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 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, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For to diſbelieve God revealing that Chriſt 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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

But if by a Diabolical malice, which is a caſe more Metaphyſical than Moral, the Prieſt or Miniſter had not a ſufficient Intention, and the Invalidity of the Baptiſm were wholly unknown to the Perſon Baptized, then 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, that apprehenſion and inward Teſtimony of the mind for which 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 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.

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 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, 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.

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 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 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.