that which is possible be brought to an Actual Being; and so CHRIST would be disappointed in the aim he had, when, [Page 38] Ephes. 4. He made some Pastors in his Church, that we might not waver.

3. I prove our assertion thus: 'Tis an Article of Faith, to believe the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity, because its clearly set down in Scripture (ac­cording to Protestants,) as all other things neces­sary to Salvation. But that a General approved Council, or the teaching Church is Infallible, is as clearly set down in Scripture, as appears by many passages of the same, for, Math. 18. v. 17. God sends us to the Church for instruction, and threatens us there with Damnation, or the punishment of an Ethnick, if we do not harken to Her, and con­sequently tells us, that she is Infallible, for his Goodness woul dnot oblidge me under pain of Damnation to hear a Church which might lead me wrong.

Who hears you, hears me, saies CHRIST, to his Disciples going to preach. Luc. 10. but who hears CHRIST is infallibly sure to be well in­structed, then also he is infallibly sure, who is in­structed by the Church.

St. Paul saies, that Christ made some Pastors, (as I said above) Ephes. 4. v. 1. Why? That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every wind of Doctrine.

Hence we inferr, that they are Infallible in what they teach us in matter of Faith, for if I thought them fallible, I might still waver, which would make void the aim of CHRIST in giving us those Pastors and Teachers, that we might not waver, Then 'tis an Article of Faith to believe that a Ge­neral approv'd Council, or the Teaching Church is Infallible. If our Adversary still deny this; I de­sire him to quote to me as clear passages out of Scripture, to prove the most Blessed Trinity, as I [Page 39]have brought for the Infallibility of a General Coun­cil, or the Teaching Church: And since I am confident he cannot; he has as much Reason to be­lieve the Infallibility of the Church as an Article of Faith, as he has to believe the Mystery of the most B. Trinity to be one.

SECT. III. The Infallibility of a General ap­prov'd Council, proven by some other passages of Scripture, and our Adversary's ex­plication of them ex­ploded.

I Ask, in the case of General approv'd Coun­cils Erring, would not the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church, contrary to CHRISTS promise, Math. 16. v. 18. For all are not Doctors according to St. Paul, 1 Cor. 12. v. 29. The Teach­able Church is bound to hear the Teaching Church, otherways, how are these bound to teach them, or feed them with Doctrine, (as CHRIST com­manded the Church, when he said to Peter, Feed my Sheep, Iohn 21. v. 15, 16, 17.) if they are not bound to receive the Food they give them? Now, if they hearken to them; teaching by their fallibi­lity Erronious Doctrine, the Blind leads the Blind, and so both fall in the Ditch, Math. 15. v. 14. or runs Headlong to Hell. And does not thus, Hell prevail against them?

And what an Interpretation (The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,) is this of our Adver­sary. That the Church of CHRIST will remain, altho' Invisible, notwithstanding the Persecution of Tyrants, as in the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST.

1. Who saies the primitive Church after the Death of CHRIST was Invisible? Did not the Faith­full then know one another, and where to find a Pastor for instruction, or the receiving of a Sacra­ment in necessity? And did not the chief Pastors expose themselves, and so became Martyrs the first thirty three all one after another?

2. If it be an Errable Church, Visible or Invi­sible, 'tis as good as no Church to Christians; for what I have said, and shall say hereafter.

If a particular Church, or Parish, Pastor, and People, should be all the Week dispers'd here and there about their business, would they be said to be an Invisible Church, all the Week, and onely Visible when they meet on Sunday? Is it not e­nough that they can find one another on Week dayes in a necessity?

But truly 'tis not enough to make a true Church Visible or Invisible, if they have not among them true Doctrine, as might full out in Protestants sup­position of the Churches fallibility.

To show we can't prove the Infallibility of the Church, from St. Pauls saying, the Church is the Pilla rand Ground of Truth. 1 Timot. 3. v. 15. He explains that passage, thus. The Church is the Pillar of Truth, saies he, because the providence of God will not permit all her Children to fall and Err, but will always stirr up some to oppose Super­stition, Idolatry and Error.

Answer. Either those who will always oppose [Page 41]Error and Superstition, will be Members of the R. Church or not? If they be Members of Her, She will always oppose Error, (as when my Hand Writes, I am said to Write) and since we know our Saviour has foretold, Iohn 14. v. 16. and c. 16. v. 13. That he will always direct Her by his Spi­rit of Truth, 'twill be impossible for Her by a con­sequential Impotency to Err. Likewise, 'tis im­possible to compose a perpetual direction of the Spirit of God with Error.

If these Opposers of Error, are a Church a part, I ask whether that Church, as distinct from the Roman be Fallible, or Infallible?

If Infallible, we have what we demand, viz. That the teaching Church of God is Infallible.

If Fallible, then the Church in as much as she op­poses Herself to Error, may Err; which is absurd. The Inference is proven thus. In as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church, she opposes Error, and in as much as she is distinct from the Roman Church, she is Fallible, or may Err. Then in as much as she is distinct from the R. Church, she op­posing Error, may Err.

SECT. IV, 'Tis not necessary the Infallibility of the Church be defin'd in a Ge­neral Council, yet it is in General Councils defin'd by a practical defi­nition.

TO that he asks us in what General Coun­cil, is defined the Infallibility of General Councils.

I Answer. Asking him mutually, first, in what Parliament or Act of Parliament is it found declar'd, that a Parliament hath a Power to make Acts o­blidging the People? If he thinks this Question Impertinent, and that it would be Impertinent for a Parliament or an Assembly of Men (if they were not otherways impowr'd) to Assemble and make an Act by which they will have all to submit and acknowledge that they have a Power to oblige the People.

I desire him to Reason the same way of the In­fallibity of a General Council, and know that it has not 'its Infallibility, from its saying, we are In­fallible, but from God, who has been pleas'd to declare it to us by Apostolical Tradition, and in the Holy Scriptures also, to those who read them with the Light which they have received from the Church of CHRIST.

As a Parliament then is fore-impowr'd to make Acts, and acknowledg'd as such, by the People, afore they set themselves to make any, so is the General Council acknowledged by all the Faithful, to have a promise from God, of not Erring in their Declaration of an Article of Faith, afore they set themselves to declare it; or by their Explication of a Truth, to take away the Cloud that hindred us to see it.

I Ans. Secondly, that it is defin'd in all General approv'd Councils (as much as it was necessary) by a practical definition, or their excercis'd power issu'd out by them in their oblidging Decrees al­ways submissively receiv'd by the Faithful. If you say some have refused to receive them, my answer is, they ceas'd from that time to be number'd among the Faithful.

Does not a King sufficiently declare himself to be King, when he uses the Authority of a King in raising Armies and disbanding them, calling a Par­liament, adjurning, proroging, or disolving it at his pleasure?

At last our Adversary brings a strong piece, viz. that the General Councils are so farr from pretend­ing to be Infallible Judges of controversial debates, that in a set form of prayer appointed to be said atter every Council, they pray that God would spare their Ignorance and pardon their Errors.

Ans. I can't light upon this prayer: Shall I come as good speed in seeking it as I did with Maximian the Arian Bishop?

He quots, de ordin. Cele. Con. I desire him to write the Title of the Book at length, or rather tell me at the end of what Council this prayer is found. Since it is to be said after every Council, would not the Council of Trent have it. This Council [Page 44]which hath set down things so exactly would it have omitted this.

But now these Errors are either in matters given out to the People for Articles of Faith; or not. If not, they make nothing against us. If these Errors be in matters of Faith, I ask are they in­vincible Errors or vincible, if they are Invincible, they are not Sinful, and so need no pardon If they are vincible, it is either by their diligence in using more means to discover the Truth, or by an extraordinary assistance of God. For this extra­ordinary assistance it is not in their power to have it, and depends only of God. For the other, if they find themselves not to have us'd all necessary means, let them use those they have omitted a­fore they publish their Decrees, (for what a sim­plicity and Impudence would it be, to continue in the Error I can avoid, and ask pardon for it?) and so having done what lay in them they will not stand guilty afore God, nor in a need of par­don.

Rather say, (if some passage be found which may seem to have that sence) that in the fore discussion of questions some fear themselves to have been too much wedded (as is Natural to Man) to their own Opinion, & these desire God to spare their Ignorance, not having upheld their Opinion out of Malice, and pardon their fault in this, that they were not (it may be) so humble and deferent to others as they should have been.

If you say provincial Councils anatematize those who reject their decisions as well as General Councils, and so no Argument can be taken from thence for the General Council's Infallibility.

I Answer. Provincial Councils anathematize, &c. absolutly, as the General Councils do, I deny: [Page 45]conditionally, and with submission to, and ap­probation from the Sea of Rome, I grant: And this confirmes the Infallibility of the Church.

To satisfie us our adversary is pleased to say, the Romanists demand how shall we resolve our doubts in matters of Faith if the decision of General Councils be fallible? He Answers by setting Reason to Reason, and trying the matter by the Authority of the Holy Scripture.

Here I ask if that Collation, or comparing of Reason with Reason, and tryal by the Holy Scrip­ture be fallible or infallible? If fallible it serves for nothing in a matter of Faith of which we are speak­ing, for since I must give an assent Infallible su­per omnia (above all) my doubt must be taken infallibly away.

If it be Infallible, I ask Again is it in clearing doubts in fundamentals or integrals of Religion? Not infundamentals, for there is no doubt in them, they being according to Protestants clearly set down to Men in Scripture.

If in Integrals, then, say I, since a private man use­ing that means may be infallibly clear'd in his doubts concerning Integrals, then a General Council using the same means may be infallibly cleared in them, and consequently infallibly propose them to the Peo­ple to be believ'd, since they are infallibly found to be reveal'd by God in Scripture, and conse­quently he who will refuse to believe them will be justly look'd upon as an Heretick.

SECT. V. We are sure that the Major Part, of an approv'd general Coun­cil is Baptis'd.

ANother Scare-Crow from our Doctrine of Infallibility, is that a lawful Council ought to be composed of men who have been really Baptiz'd, but R. Cath. can never be sure of such an Assembly, sayes our Adversary, since the Validity of Baptism depends according to them of the uncertain intention of the Minister. And up­on the same account they are never certain that their Popes are Priests because perhaps the Bishop who ordain'd them had no such intention.

Answer. First, that the Synods, and general Assemblies of Protestants be lawful, the members of them must be of the Elect, for if they are not of the Elect, Christ did not dye for them accord­ing to the Kirk of Scotland; and if Christ did not dye for them, they are not Christians; and if they are not Christians, what Spirit influenced them in making your Catechisms and Profession of Faith, in which you believe, are found all the foundamen­tals of Christianity? They composed them, they put them into your hands, by their Authority as a motive of credibility you rely upon them.

How are you more assured that they are of the Elect, then that our members of a General Council are Baptiz'd? Is it written in their faces? O but [Page 47]they have a gift of prayer, had not Major Wyer in appearance one, and a very great one?

Answer Secundo, We are sure of the Baptism of the Major part of the General Council when we see, it approv'd by the Pope, because it belongs to the providence of GOD not to permit a General Coun­cil, unlawful for some hidden defect, to have all the outward form of a lawful Council; for so he would give an occasion of Error to the whole Church believing it to be a lawful Council, if, as it might fall out, such a Council should propose a false Doc­trine to be believed. Since the Faithful acknowledge they are bound to hear the teaching Church. Matth. 18.23.17.

SECT. I. A Word by way of entry into this matter.

OUr Adversary sayes our Faith is so blind, that he hath heard many of ours say, if a General Council had defin'd white to be black, they would believe it.

Whereby we are seen disposed, sayes he, to admit of any Error, if it be Authoriz'd by a Ge­neral Council.

Answer. First, such Arguments fetch'd from the Testimony of an Antagonist are of no weight, since, according to the Methode of the School we are bound to credit no more brought by an Ad­versary then what he proves.

In the second place, I ask him, if clear Scrip­ture should tell him that Black is White, would he believe it, or not? Would he not believe it? Then he would prefer his private Light to clear Scripture, which to do, is Impious. Would he [Page 51]believe it? Then he is found dispos'd, say I, to admit of any Error if it be set down in clear Scrip­ture. He'll say to me the case is not alike, be­cause the Scripture is the Word of God, and the Decree of a General Council the Word of Men. But by his Favour, we hold that this also is the Word of God, tho uttered to us by the Mouth of Men, according to that of the Acts cap. 15. and v. 18. It hath seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and us.

If he say 'tis impossible that God should say by the Scripture, that Black is White, I say, 'tis al­so, as impossible he should say it by a General Council, giving it out as a Decree of Faith. But absolutely speaking, can't that Assembly of those Men advance such a proposition?

I Answer. Absolutely speaking they can, but then we would not believe it, because that pro­position neither belonging to Faith nor good man­ners, (which are the whole and adequat Object to which their Infallibility extends it self, as we R. Catholicks hold,) it layes no Obligation upon us to believe it.

Moreover, to give something to what our Ad­versary sayes he heard say. Since in Aristotles Principles, an Accident is really distinguish'd from a Substance; what if God by his Almighty Power should put the Colour of White in the Subject, in which is the Colour of Black, would this imply a Contradiction? And in this case would not this proposition be true, Black is White, or the Sub­ject having the Colour of Black is the Subject which has the Colour of White.

SECT. II. The intention of the Minister re­quired by the Church in Bap­tism explained, makes ap­pear the nullity of our Ad­versaries Objection.

TO prove that Protestants may be sav'd more easily, and with greater security then Ro­manists, our Adversary sayes, we teach that Baptism is absolutely necessary to Salvation, and no Baptism a true and real one, if the Minister when be pronounces the Words, has not an Inten­tion to Baptize, which no doubt happens frequent­ly, s [...]es he, since the Intention may be easily di­verted to his other designs, and affairs.

Answer. First, if, as Protestants think, Baptism is absolutely necessary to none. Catholicks are not really less secure as to their Salvation, because they think it necessary.

Secondly, If I ask any Minister, after he ha [...] Christened a Child, if he did not Intend to do what CHRIST ordain'd to be done in Baptism, and what is ordinarily done by his Church. Without doubt he'l tell me, he did. And this is all the In­tention the Church requires in the Priest Baptize­ing.

If you say, the Priest or Minister may be divert­ed from this Intention by a thought of his other [Page 53]affairs, so, say I, may he be diverted by the same from that Intention, which you require, to wit, of pronouncing the Words and applying the Water, and so you have as much to fear you are not Bap­tiz'd as we. But that which hinders us both to fear, is this, that we do not require an Actual Intention or a Reflection of my understanding that my will Intends, which Actual Intention is indeed lost by a Distraction, or thought of another thing (and this seems to be the mistake of our Adversary, by his saying the Priest's Intention may be easily di­verted to his other affairs) but only a Vertual In­tention, which stands with an Actual thought of another thing, then that I am doing; as when a Man playes on the Virginals and speaks to another of something else, both at once. We say this mo­tion of his Fingers is not of it self, but proceeds from a motion of the Will, and a direction of the understanding, tho' not sensible or preceptible, by Reason of the weakness of these two Acts com­pared to the strength of an Actual Intention. This Intention is called Vertual, because it is [...] were the Vertue or Vicar of the Actual Intention left by it to supply its place in order to do that which was first Actually Intended with a sensible and strong reflection of the understanding upon the Intention of the Will. Neither is it destroyed by the expli­cite thought of another thing; so this other thing be not incompatible with the Action to which this Vertual Intention moves and directs.

For Example, my speaking of some other thing suffers at the same time my playing on the Organ, which playing is directed by the Vertual, while I have an Actual Intention to speak of another thing.

Now, to prove that in Baptizing this Vertual [Page 54]Intention is sufficient, (not denying but that the Actual is most laudable) I desire, Men consider we have no other in all our Moral Actions which have a notable duration and succession of parts. Would you have a Man, who is going a Foot ten miles to a Market, talking earnestly with another of Buying or Selling, all the Way Actually intend and successively reflect, beside all his other Dis­course, upon every individual step of his Journey? This were to make his Head fitter for the Hospi­tal then for the Market, when he comes thither. Yet to every individual step his Foot is mov'd by the Will intending, and the understanding direct­ing not Actually, then Vertually, as I have ex­plain'd.

From all this, you see the R. Catholick is really as secure in matter of Baptism as the Protestant, and has as little Reason as he to fear its nulli­ty.

But if by a Diabolical malice, which is a case more Metaphysical than Moral, the Priest or Mini­ster had not a sufficient Intention, and the Inva­lidity of the Baptism were wholly unknown to the Person Baptized, then suffices an efficacious desire of it, which, without thinking of it, is included in an Act of true sorrow for our Sins, for having offended God, or an Act of the Love of GOD; which every Christian being bound often to make is supposed to make, and so remains without trou­ble upon that Head.

As I have said in Baptism, so in the Collation of Priest-hood suffices a Vertual Intention in the Bishop, which Morally cannot be wanting without the Malice of a Devil: But if it should sall out, which is most rare, if really 'twas ever heard of: [...]irst, it may be Piously believ'd, least the Faith­ful [Page 55]be often deceiv'd in that Adorable Sacrifice of the Altar, from which they expect so much; that either God gives by his Church the power of Priest-hood to those who are in all appearance or­dain'd, as the Church gives Jurisdiction in favour of the Faithfull to the very Apostats of administring the Sacrament in a danger of Death; or that he will both manifest by his providence over his Church; that want of Intention in the Ordainer, that it may be supplied by a reordination, and move those in Authority, whom it concerns, to command it to be done.

So that if such a thing be divulged and come to the hearing of high superiors, and they take no notice of it after the case is sufficiently proposed to them, tis a sign the rumor is groundless.

And by this is partly answer'd what our adversary affirmes of a Bishop in France, who, as he saies, before his death confessed that he had ordained many, but alwayes without a due Intention.

Add, if it be true, that since the Church did not command such Priests ordain'd by him, to be re-ordain'd nor suspended them till then from the function, its to be thought that Bishop was look'd upon as a Person troubled with scruples at that time, and in the fear of Death to make his Conscience sure not distinguishing sufficiently actual Intention from virtual, accus'd himself not to have had a due Intention because he thought he had not an actual, or something of that nature not re­gardable.

Another story our Adversary relates of a Person in pain for his Baptism being in danger of Death at Sea, of which, he saies, he was an Eye wit­ness; I only desire him to call to mind, and, see if he was not rather an Ear witness of what [Page 56]he heard related by another, than of what he saw himself (for which I have some Ground) and if it be so let him remember that the persons pain was not about the Intention of the Minister but absolutely whither or not he had been Baptiz'd re­membering of the conjuncture of circumstances in which he was born, viz. a Bastard of a Catholick Father among the Presbyterians, who would not Baptize a Bastard unless the Father gave obedience to the Church or Synod.

However, I ask our Adversary, if he was an Eye witness, whither the doubt seem'd to him ratio­nal, or not? If it seemed rational he being a fit Minister of the Sacrament he should have Baptiz'd him under condition; if not, he should have pa­cified him, making him remember what we teach, to wit, that in case our Baptism had not been va­lid, an efficacious desire of Baptism included in an Act of true sorrow for our Sins, or pure love of God, suffices.

SECT. III. We have security for the Salvation of a Child dying immediately after Baptism, Prote­stants have None.

HAving retorted the Difficulty of the Intention the R. Church requires in Baptism upon the Intention our Adversaery himself requires, and must require of applying the Words and Wa­ter, for 'tis a humane Action.

And having shown how Catholick Doctors bring both him and us handsomly and solidly off by a Virtual Intention.

I shall make appear now that we have in this case of Baptism security for our Salvation, and they have none, we standing to our Tenets, and they to theirs.

Take me a Protestants Child validly Baptiz'd by a Minister (as we grant they can) let the Child dye afore the use of reason, what becomes of him according to the Catholick Tenet, we hold it goes straight to Heaven. What becomes of him according to the Protestant Tenet? They say it may be he's sav'd, viz. if he was one of the Elect and consequently the Parents were of the Faithful; and it may be he's damn'd, if the Parents were not of the Faithful, to wit, Spiritual [Page 58]Children of Abraham or the Child, tho' of Faithful Parents, was not of the Elect; for I hope they will not say that Faithful Parents have never a Wicked or a Reprobat Child.

And how shall I know Faithful Parents but by their Fruits or Works, and how shall I know that their Works are good? Since many wicked People have had seeming good Works. Nay how shall I know a man to have Faith by Works that are all damnable and worthy of Death, as Calvin speaks, Inst. l. 3. cap. 12. n. 4. Sins, as Beza terms them, and Works of the Devil, v. Bez. Tom. 1. operum. pag. 665. and Works of Darkness, as Luther calls them, Tom 1. operum fol. 196. Edit. Wittemb. shall abominations in a Man be marks to me of a supernatural gift of kindness given by God to him?

Next, suppose that the Parents be of the Faithful, who told you the Child is one of the Elect? To us his Baptism is a sure mark of his Election. You have no such, see you then how in this case we have security and you have none? The other Motive he brings to a Protestant, is that Protestants are sav'd more easily. If he means only that Pro­testants in their way to Salvation, trouble themselves not with taking so much pains as good R. Catholicks do freeing themselves from any Obligations and Mor­tifications of the Flesh we take upon us, grounded in the Holy Scripture, I grant 'tis so? but this easie way is woful, since the Word of God warns all to strive to enter by the narrow way, Matth. 7.13. Enter by the narrow Gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way which leads to Perdition.

SECT. IV. Our Adversary's Exception against our Doctrine of Purgatory Retorted upon Pro­testants.

FRom our Doctrine of Baptism he passes to our belief of Purgatory, and says that it flatters Sinners in their Imperfections, causes them to live more loosly and takes from them the fear of Hell. If this be true, then according to that Maxim of Logick Oppositorum opposita est consequentia, the consequence of contraries is [...]ontrary; the contrary Doctrine, which is that of [...]otestants must advance perfection, cause a more Austere life, make Protestants walk more cautiously, and fear more God's dreadful Judgment, certain, if they dye in Sin they shall be lyable to his Wrath for ever, as, if they dye in the Lord they shall from their Labours.

But this is evidently false; for what perfection [...] had but by observing the Law of God? [...] Domini Immaculata convertans animas, Psalm, [...] 2, 3, 8. But, this is impossible, say they, what perfection can be had if all our Actions be Sins? Are Sins and perfections Synonima's? Can I command my self to think that that man, who is confessedly acknowledged to be composed of ini­quity, and to do nothing but abomination from Morning till Evening, lives innocently like an [Page 60]Anchoret, an Austere and Godly Life? How can Protestant Doctrine give, them a deeper fear of Hell, if, in that same that they fear Hell they be­lieve and see clearly that they cannot be saved; Because who fears, has not assurance, which is the portion [...] of every just Man, since he is not just, unless he believe that his Sins are remitted by the Merits of Christ. And must every man, to whom the Gospel is Preached believe this? How many then believe a lye? Or what reason have you to believe it more then any other to whom the Gos­pel is Preached? Because you find your self to walk more Cautiously then Romanists? But how do you walk more cautiously then we? Since if you avoid one damnable Sin, you necessarily fall into another, seeing you cannot do any thing with all the assistance of the Grace of Christ which is not an abomination in the sight of God. This is a cold com­fort to Protestants, and all this sad Doctrine comes from that great Protestant Principle, Baptism does not take away Original sin: So that, as a poy­soned Fountain runs nothing but poysonous Water, the Soul of Man still remaining corrupted with Original Sin brings forth nothing but corruption. How will Souls so foul enter Heaven?

Protestants smile, if, from this passage, Matth. 12. v. 33. Some Sins shall neither be forgiven in this World nor in the World to come, we silly Romanists infer that since no Sin is forgiven in Hell or Heaven, there must be a third place in the other World (call't as you please) in the which some Sins may be forgiven; But may not we rather laugh­out at the fancy of Men, who, acknowledging them­selves to be all broken out with the runing sores of O­riginal & Actual Sin think with an imaginary cloak­ing of themselves with the Justice of Christ above [Page 61]all is hidden filth, they shall enter Heaven as [...] as a Plague Person under a disguise enters a [...] Hospital?

[...]e Master of the Hospital may be deceived, I [...], but God who hath said that nothing which [...]s shall enter Heaven; Rev. cap. 21. v. 27. [...]ot be deluded.

SECT. V. [...]he Churches not permitting all Parts of the Scripture indiffe­rently to be read by all, is Justified. And her high sentiment of this word of God declar­ed.

MAny stumble at the Churches not permit­ting indifferently all those who only understand the holy Scriptures in a vul­gar Tongue, to read them. But without reason this is first the great veneration the Church has for the Word of God, not to submit his high My­steries to the Interpretation of every Ignorant Crea­ture, while upon all occasions they read it with as little respect as if it were a Romance or a play Book, and give their verdict of its meaning; the Prophet Malachy in the mean time, cap. 2. v. 7. [Page 62]sayes, the lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and the Law they shall require of his Mouth.

Secondly, The Church deals with her Children as Christ dealt with his Apostles, John 16. v. 12. and St. Paul with the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 3: v. 2. Christ did not propose to them all the strong truths while they were week in Vertue, I have, said he, many other things to tell you which you are not able to bear at present, Iohn 16.12.

And St. Paul gave the Corinthians Milk, not then stronger Food saying to them that they were not yet able, 1 Cor. 3. v. 2.

Wise Parents at a great Table do not let their Children take what they please but give them of Meats presented what they know to be fit for their weak Stomach. So the Church allows the learn­ed to feed themselves with the Holy Scripture, she gives of the same Table to the unlearned by their Pastors and Teachers what is fittest for them, lest having the whole Bible in their hands (espe­cially without the Notes for the better understand­ing of it) they wrong themselves, as those who as St. Peter, 2 Pet. 3. v. 16. speaks, wrested some passages of St. Paul, as also the other Scriptures to their own destruction. Destruction Implyes more then mistakes in Indifferent matters.

Would it not startle an Ignorant to hear (afore the Passage is explained) what God said to the Pro­phet Isaiah cap. 6. v. 10. Blind the heart of the Peo­ple, &c. Lest perhaps they may see with their Eyes and be converted. Would an Infinite Good­ness says an Ignorant, command a Prophet to do so? Would it not amaze the same to read in the first of Hosea v. 1. That God commanded him to take a Whore and take to himself Children of Whore­dom. Is it possible, sayes the Ignorant, that [Page 63]Sanctity it self should speak so?

With what surprizing passages will an Ignorant Carnal Man meet with in the Canticles?

Respect then the Holy Ghost in the Conduct of the Church, and do not think that her Children, who do not, nor cannot read the Scriptures live in ignorance, Lukewarmness, Indifferency with­out relishing Heavenly things, without true De­votion, more then Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, who had the same want, but were Instructed to the Piety we read of, by the Tradition from others, as our unlearn'd are by the Labours of our Pastors and Preachers who not being diverted from their Book and Prayer, by the necessary care of providing for Wife and Children, Meditate at leasure the Holy Bible, and study how they may best deliver to the People the Truths they find there both necessary to Salvation, and conducing to Persection. And this aboundantly suffices, unless you will exclude also among Protestants all those, who cannot read, from Devotion, as if God had design'd only great Wits for Heaven.

Add to all this, that if the Scripture put into e­very private Mans hand and being understood by him according to his best Judgement, be to him a sufficient Rule of Faith (which without doubt would breed as much confusion in the Church as the Law Book Interpreted by every private Man without Obligation to submit to the Kings Judges, would do in the Kingdom) what need have you of Ministers more then Quakers? If every one be thus capable to understand the Word, why is he not capable to Preach it? And if he be capable to Preach it to others, or stirr them up to the Faith of Justi­fying Grace, why is he not capable to give also the Sacrament, or the Sign of it receiv'd.

If you say that God has ordained Bishops or Pres­byters to Govern the Church; I answer, 'tis not Civily, but in Doctrine, & what will this Government in our case serve for but to make them Hypocrites, since they must then believe outwardly what the Mi­nister Teaches, and inwardly what their own light perswades them, often contrary to the Ministers per­swasion.

When we say the Bible doth not contain all things necessary to Salvation, we do not say that the Word of God does not contain all things necessary to Salva­tion, because the Word of God is partly written partly unwritten; Put these two together and you have all things necessary to Salvation. Nay the Scripture alone has partly Explicitly partly Implicitly, in as much as it sends us to the Church, all things ne­cessary to Salvation.

When we say that the Scripture is not absolutely, But in some places obscure, in others clear; what do we say more then Protestants, who teach that the Scripture is an Interpreter of it self, if you compare the less clear passage with another or others more clear; is not this to say that the less clear is obscure? which obscurity is taken away by the clearness of the other.

Neither do we say that the Scripture is Imperfect when we say it is only a part of our Rule of Faith, no more then we say the Almighty Power of God is Imperfect when we say 'tis only a part of his Infinite Perfection. As we do not say that God is Finit be­cause he is a part of this Couple contained in Christ-God and Man, or by which we say God and Man are two, viz. natures.

SECT. VI. The Scripture is not known to us to be the Word of God without the Tradition of the Church, and therefore is not our sole Rule of Faith.

WE acknowledge the Holy Scriptures to be our Rule of Faith, but not alone; we believe them to be profitable to teach us in Justice, that the Man of God may be perfect, 2 Tim. 3. v. 16. But not sole sufficient to make him perfect.

We seem, sayes our Adversary, to doubt of the Originals of Scripture, since we ask a Protestant, how he knows it is the Word of God? As if the Air, Simplicity, Majesty, and way of Expression proper to God alone, did not show this sufficient­ly, as the King's Letters are known by their style and Royal Seal.

Answer. We are so far from doubting of the Scriptures being the Word of God, that we believe it with an Act of Divine Faith. But we have ask­ed and ask without any Answer, that has so much as a jot of Reason, by what Principle they will prove to us that the Scripture is the Word of God. If besides the Scripture there is no Rule of Faith?

Not by the Scripture it self, because self Testi­mony [Page 66]is none, were it Written in any place of it, that this Bible containing so many, and such Books is the Word of GOD, for the Question returns, how know you that this Testimony is the Word of GOD?

Now, to say that she Scripture shows it self, is frivolous. For I ask what's that to say the Scrip­ture shows it self? Is it that by Reading it, rises in the mind of a Man who has a well disposed un­derstanding, this apprehension, The Scripture is the Word of God? By which apprehension he sees it is so, before he Judges or believes? If so, then he does not believe the Word of God to be the Word of God, mov'd by the Word of God, but by this apprehension, which if you say is the Word of God, then you admit a Word of God which is not Written, and yet to you a Rule of Faith, and so you have another Immediate Rule of Faith, than the Written Word of God.

Again, that apprehension and inward Testimo­ny of the mind for which its believed that the Scrip­ture is the Word of GOD, and that it shows it self, does it rise from this, that the Simplicity, Majesty, and way of Expression, move Men to Judge that the Scripture is the Word of God?

But seeing all these particulars come from such Words Instituted by Men to signifie, and that the more or less Majesty of the Style, in a Speech or Sentence rises from a certain material placing and disposing of Words among themselves, the whole thing is natural, and so not the Word of God.

Next, that Simplicity and Majesty of Style, and what you please more, is not so in every part of Scripture, that I am bound for them to believe, that that part is the Word of God. For I pray, what Air, Simplicity, or Majesty of Style is in the [Page 67]begining of the Gospel of St. Matthew, when its said there, Abraham begot Isaac and Isaac begot Iacob; what do you find more there then you would find in those same Words written in an Au­thor, not Sacred, as in Ioseph the Iew?

Now, if you ask us why we believe the Scrip­ture to be the Word of God? We Answer, be­cause an Infallible Tradition passing through all Ages, and always believing it to be the Word of God, has conveyed it to our Hands, and that Ge­neral approv'd Councils have confirm'd it by their Sacred Decrees and uncontrolable Authority, as of­ten as any Controversie arose among the Faithful, either concerning certain Books, or the certainty of the Tradition it self.

If you say you make use of this same Tradition of all Christians hitherto believing it to be the Word of God, as a motive of Credibility to you that it is the Word of God.

I Answer. You may, but first by claiming to this, you leave your own Principle of denying Tra­dition. Next, tho' this Universal Tradition be to you a motif of Credibility, that the Bible is the Word of God as to the Letter, yet you have none for the sense, in which you take it.

SECT. VII. The Reason why the Mass is not said in the Vulgar Tongue.

OUr Adveriary advancing in his Reflexions upon our Religion sayes that our Prayers in an Unknown Tongue is not a small hinderance to Piety and Devotion. What Comfort, sayes he, can the Ignorant sort reap at Mass.

Answer. Either he means our Private Prayers or our Publick: If our Private Prayers, I attest his own Conscience, all English and Scots Protestants, who converse Familiarly with us if they do not know that we have our Manuals of Devotion in Eng­lish.

If he means our Publick Prayers: Then he sup­poses two things which are false. The first that, that publick Action which is done in the Sacrifice of the Mass, is, or ought simply to be called a verbal Prayer; The second that, that less considerable part of it which consists in Words, is in an unknown Tongue.

The Sacrifice of the Mass being of its Nature, and by the Intention of Christ the Instituter of it, and [Page 71]chief Officer in it, an Action ordain'd to acknow­ledge his Fathers Supream Dominion over us; to give him thanks for his Favours bestowed upon us, for a continuation of them, and a Satisfaction for our Sins, it is a prayer, but a real one and is more the object of the Eye then of the Ear: Moreover is it not enough that the Mass is Printed in Vulgar Tongues? And that the Council of Trent. Sess. 22. cap 8. Commands the Pastors to explain it to the People altho it be not said but in the Tongues of the Church: In the Greek Church in Greek, in the Latin in Latin, to keep an uniformity among the Faithful of each Church and that the expression of the Churches Li­turgy keep its Majestie not subject to the changes of Vulgar Tongues, to which those are, who speak them, under pain of passing sometimes for Ridi­culous.

Neither is that to be call'd an Unknown Tongue which little Boyes are ordinarily taught in the Schools, and which they come often to speak Regularly before they can express themselves handsomly in their Mothers Tongue. Neither do our Country Clowns speak unknown Tongues because they don't easily understand one another.

But Grant the Latin Tongue is an unknown Tongue, is it not enough that all those prayers are found explained in Books?

Neither does the Devotion of the Ignorant con­sist in their hearing or knowing what the Priest says but in knowing what he does. And in offering up with him the same Sacrifice which is also theirs, sure, if they be well disposed, to receive great good by it. I pray, did the People in the entry of the Temple hear what Zacharie said when he was Offi­ciating far from being so much as seen by them, Luke 1. cap. v. 10. and the People wondred that he stayed there so long. v. 21.

But what shall we say of those Extemporary prayers made by some Protestants, who being weak in Spirit, yet resolved to follow the strain of their Bre­thren speak a great deal of none-sence? Is that a known or an unknown Tongue when the Hearers can't make sence of his words, but only knows his meaning is to pray? To this he adds a bare Lecture of Scriptures sometimes of a Prophet obscure in his Expression, they know not whither its to be under­stood in the Literal or Figurative sense, yet what a sighing and sobing! What a mournful Looks in their Eyes! And murgions in their Faces! If this Prayer and lecture of Scripture neither of them being under­stood, can move these People to so much Devotion because they know this is said and read to Honour God; why may not the Sacrifice of the Mass which Catholicks believe to be the highest Honour that can be given to God upon [...]arth, move those who are present to Devotion, although they don't under­stand in particular what is said by the Priest to God? 'Tis enough that the Priest understand it who in his own, and in all their Names makes the Sacrifice.

I end this Section with some Reflections,

1. That S. Paul 1 Cor. 14. does not speak of a publick Prayer approved by the Church, and conse­quently not subject to Error, But only of a new Prayer of a private Person made to others which might be subject to Error, and therefore he would not have it made in a Vulgar Tongue, but in a Tongue that others might judge of it, as appears by his saying in the 29, v. Let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

2. St. Paul saies, v. 29. forbid not to speak with Tongues, i. e. in an unknown tongue, I say then what Christian dares forbid what the Apostle allows?

3. St. Paul saies there v. 15. I will pray with the [Page 73]Spirit, i. e. (in an unknown Tongue) and I will pray with the understanding also. i. e. in a known Tongue. If he prayed in an unknown Tongue as well as in a known Tongue, why may we not also?

4. As, altho' an Inchanter understands not the words of his Charm the Devil understands them, and obeys them, so, altho the Ignorant understand not the words of his Prayer, the Devil understands them and fears them; and God understands them, and helps him, as the King does a Favour to an Idiot who understood not the Petition presented by him, but only in General that it was for what he desired, or made in favour of him.

5. If any be contentious for our not using a vul­gar Tongue in our Lyturgy, our Answer is with St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 16. we have no such Custome nor has had the Church of God for 1600. Years, and more.

6. By unknown Tongues the Apostle means not of Hebrew among the Iews, Greek among the Grecians, or Latin among us of the Western Church, which is understood of the learned and civil Peo­ple in every great City, but of Miraculous Ton­gues which Men spoke in the Primitive Church, as a Mark that they had received the Holy Ghost. Think you that the Lyturgy is said in the Greek Church in an unknown Tongue, because its said in prop [...] Greek not now understood by the vul­gar?

SECT. VIII. The Roman Doctrine of Transub­stantiation, does not destroy ex­perimental knowledge, nor deceive our Senses.

OUr Adversary sayes, that Transubstantiation destroyes all evidence grounded in the ex­perimental knowledge of our senses, and makes void the proof CHRIST made use of to his Apostles, to convince them he was not a Spi­rit. To understand my Answer to this Objection of our Adversary, you must know;

First, that the Principle of experimental knowledge is this, for example, wheresoever are all the Acci­dents of Bread, there is the substance of Bread, un­less the Author of Nature hinder its presence there.

Secondly, That this conditional must be alwayes added in Reverence to the Almighty Power of God; otherwayes by this Experimental knowledge, a Combustible thing laid in the Fire burns. 'Twould follow that the Children in the Furnace of Babylon were burnt contrary to what is said in Daniel 3, cap. v. 50.

These two things being known, I answer, that evidence grounded upon experimental Knowledge stands in its full vigour with our Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as is clear to him, who in this true Supposition of Experimental Knowledge con­siders it.

For we deny Bread to be in the Eucharist where all the Accidents of Bread are, because the Author of Nature hinders the presence of Bread to be there as he has revealed it to us in several places of Scrip­ture. And consequently I deny that Transubstan­tiation destroyes more Experimental Knowledge, than Protestant's belief that the Angels, who ap­peared to Abraham, Lot and Iacob, were Angels and not Men, destroys it.

Had not the Angels appearing to them all the Accidents of Men, as our Eucharist has all the Ac­cidents of Bread: And did not they look as like men, as it looks like Bread?

Secondly, It makes void, sayes he, the proof Christ brought to his Apostles to convince them he was not a Spirit. Handle me and see, sayes our Sa­viour, for a Spirit has no Flesh, Luke 24. v. 39. which can be no conviction to Romanists who see Bread in the Eucharist, if they will trust their own Senses, Answ.

Do Protestants make void the proof Christ made use of to his Apostles when they say that the Angels (of which afore) that appeared to Abraham, Lot and Iacob, were not Men but Angels? No, say you, because GOD hath revealed that they were An­gels?

Neither do we Romanists when we say that in the Eucharist that which appears like Bread is the Body of Christ under the form of Bread, and not Bread; because our Saviour hath Revealed that it is his Body.

Our Saviours proof, says our Adversary, that he was not a Spirit shall never influence a Papist to conviction.

Answer. This I deny, for in this case, we have both evidence of the senses and our Saviours Word, [Page 76]and no Revelation contradicting them, and there­fore are fully convinc'd to believe it. But for Bread in the Eucharist we have indeed the evidence of sense, but not Christs word, but on the contrary we have our senses contradicted by Christs infallible word. Must not a Man be in Eclipse, or under a Cloud not to see this Disparity.

To clear then our Adversary in his mistake, I let him know that our Saviour undertook to prove that he had a true Body, which is the Natural Remote object of our senses, by the Judgment of his Disci­ples senses: But never to prove Immediatly an Ob­ject or Mystery of Faith such as our Eucharist is, by the Judgment of our senses. I say Immediatly, be­cause having prov'd Immediatly that this was his true Body, mediatly he proved in that Circumstance that it was risen again. Nay when we come to such Mysteries of Faith, we must not only Captivate our Senses but Reason also, if we will believe St. Paul 2 Cor. 10. v. 5.

As to that he sayes that our Transubstantiation favours the Opinion of the Marcionists its manifestly false to those who know the Marcionists Opinion, to wit, that Christ had not a true Body, but only in appearance. For who grants our Transubstantiation must grant that the Body of Christ is there either real­ly and substantially or in appearance: But under the appearance of Bread cannot be the appearance of the Body of Christ, to wit, the Shape, Bulk, Colour, and Extention of all the parts of his Body, for how can all these stand together with the proper Accidents of Bread in the lest Particle of the Host? And con­sequently they not being there, his reall Body must be there to make the grant of Transubstantiation good.

SECT. I. Roman Catholicks do not agree with Heathens in their Veneration and use of Images.

OUr Divine Worship, sayes our Adversary, is not unlike that of the Antient Heathens, we adore God in Pictures, as he was a­dor'd by Heathens in the Sun, we Worship those Images as representations of that Invisible and So­veraign being we [...]all God.

Answer. That [...] may make Catholicks Idola­ters, he makes Idolaters Worshipers of the true God. For if they adore God in Creatures, they had then the Faith of [...] true God, and all their Worship and Religion was directed as to its last End, to the true and invisible God.

Wherefore then are they said by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. cap. v. 20, to have Sacrificed to Devils and not to God. All the Gods of the Gentils are De­vils sayes David Psalm 95. then those to whom they directed their Worship was not God, then they and Romanists do not agree in their Religious Worship.

He sayes again, that relative Worship was severe­ly punish'd in the Israelites. For he can't imagine they adored the Calf as a true God, unless we sup­pose them as void of Reason as the Calf it self.

Answer. They believed the Calf to be a God, able to bring them out of Egypt, if we may be­lieve the Scripture, Exod. 32. These are thy Gods Israel, who have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. And (1 of the Kings according to Prote­stants) cap. 12. v. 28. Jeroboam made two Golden Calves and said to them, go up no more to Jerusa­lem, behold thy Gods Israel. Tho our Adversary can't imagin this. Who could have imagin'd that those great Philosophers of whom St. Paul speaks, 1 Romans v. 23. to whom God had given great Lights, by which they came to the knowledge of him, should have chang'd the Glory of an incor­ruptible God into the Adoration of Men, Birds, four-footed Beasts and Serpents? (Does not St. Paul speak plain here?) I grant then they were as void of Reason in that, as the Calf they Ador'd. What is a Man left by God?

But what was the Reason of this their fall from Reason? Hear it from the same Apostle v. 21. having known God, they did not Glorifie him as God, nor thanked him for so great a benefit, but proud­ly vanish'd in their thoughts, for which ill beha­vior and ingratitude, how did he punish them? By a with-drawing of his Light; obscuratumest insi­piens [Page 87]cor cor eorum, and as a Man in the dark runs his Head against a Wall, they wanting the Light of Grace; run themselves into the shameful pas­sions of corrupted Nature, exchanged Truth with Lyes, and gave the Honour they owed to God, to a Creature.

Mindfull of this, wonder no more that a Man who leaves God, may become as void of Reason as a Calf. To return then to our Foolish Israelits was that way of speaking, these are thy Gods, in the plural number, a representation of one God in one Essence and Nature?

From the Golden Calf let us come to our Images, they are called the Books of Ignorants, but in our Adversaries Judgement, ought rather to be term'd the Books of Ignorance, because they are the oc­casion of many Errors, sayes he. For Example, the Picture of an Old Man, representing God the Father, a Dove, the Holy Ghost, are apt to make the Ignorant sort believe they have indeed some such shape.

Answer. VVe must then blot out of the Holy Scripture all these expressions and ways of speak­ing, by which God is said to Heare, to See, to repent Gen: c. 6. v. 6. Lest the Igno­rant People think that God has Ears and Eyes and sorrow in his Hart as we have. Now reflect that these Pictures are not representatives of God the Father or of the Holy Ghost immediatly, but of an old Man and a Dove which are the Symbols of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost in as much as they in some sort represent to us the de­stinctive perfections of those Divine Persons! As the old Man is the Principle of his son, and not mutualy principal'd by him; so God the Father is the principle of God the Son and God the Holy [Page 88]Ghost and is not principal'd by them.

Also the puritie and fecundity of the Dove makes us more sensible of the Sanctity we are said to re­ceave particularly from the Holy Ghost as a foun­tain of purity; and of the fecundity of his grace brought forth in us. The occasion then of Decep­tion, if there be any, is not in the Images, but in the things Immediatly represented by Them.

I hope the Zeal of our Antagonist will not be so blind on this account, as to study the Extirpation of Doves, and ridding the World of old Men: since it is not to be thought that Christians are ea­sily to be found of so gross an imagination, as to think that the Nature or Essence of God, or the Holy Ghost can be Painted out to our Eyes, al­tho' they may be Painted in that Figure it pleased them to appear, as God appeared to Daniel with the Hairs of his Head as pure Wool, Daniel 7. v. 9. And the Holy Ghost in Form of a Dove, Luke 3. v. 22.

SECT. II. The Protestants do not Adore God in Spirit and Truth, nor the R. Catholick the Cross as GOD.

ALtho' our Adversary think it undeniable, that Protestants Adore more than R. Catholicks in Spirit and Truth, because they Adore God imme­diatly, [Page 89]sayes he, without having recourse to Images: Yet I think, I reasonably deny both parts of his proposition; the first, because as a Protestant, to make me believe that he has Faith, must prove it by his Works, according to St. Iames 2. v. 18. so to perswade me that he Adores God in Spirit, he must manifest it to me by his outward respect to him. Shall I say, that Mans Heart Adores God whose Hand does not do his duty to him? Pro­testants do not give to God the chief Adoration, which is due to him, as he is above all Creatures, I mean a proper Sacrifice, which was ever esteem­ed by all, and is the great Act of Religion, and how shall I believe that their Spirit Adores him?

Self-denyals and Mortifications of the Flesh, in­stituted and practised by the Antient Church out of a respect to God they retrench, and how shall I know that in Spirit they Adore him? He requires as an Homage from Men to keep his Commands, saying, my Yoke is easie and my Burden is light, and Protestants tell him flatly; they can't do it. Is this to submit their Judgment to his, and so in Spirit Adore him?

Neither do they Adore him in Truth. Who knew which way God was to be truly Ador'd, or according to his will before he reveal'd it? Now that he has reveal'd it in the Holy Scriptures, and ad­drest us to the Church, for the understanding of this way of Adoring in these Words, Matth. 18. v. 17. Who will not hear the Church let him be to the, &c. Since Protestants will not hear Her, shall I say that doing contray to his Command, they Ho­nour him truly or in Truth Adore him? When Saul sent to destroy Amalek spared the best of the spoil, 1 Sam. 15. (as he excus'd himself to Samuel) to Sa­crifice to God, did he in that truly Adore God? No, [Page 90]but his own will transgressing the Command of God; so Protestants taking a way of their own, to serve God contrary to his Command, in his Holy Word they do not truly serve him, nor in Truth Adore him.

When our Adversary condemns our serving of God by the help of Images, he condemns himself. For he can't Adore God without thinking of him; this thought a good will cherishes, drives away o­thers which hinder or weaken it, strives to con­serve it, and beggs of God to continue it, and so shows by all this a great respect for it: And why so much respect for it? Because it helps the will to move more frequently and attentively to GOD. And at last this good thought is found to be an I­mage, for it is an Act of the understanding, and every Act of the understanding is a representation of its Object, and this representation is an In [...]ge presupposing another Image more material in the Imagination.

And this same, is all the use Romanists make of Images.

O, but you Adore, sayes he, confessedly the Cross, cultu latriae, with that Soveraign cult be­longing to God only, and what can we instance in defence of our Innocency?

Answer. This assertion is false, I instance First, the second Council of Nice, Act. 7. Where it saies that Pictures are to be Worshiped, but not with the cult of Latry which is the Worship we give to God. And speaking particularly of the Cross, saies, our Adoration of it is only a Salutation Aspasmos, and brings a number of Examples of it, as Iacob is said to have Ador'd Esau, Gen. 33. v. 3. And Abraham the Sons of Heth, for the Field he received from them, for the Burying place of Sara his Wise, Gen. 23. v. 7.

I instance secondly, for our Innocency of this Crime, the Council of Trents Words. Ses. 25. de Invoc. Vener. reliquiarum S. S. Sa. Imag. mandat Sancta Synodus, &c. Imagines Christi, Deiparae Virginis, & aliorum Sanctorum in Templis preser­tim habendas & retinendas eisque debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam; non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas, vel virtus propter quam sint colendae, vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum: Vel quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda, vel uti olim fiebat a gentibus quae in Idolis spem suam col­locabant, sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur re­fertur ad prototypa quae illae representant. Ita ut per Imagines quas osculamur & coram quibus caput aperimus & procumbimus, Christum adoremus, & sanctos quorum illae silmitudinem gerunt, venere­mur. Id quod Niceni Synodi Decretis, (Can. 2. Act. 3, 4.) contra. Imaginum oppugnatores est sanci­tum. That is,

The Holy Synod, &c. commands the Pictures of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of GOD, and other Saints, to be had and retained, especially in Church­es, and that one give to them the due respect and Veneration; not that we believe that there is any Divinity or Vertue in them, for which they are to be Honour'd, or that we ought to ask any thing of them, or that we ought to put our trust in Pictures, as the Gentiles did, who plac'd their hope in Idols; but because the Honour which is given to them, is di­rected to the Originals, which they represent: So that by Images which we kiss, and afore which we take of our Hats and bow down, we Adore Christ and Worship the Saints, whose likeness they repre­sent to us. And this is ratified by the Decrees of the Council of Nice, ( Can. 2. Act. 3, 4.) From Image Worship he comes to that of the Consecrated Host, [Page 92]and saies this is more intolerable, because the Priest may forget the intention of Consecrating, or de­signedly will not to Consecrate it.

Answer. Of this Intention I spoke enough in the matter of Baptism and how hard it is for a Priest not to have a virtual one, such as I explained there, and which suffices.

But if you suppose him to omit it maliciously, there will not be for that danger of Idolatty; for all Worship and Adoration given to the Host, altho explicitly and formally, it be absolute, yet virtually and implicitly it involves this condition: If it be Con­secrated: So if it be not consecrated my adoration doeth not fix on it but goes to him whom I intend­ed to adore, not to what I see, to wit, the species of Bread, and thus ther's no Idolatry commit­ed.

Because it fals out often that he is thought the Father of a Child who really is not, did our Ad­versary doubt to respect him who was his Father? No more Reason have Catholicks to doubt to yield to the Holy Host a Soveraign Worship.

For the reliques of Saints, because we meet with many we know not whither they be authentick or not, our respect to them always involves in it this Tacit condition (of which above) if it be the true relique of such a Saint.

As to that he sayes 'tis not of Faith that the Soul of such a Saint, for example, of St. Francis of Assisium is in Heaven; I deny it, because, altho' the Pope be not Infallible in his canonizing (as some Roman Catholicks hold) yet when his Decree is receiv'd by the acceptation of the whole Church, by their positive cult and Honouring of the Saint, its equivalent to the Decree of a General Coun­cil.

SECT. III. Invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary does not with draw us from God, nor dishonour CHRIST.

OUr Doctrine, sayes our Adversary, relating to the Mediation of the Virgin Mary and other Saints, with-draws us from rendring to Christ due Honour and Glory, &c.

Answer. He does not remark the difference which is between Intercession and Impetration:

Intercession presupposes always a request or de­sire, which is a Prayer, made to be presented by the Intercession to God, (or to him from whom we intend to obtain a Favour,) to whom the ad­dress is made for the Client or Petitioner by the Intercessor. Impetration not always, for a Favour may be obtained from the King for me, on which I did not so much as Dream. Thus you see our invocation of Saints as Intercessors, does not with­draw us from God, because it presupposes the re­quest made to be presented by them to God.

Nay, nor from due Honour to Christ, since in all our Prayers in which the Church has her recourse to Saints, in the Mass or Breviary, after we have begun our Prayer by God, saying, O God, &c. we always end per Dominum nostrum Iesum, &c. desiring that whatsomever we Pray for to be given [Page 94]us from God by the Intercession of Saints, come to us through the Merits of Jesus.

So we only Pray them that they Pray, that what we demand may be given us through the Merits of Christ. And this way is so far from Dishonouring Christ, that it Honours him more as he signified of the Centurion, who thinking himself unworthy to approach Christ, immediatly made his approach first by his Friends whom he imagin'd more in Fa­vour with Christ, Luke 7. v. 3. and 6. And Christ praised him, Matth. 8. v. 10. For this Humility proceeding from the Faith he bad of the Grandour of his Person.

And if God had alwayes demanded our imme­diate recourse to himself, he would not have sent Eliphaz to Iob, Iob 42. v. 8. saying, Go to my Servant Job, and my Servant Job will Pray for you, for him will I accept. Here you see, v. 7. that God would not hear Eliphaz who had offend­ed him. Are you, who reject the recourse to Saints more Innocent afore God then Eliphaz was? Lay your Hand to your Heart: But why did God send Eliphaz to Iob? Because Iob had Honoured him, and God says, 1 Sam. 2. cap. v. 30. who will have Honoured me, I will Honour him.

Now for our Invoking the Name of Mary, is it less Holy then that of David? And yet did not Solomon Pray thus, for thy Servant David 's sake turn not away the Face of thy Anointed, Psalm. 132. v. 10? As if he had Pray'd God thus, O Lord who hast said, Exod. 20. v. 5. I am the Lord thy God, a Zealous God, visiting the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children into the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me. Thou hast also said vers 6. showing Mercies unto thousands of them that love and keep my Commandments. Thou then [Page 95]who hast mercy on Children for the Sainctity of their Parents, have mercy on me for my Fathers sake.

What mean't Iacob Gen. 48 v. 14. when he bid his Name be call'd upon the Sons of Iosepth, but that he expected God should do them good upon that call for his sake?

And what mean't Moses praying for the whole People Exod. 32 v. 11. When he besought God to remember Abraham, Isaac, &c? And was not God pacified there-with? v. 14.

Note, in the old Testament they did not say as we do now to Saints pray for us, because the Fa­thers were not yet in Heaven nor saw God. The way into the Holiest of all was not yet made mani­fest while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing Heb. 9 v. 8.

I avow then we mind indeed sick People invock Jesus and Marry together, but in a different way Jesus to save them, and Mary to Pray him for them.

If some simple People rely more on what they do then on what Christ did for them, 'tis not the Churches fault, tho' it may be the fault of some particular Pastor neglecting the Instruction of his Flock.

SECT. I. Protestants live in Spiritual Sla­very not Catholicks. The De­cree of Innocent the third, in the third Cap. of the Gene­ral Council of Lateran is not a Decree of Faith

TO his saying the R. Church imposes besides the written Law so many Obligations on her Subjects, that Popery is justly call'd a meer Slavery.

I Answer. She imposes none not contained in the Law of God, explicitly or Implicitly. Since God has bid Bishops (or the Teaching Church) Govern the Church, viz. the directed Church and Commanded us to hear Her, or them, 'tis no more Slavery to us to Obey Her in Spiritual matters, then for the Subjects of a Kingdom to Obey in Civil matters, the Commands of a Vice-Roy, or a Commissioner.

The Protestants indeed live in a Spiritual slavery according to their Principles, because when they have [Page 97]Grace, they are necessitated by it, and when they want it, they are necessitated by their concupiscence, and so are ever without Liberty in Sla­very.

The business our Adversary drives at in this Ob­jection, is this, that the Church incroaches upon the Temporal Dominions of Princes by deposing Kings, untying their Subjects from their Allegiance to them, and giving their Lands to such as can Conquer them. As may be seen in the third Chap. of the fourth General Lateran Council, under In­nocent the Third.

Answer. Let our Adversary Read that Decree with the Eyes of a Divine, and he'l find that, that Decree is not of Faith, and therefore does not o­blidge us to believe it.

The Decrees of Faith in that Council being ga­thered into the first Chap. Intituled, de Fide Ca­tholica, The Tenets of the Catholick Faith. Let him then learn to distinguish another time a De­cree of Faith from a Decree of Precept. The first oblidges always and every where, the other not al­ways nor every where, but may be chang'd the circumstances changing: As I said when I told how a General Council may be mended.

And this I show in this present Precept of the fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third now ceasing: For are R. Catholicks in France, Germany, England, Scotland, &c. admonish'd to take that Oath of Ridding their Lands of Hereticks? Or are they thought by the R. Church not good Catholicks, because they do not do it?

Then you see this Oath may be omitted with a safe Conscience, and Princes be without fear of having their Subjects free from their Obedience.

Moreover, I say that under the general notion [Page 98]of Potentats, Soveraigns are not comprehended, no more then Abbots under the General Name of Monks, tho' really they are Monks.

In fine, if you will not be satisfied with these so­lid solutions, remember that the Embassadours of Kings were present at the Council, so that if they knew 'twas mean'd also of their Masters, and they did not oppose the Decree afore it was passed vo­lenti non sit Injuria, no Injury is done to him who is willing.

This Decree I know is a common place for Pro­testants, not considering that they hit themselves on the Heel when they bring it against us, giving us an occasion to reflect, not by a mistake, but with Truth upon them, since the chief Principle sup­posed by the first Beginers of their Reformation was, that it was Lawful not only to refuse all O­bedience, but to take Arms against their own Na­tural Soveraign, for the Reformation of Religion. If they deny this Principle, as never supposed by their Predecessors, then they must grant that the first Broachers and Abettors of their Reformation were all Traytors and Rebels, since they begun it by Sedition and Rebellion against their Lawful So­veraigns in Germany, France, Geneva, Holland, and Scotland.

What was the great ground of the Bloody Scots Covenant? Have we not seen of late a number of Clowns and Crafts-Men by their private Inter­pretation of the Bible, free themselves from all due Obedience to their King, and in their Conventicles endeavour to take from him all Royal Power by their seditious Sermons and Declarations, as in those who were published at Sanchir and Rouglin? Many of which remain so obstinate in their ridicu­lous perswasions, that they will rather Dye, then [Page 99]give any acknowledgment of submission to a most Gracious and Loving Prince.

You'l say, they are not true Protestants.

Answer. I pray in what Fundamentals do they differ from you?

What a Childish Discourse is this which follows, when he says that the Romish Church forbids Her Followers the use of their Rational faculty to find out the true Church.

Why then does She propose to our Rational Fa­culty to move it to Assent, or to be confirmed in that we have Assented to, marks out of Scrip­ture of Her being the true Church? Telling us first, that we see in Her, as was foretold, Ephes. 4. A perpetual and visible Succession of Pastors, since the Apostles time, Is it credible, that God by a special Providence, notwithstanding so many Persecutions, would have Conserv'd that perpetual Succession of Pastors, to teach Superstition and I­dolatry? And not Conserv'd a Succession of Pa­stors among Protestants to teach the true Religion? As we then have the same Spiritual Power ever Descending, and continued from the Apostles time, so have we also with it the same True and Aposto­lical Doctrine, Descending from Father to Son, since the Apostles time to us.

Secondly, That there is no Doctrine or Faith now Preach'd to all Nations according to the Command of Christ, Matth. 28. v. 19. given to his Apostles, but that of the Roman Church.

Its altogether amazing, if the Protestant Doctrine be true and Evangelical Doctrine, that GOD has never stirred up any of the Protestant Preachers to go with an Apostolical Spirit through Poverty, Afflictions, Persecutions, &c. as the Apostles did, to instruct many Barbarous Nations in Africa, A­sia, [Page 100]America, but makes use only, to give the knowledge of his Holy Name to them, of Idola­ters and Superstitious Romanists, the true Preach­ers staying at Home with their Wives and Chil­dren.

Thirdly, That moreover this Faith and Doctrine, altho so Universal, yet all the Believers thereof have such an Unity and Agreement among themselves in matters of Faith. and such a subordination to the visible Head of the Church, that they make, as Christ said of his Sheep, Iohn 10. v. 16. one Flock and one visible Pastor, they both receiving all Spi­ritual Light, Grace, and Direction, from their in­visible Head and Pastor Iesus Christ.

Fourthly, That the Doctrine of the R. Church, leads evidently to a Sanctity of Life, and Worship of God Almighty, by a Sacramental Confession of Sins, Fasting, Praying, Self-denyal, Mortificati­ons of the Flesh, Good Works, keeping GODS Commandements, by Vows, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and many Ceremonies, by which out­ward show we make appear our inward respect to God.

From hence it comes that in all Ages among the Believers of the R. Church, there has appeared pub­lickly and visibly, to whole Nations Men of such Sanctity of Life with the Gifts of Miracles, that af­ter their decease, their Lives and Miracles done both afore and after their Death, having been first se­verely examin'd and discus'd, and then approv'd, they were after this Examination declared Saints, and as such, are for the present Honour'd by the whole Catholick Church. If you say, what is said of those Saints and their Miracles, is but Fabu­lous.

Then I ask you, if a Iew would say the same [Page 101]to you of our Saviours Miracles. How would you convince him? For as he denyes the Divinity of CHRIST, so he denyes also the New Testament to be the Word of God. Laying then aside Di­vine Revelation, had Men at that time more Hu­mane Authority to believe CHRIST's Miracles, then we have now to believe the approv'd Mira­cles of our Saints? From all I have said, I in­fer.

First, If the R. Church, notwithstanding all these marks be not the true Church of CHRIST, he has no true Visible Church upon Earth, since there cannot be more clear and Visible Marks of the true Church, then these I have brought.

Secondly, I infer that if the Iews seeing some Prophet's Sanctity of Life and Miracles, were most reasonably perswaded, and convinc'd, that GOD directed them by his Spirit, and spoke by their Mouths to others: We must of necessity believe that the Roman Church is directed by the Spirit of GOD, and that He speaks by Her to us: Since whatsomever motif you'l find for that perswasion in a single Prophet, you will find it in an higher Degree in the whole Body of the Church.

Now to make use of our rational faculty in or­der to see if you have any appearance of a Church among you, 'tis not enough for you to say that the Protestant Church has the true Worship of God. You must bring such proofs as I have brought for the R. Church to prove it. This you have never done nor will ever do.

But to come nigher to you, I ask by what mo­tive you can perswade me that Luther and Calvin your first Reformers were mov'd and directed by the Spirit of God in all their oppositions to the Roman Church?

Can it be imagined that God would have taken from a whole visible Church which had those marks I spoke of, the true sense and meaning of the word, and given it to Men who leaving the Altar and their Vow of Chastity prostituted themselves becoming the slaves of a shamful and Sacrilegious Passion?

As to that our Adversary saies the Roman Church Imposes many weighty burdens on her Children beyond what God Commands, he is mightily de­ceiv'd; for God commanding us to Worship and obey him, he Commands us implicitly to make use of the means most convenient to perform these two duties.

Now the Church by her Commands does also but show us the fittest means to perform the perfect observation of Gods explicit Command, and oblidg­es us to make use of them; and consequently pro­perly speaking there, is no new burden impos'd upon us.

SECT. II. Saint Pauls saying, whatsomever is Sold in the Shambles, &c. 1 Cor. 10. v. 24.25.27. makes nothing against our absti­nence from Flesh upon forbidden dayes.

OUr great Defender of the rights and dues of the senses, having told us in the Eucharist what the sight claims to; now he will not have the Taste depriv'd of its satisfaction.

Telling us Pag. 107. 'twas a liberty and priviledge of the primitive Church, as St. Paul witnesses to the Corinthians; 1 Cor. 10. that whatsoever is Sold in the Shambless, &c. we may Eat.

Answer. St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. Having terrified the Christians from Eating with the Gentils in their Solemnities a part of what was offer'd to the Idol; because by this Eating they seem'd to approve the Oblation of that Flesh made to the Devil; he told them nevertheless that they should not be scrupulous to Buy what they found in the Shambles, nor to Eat what was set down before them to Eat at Common Tables out of those Solemnities, altho' perchance those Meats had been offer'd to Idols, viz. because they being Ignorant of it, did not give occasion to think they approv'd that Oblation to the Idol, in which onely the Sin was: But if, it fell out that one should tell them that such a [Page 104]Meat had been offerd to the Idol, then he forbid them to Eat of it v. 28. for fear of scandalizing that Person.

Is not here something refused to Eat altho' it be set down afore me to be Eaten, and altho' the thing be good in it self ond belonging to God? Was not the forbidden fruit good in it self, and yet was it Lawful for Adam to Eat it then with Thanks-giving when God had forbidden it? no more is it Lawful to us to Eat Flesh which is good in it self on Fasting dayes, because it is then for­bidden by the Church of God which God will have us hear as himself Luke 10. v. 16. Who hears you hears me. Has not the Church of England taken away that priveledge too, when she commands to abstain from Flesh in Lent, or at least from Ea­ting a sull Meal till after noon or towards the E­vening on their dayes of Humiliation?

When there is no Danger then of offending God neither by my approbation of an offering to the De­vil, or Scandalizing my Neighbour, St. Paul sayes I may Eat Flesh tho' offer'd to the Devil.

From that antecedent is this a good Inference, then, when I know I offend God by Transgressing the Command of his Church, and by Scandal of my Neighbour, I may Eat Flesh, because it is good in it self, and at another time may be Eaten with Thanks-giving?

St. Paul then bids Christians not to scruple to buy or Eat Meat upon a fear that, it may be, 'twas offer'd to Idols; because that reason did not make it unlawful to Eat, so I was not told of it. But he bids not Eat it if it be unlawful upon an other accompt, viz. because forbidden on certain dayes by the Church.

Now to show how pleasing a thing to God, and [Page 105]advantageous to our Souls our Fasting is; remem­ber that Moses having fasted forty Dayes and forty Nights in the Mountain obtain'd the Favour to see God Face to Face. Exod. 24. chap. did not Achab make use of Sack-Cloath and Fasting for the ex­piation of his Sins? 1 Regum 28. did not David after he heard from Nathan that God had Forgiving him his Sin, say that his knees were weak through Fasting, 2 Sam. 12. chap. Were not Divine Mysteries reveal'd to Daniel after he had Fasted and was he not Fa­vour'd with a Miraculons Dinner by the means of an Angel, Daniel 14.

In the New Testament did not Christ Fast forty Dayes and forty Nights and so teach us how to over­come the Temptations of the Devil, Matth. 4. did not he tell his Disciples that a certain kind of Devils was not cast out, but by Prayer and Fasting, Math. 17.

Our Advers. inveighs against the rigour of the Ca­tholick Church not knowing, sayes he, that true Vertue consists mainly in an Intire Victory we should Endeavour to get over our own Passions.

Answer. Holy People Endeavour to get this Victory by the Mortification of their Bodies. Iudith that famous Woman chosen by God for the saving of her Nation, wore a Hair Cloath upon her Loins, (not to speak of Her Fasting all the Dayes of Her Life, except the Sabbaths, New Moons and the Feasts of the House of Israel) Iudith 8. St. Iohn the Baptists led a rigorous Life in the Wil­derness, and St. Paul besides his stupendious La­bour by Teaching and Preaching added a chastising or Scourging of his Body least after he had Preach'd to others he should become a Reprobat Himself, 1 Cor: 9. v. 27. What means he 2 Cor. 4. v. 10. when he says always bearing about with us the Mor­tification [Page 106]of Jesus in our Bodies that the Life of Jesus may be manifested in our Bodies. What was this Life of Jesus, a perpetual Mortification of his Body from his Cradle to his Cross.

Our new inlightned Men find another way to o­vercome their Passions, to wit, abstaining from the Chastisement of the Body. Deny thy self take up thy Cross and follow me, sayes our Saviour, Matth. 16. v. 24. But does not our Adversary seem rather to say, take thy satisfaction in Eating and Drinking thy fill, and so thou wilt be strong to follow him. Pamper thy Flesh, and so thou wilt be strong to overcome thy Lust, Eat and Drink thy fill, and I'll warrant thee thou shalt alay thy Passion of Eating and Drinking for an hour or two. But his Experience may have told him, that thus he puts a Sword in his Enemies Hand, who tho' he lay quiet for a while, will rise up more firce hereafter. Bellarmine said indeed, that if he were Pope, he would take away Lent, but he added, that in its place he would order to Fast on Wed­nesday all the Year over. Does the exchange of fourty Fasts with fifty two favour the inclination of our Adversary to Feasting?

SECT. III. The Proofs our Adversary brings out of Scripture for the Marry­ing of Church-Men, are ei­ther willfull, or Ignorant mistakes of the Word of God.

MArriage in the purest Age was not forbid­den to Ecclesiasticks, sayes our Adversa­ry, which he proves by this passage, 1 Tim. 3. v. 2. A Bishop must be blamless the Hus­band of one Wife.

Answer. First, was not St. Paul a Bishop? Had he a Wife when he said, 1 Cor. 7. v. 8. I say to those who are not Married, its good for them if they remain so, even as I? The sense then of that place is, that as St. Paul would have the Church Widow to be the Wife of one Husband, or to have been only Married once, 1 Tim. 5. v. 9. So he would have a Bishop to be the Husband of one Wife, or to have been only once Married. Other­wayes what does St. Paul say here particular to a Bishop, have other Men two Wives?

Note, in the Birth of the Church it was hard to find among new Converts, Men of Maturity, for the Government of a Bishoprick, who had not been once Married, especially at Candy, of which Church St. Paul speaks here to Timothy, because, as Stra­bo [Page 108]writes, L. 10. They had an Antient Law by which all of their Republick were forced from their very Youth to Marry.

Again, to prove that Ecclesiasticks may Marry, he brings this passage of St. Paul, Marriage is Ho­nourable in all and the Bed undefil'd, Hebr. 13. v. 4.

Answer. First, the same St. Paul says, 1 Cor. 7. v. 38. He who gives his Virgin in Marriage does well, but he that gives her not in Marriage does better. And 1 Cor. 7. v. 1. 'Tis good for a Man not to touch a Woman.

The former passage is then to be understood, thus,

Marriage is Honourable in all who may Law­fully Marry, but not between Father and Daughter: Brother and Sister: In Church-Men who have vow'd Chastity, in Church-Widows, who being admitted to the Service of the Church, upon their resolution of not Marrying, according to St. Paul, 1 Tim. 5. v. 11. Incur Damnation if they Marry, because they cast of their first Faith, as the Apostle speaks, to wit, to CHRIST.

Secondly, the Greek Text has Timios o gamos en pasi, that is, Honourable Marriage in all so where, Protestants without ground add is, Catholicks with ground add be in the imperative mood, and so it imports,

First, an Exhortation to those who are Married that they live Faithful to one another not Disho­nouring by Incontinency their Marriage, but keep­ing their Bed undefil'd. But why will the Apostle that Marriage be Honourable in all keeping their Bed undefil'd? Because as he presently adds, A­dulterers God will Judge. Thus you see Catholicks have a ground to supply the sentence not with is, but with be, or let it be.

Secondly, To those who desire to Marry, that they do not offer to Marry, when they know they are not free to Marry, being engag'd to others, or having an Impediment, and so make their Marri­age (when the Impediment is discover'd,) Dis­honourable. However our Latin and English Cath. Text have neither is nor be; but Honourabile conu­bium in omnibus, Honourable Marriage in all, con­form to the Greek Original Text.

In the third place, to justifie the Marriage of Church-Men who have Vow'd Chastity, he brings what St. Paul sayes to Tim. 4. v. 3. That forbiding to Marry is a Doctrine of Devils, where he speaks of Manicheans, Encratists and Marcionists, and o­thers of that Cabal, as St. Chrysostom remarks in his 12. Hom. upon that passage, it is quite another thing to forbid absolutely to Marry, then to forbid only those who have Vow'd Chastity to Marry.

The Catholick Church does not forbid to Marry, but only forbids to break a Vow made to God. I think no Body will say that it is a Doctrine of De­vils, to fulfill what one has solemnly promised to God. The thing being Lawful in it self, Deut. 23. v. 21. When thou shalt Vow a Vow to the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slak to pay it, for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee. Now the Ca­tholick Church shows she Honours Marriage more then Protestants, because she looks upon it as a Sa­crament which Protestants do not.

His instance of Zacharie sayes nothing against us, for we do not deny, that the Priests of the Old Law Married, but only we say, they did not use their Wives those dayes their turn was to Sacrifice, Luke c. 1. v. 23, 24. And seeing our Priests must Sacrifice every day, they ought to abstain from that Action so remote from the Spirit, and dulling it in [Page 110]order to Divine thoughts at that time that our mind ought to be (sursum corda) raised above our sen­ses, hence Origen said, Hom. 23. in num. It seems to me that it belongs only to him to offer the conti­nual Sacrifice, who has dedicated himself to a conti­nual and perpetual Chastity.

In fine, his last passage is from the 1 Cor. 7. v. 2. Let every Man have his own Wife, (had those who were not defil'd with Women Rev 14. v. 3. every one their own Wife?) makes nothing to prove that a Church-Man, who has made a Vow of Chastity may Marry, first, because St. Paul sayes, 1 Cor. 7. v. 27. Art thou loosen from a Wife seek not a Wife.

Secondly, because there is no Woman who was his or the Church-Man's own Wife. To understand the meaning of this passage, you must know, the Corinthians asked St. Paul whither being converted they were not bound to leave their Wives, yet In­fidels, as some told them they ought to do, St. Hieron. L. 1. contra Iovin. cap. 4. To this St. Paul answers, no, but bids every one have his own Wife to whom he was Married in his Infidelity. He adds, let the Husband (viz. now converted) render his Debt to his Wife (tho' an Infidel) and the Wife al­so (Converted) mutually to the Husband (yet an Infidel.)

I would now desire Protestants to reflect, that these passages brought by our Adversaries to prove their Tenets have no force for their intent and pur­pose, when they are read in their proper places, and in the aim of the Holy Writers in those places; and so see how they are cheated, and imposed up­on by their Teachers, when they are perswaded by them, that the Word of God is against R. Catho­licks.

SECT. I. Religious Vows are allow­able.

OUr Adversary saies, that the Gift of Con­tinency is presupposed afore one make the Vow, so that if one find by Experience, that he has it not, he is obliged not to Vow; or if he has Vowed rashly, flattering himself he had this Gift, he is no more engaged by his former Vow, but may in this case, nay perhaps is oblig­ed to secure himself from Sin by a Lawful Marri­age, it being better in this conjuncture to Marry then Burne.

Answer. First, I retort the Argument thus. The Gift of conjugal Continency is equally presup­posed to the promise made in Marriage. May then a Man or Woman who find's by Experience in a short absence, or Sickness of the other party, that they have not that Gift, think themselves free from their promise, and take another Wife or Hus­band?

Secondly, I Answer that those Gifts are neither presupposed to the one, nor to the other, but it is presupposed that God will give those Gifts to those who ask them, or Grace to resist Temptations as [Page 112]often as they humbly demand it, after they have prudently engaged themselves in either of those States of Life. God gives indeed but to whom he pleases, but we know from his Word that he re­fuses to none who ask it as they should do, ask and it shall be given you, Matth. 7.7. God is Faith­ful saies St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. v. 13. he will not suf­fer you to be tempted above that you are able.

'Tis observable saies our Adversary, that the most part that enter Religious Orders, make their Vows so young that they hardly reflect on what they are doing, many are forced by their Parents, or enter upon the account of Humane respect or interest, Iesuits renew their Vows twice a Year, but 'tis on­ly with their Lips, not from their Heart.

Answer. First, I retort the Argument thus. Many Marry so Young (nay far Younger than 'tis allow'd to make Religious Vows) that they scarce know what they are doing; many are forc'd by their Parents, or induc'd by the condition of their Affairs. May all those at the first occasion re­nounce their Marriages and make others?

Secondly, I Answer, that none can make the Vows of Religion afore they be full fixteen Years of Age; a Woman may Marry at thirteen, they have a Year of Ptobation or Tryal (the Iesuits have two,) in this they are questioned in private whe­ther or not they were forc'd, which, if found, they are free to return to their former Condition. also after they have made their Vows, they have a determinated time allowed to them by the Church, in which they may reclaim, and return to their freedom: But if there be some found, who dis­semble their Compulsion all the time of their Tryal, and neither vent it afore or after their solemn Vows in the time prescribed them by the Church; they [Page 113]are to be condemned, not the Nature of Vows; or Church, who behaves Her self so Warily, Pru­dently; and Sweetly with Her Children.

As to that he saies, the most of Religious are so forc'd, I am confident I can deny it with more ground than he asserts it. And if he knew one, who among the Iesuits renewed his Vows onely with his Lips, and not with his Hart, let him con­tent himself with that certain knowledge, and not judge rashly that all the rest do the same.

SECT. II. The three Religious Vows of Pover­ty, Chastity, and Obedience, are Evangelical Coun­sels.

OUr Adversary admires why these three Re­ligious Vows are called Evangelical Coun­sels, because, he saies, he never read in the Evangils, that CHRIST perswaded Men to make those Vows, he confesses CHRIST Coun­selled a Young Nan to Sell all be had, and give it to the Poor, but not to make a Vow to do so.

Answer. That he may then understand the na­ture of these Evangelical Counsels, he must distin­guish three things. The use of a thing; the Do­minion of a thing, or Mastership of it; and the Capacity of Dominion, or of being Master of it. For there are some, who altho' they be Masters of [Page 114]a thing, they have not the use of it. There are others who altho' they neither have the use of a thing nor are Masters of it, yet they may become Ma­sters of it, to wit, if the said thing be given them, or Sold to them.

This being supposed, I prove that the three Vows we speak of are Evangelical Counsels, or conditi­ons of Life wished to some Men in the Gospel, and not Commanded. The Gospel wishes to some Men what is more perfect in a Christian Life, ra­ther then what is less perfect. This proposition stands alone, I need not prove it: But 'tis more perfect to make those three Vows, than not to make them: Then the Gospel wishes that some Men make them. This inclination in CHRIST, that at least some of his followers embrace a per­fect Life, is to inlightned Sou [...]s and generous Heart­ed Men and Women a [...]owerful perswasion, and found in the Gospel; then 'tis a Gospel Perswasion or an Evangelical Counsel.

Now that it is more perfect to make those three Vows, than not to make any Vow. I prove first from God's approbation of Vows made by the Na­zarites, Num. 6. v. 1. Deut. 23. v. 21.

Secondly, From the common apprehension of Men, sinding themselves in an extream great dan­ger of Death, as in an extraordinary Storm at Sea, who are wont to implore the Divine assistance, by making a Vow to do something more than ordi­nary to Honour him. This nature suggests to them as a thing most grateful to God, and consequent­ly they Judge it more perfect, then not to make it. Did not Hannah think she did a thing more pleasing to God to Vow, then not to Vow? 1 Sam. v. 11.

A second Proof. 'Tis more perfect to deprive [Page 115]one self for the Love of God of many things, then only of few: But who makes these Vows, de­prives. himself of the Use, Dominion, and Capa­city of being Master of Riches, otherwise Lawful Pleasures, and ones one Will. Then he deprives himself for the Love of God by those Vows of more things, then if he did not make them. Besides, 'tis a greater Gift to give the Tree with the Fruit, which the Religious Man does, then the Fruit on­ly.

A third Proof. A thing shown and praised in the Gospel, and not Commanded, is an Evangelical Counsel: But Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, are shown to us in the Gospel, praised, and not Commanded: Then they are Evangelical Coun­sels.

You'l say, I avow, that these three things are praised in the Gospel and not Commanded, and that CHRIST practised them, but where find you that Christ made a Vow himself, or moved any other to Vow them? Especially, since the Vow broken, charges the Breaker with a double guilt.

Answer. When Christ perswaded Poverty, Math. 19. in these Words, If thou wilt be perfect, Sell all thou hast, and give it to the Poor. He perswad­ed that relinguishment of Goods which should make a Man perfect: But that exterior abdicatition or leaving of Earthly Goods with a Will to repossess them again, does not make a Man perfect: But he ought to have an interior renouncing, or a Will not to acquire others in their place.

Neither had this Will compleated him in a per­fect Man, if this Will had been at his pleasure and freedom freely revocable. Because in that case this Young-Man of which the Gospel speaks, had not been fixed in the Service of God, yet with-draw­able [Page 116]by an Affection to, or care of these Tempo­ral Goods.

Christ then when he perswaded that renouncing of Temporal Goods, which makes a Man perfect in the Service of God, he perswaded a Vow of Po­verty. If you say Christ embrac'd this Poverty in a most perfect manner without a Vow, and there­fore a Vow is not necessary for that end.

I Answer. In Christ 'tis True, 'twas not ne­cessary, because he was determined to it, by the Beatifick Vision, and had a Will that was not change­able; but a pure Man having a changeable Will, so that sometimes, what he Wills to day he Wills not to morrow, he has need of a Vow to tye him to that which he now efficaciously Wills for the greater Glory of God.

The Vow of Obedience is Counselled in the same Chapter and Verse, in these Words, Follow me. Where Christ advises to a following which makes a Man perfect, but that is not the general way of following him, which all Christians commonly take by an Observation only of the Commandements of God; which make in some sense a perfect Man, but not in that sublime and high perfection of which our Saviour speaks here, when he sayes, if thou wilt be perfect. &c. then its a particular following. And whether then did Christ go? If to follow him be so high a perfection. To, and through all the Commands of his Father renouncing his own Will, Luke 22. v. 42. made Obedient to Death, nay the Death of the Cross.

To follow Christ then, is to despoil ones self of one's own Will, to be perfectly Subject and Obe­dient to another, for the Love of God. As Christ out of Love to his Father, was perfectly Subject and Obedient to him. That then which Christ per­swaded, [Page 117]by saying, follow me, was a renouncing for the Love of God, self Will, a Subjection of it to that of another, and a perfect Obedience to Death.

The Vow of Chastity is seen perswaded in these words, there are Eunuchs who have gelded them­selves for the Kingdom of Heaven Math. 19. (see what God promises to such Spiritual Eunuchs Isa 56. v. 4. and 5. ever unto them will I give in my House, &c. a name better then of Sons and Daughters, for according to the common Opinion of Divines, they are to be understood of a Vow of Chastity, and with great Reason, for since gelding takes away, both Act [...], and Power to Act, the moral gelding must needs be by a Vow of Chastity; all other will, which is not equivalent to a Vow (as it was in Christ) leaves a Power to Act.

I [...] you say, Christ did not perswade that sort of gelding, but onely made it known. I Answer, his adding who can take, let him take, was tho' not a Precept, yet an Exhortation to it. More­over, since all the Gospel, as to the part of it which regards manners, is a perpetual Instruction and Exhortation, this part runs in the general in­tention of Christ, and follows the nature of the whole. We discover by Christ's Words his incli­nations, and his Inclinations are strong perswasi­ons to those who are of the noble temper of well disposed Souls.

SECT. III. What is the Fruit of these Vows well observed?

ANswer. A sweetness of Spirit which often overflows the very senses, and is read in the Faces of perfectly Religious Persons; a centuple of what they have for God renounced in this Life, and a true fore-taste of the Life Eter­nal; or in St. Paul's Words, a Peace passing above our senses, Phil. 4.7.

Hieronimus Platus, saies our Adversary is as whim­sical in his notions of this imaginary happiness, as Plato was in his abstract Idea's here he runs out at random as a Clock dismounted that stricks twenty for one, and tells you he can prove to perswasion, that their is no way of serving God more dangerous than in a Religious Order, and why? By reason of a Yoak they take upon themselves of keeping a num­ber of petty Rules, which, altho' we do not hold [Page 120]to be observed under pain of Sin, yet we teach none of them can scarce ever be transgressed with­out Sin, either ratione scandali or ratione contemptus; by reason of the Scandal or Contempt of Authority. And what is more strange, that we say, non pro­gredi is regredi not to go forward is to go back.

Then he concluds with an applause to his per­swasive premisses, as he Imagins, thus, in what fears, if we have a timorous Conscience, Troubles, Tor­moiles and Vexation of Spirit do we live?

He amplifies his conclusion by what he has heard some Religions say: that their burden was not like that of Christ Sweet and Light, but Bitter and most Heavy.

Hence, he further infers, that those Vows are snares to entrap Souls, by which the Devil catches some who would not admit an open suggestion to Sin, by giving scope to follow their own Incli­nations to make Vows, which being above their frailty, weary to swim alwise against Water at last they yield to the Stream, and go down-wards, which was the Devils design.

Answer. What does Hicr. Platus for the most part in that Treaty of the Good of a Religious Life exhort unto but what the ancient Philosophers Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, &c. discovered by the Light of Nature, to wit, that the happiness of Man here upon Earth was to live a Life removed from Ambiti­on, Covetousness of Riches, and other Cares, which might with-draw his Spirit from pleasing the immor­tal Gods (as the Heathens spoke) acquiring Vertues and overcoming Passions; by which study his mind might be raised above all that is feared or loved in Human things, and so dispose himself by a dissipation of Clouds that rise from Human Affections, to a [Page 121]clear Contemplation of the most perfect being which is intelligible or knowable, I mean God in which Aristotle tho' not a Christian, places the Felicity of Man.

Answer. Secondly, If Hier. Platus promised a singular Contentment to those who leave for God's sake all the goods which flatter the Hearts of worldly Men; did not our Saviour promise as much afore him, when he said, Luke 18. v. 29. Amen, I say unto you there is no Man that hath left House, or Parents, or Brethren, or Wife, or Children, for the Kingdom of God, (how do you understand that?) and shall not receive much more in this time, and in the World to come Life everlasting. I lived with a Religious Man, who said upon this Discourse, he saw the Truth of the first part clearly, he only expected the second.

Let my Adversary give me leave to tell him from St. Paul, animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei, 1 Cor. 2.14. a sensual Man is not sen­sible of the things of God, nor understands the ways of his Spirit, they are a folly to him: Those things which are great helps to advance in Spirit, seem to him impediments of Perfection.

Christ calling those who were under Burden, Math. 11. v. 29. and promising to ease them, bids them take moreover his Yoke on them, and tells them that by that means they shall find ease. This seems a Paradox, an odd thing to a sensual Man, who looses the Yoke from the Neck of his Oxen when he has mind to ease them.

Little knows he for want of Experience, that this more particular Yoke of Christ, I mean his E­vangelical Counsels put in practise, are to a good Religious Man, what the Wings are to an Eagle, they weigh indeed something, but are so far from [Page 122]weighing him down, that they help him to raise himself in the Air, and reach his Prey, which he could not do without them.

If the diminishing of Laws and Commands, for which our Adversary is so great a Stickler, makes the way smoother and straighter to Spiritual Per­fection; then the Law of Nature was the most advancing Law to Perfection of the three, and car­ried it far afore the written Law, and that of Grace. But who will say this? And consequently that from whence it follows?